New world order Think Tank

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

I would call this the "If i would have the power" thread.Just a threat on how you would want to change the world.A constructive thinking thread for new sort's of possible system goverments.

if you think you have a fine idea ,just throw it in here and it will be reviewed on a critical bases.And maybe ,oh maybe ,something good can come out of it.

Well ,to start the fun ,i have here an idea for a revolutionary system goverment, that i posted once already.

Internet Democracy

Basicly ,internet democracy is where all people vote on-line over ever issue posibly presented.For example the common people vote on new laws on-line.Administative personel are appointed by the people on-line.
this is just theory ,but technicly the internet makes it possible to construct a total democracy around it.though it's not easely constructed ,and it involves a lot of more issue's than here presented.Let's go out from the fact that a on-line voting system theoreticly can make a more total democracy.

One of the issue's involved here is if we can give the people that sort of power.The comman mass isn't necesarely the best leader.
I think if it's well constructed it's possible to get the best out of such a situation,although i don't have directly a system in mind.Though i think there are enough smart minds in our world that can construct a system for it to work.

This is also giving resposibilety to the comman mass.Voting over every issue would be a every day task.What if the voter doesnt vote? This could be constructed on a different way.Maybe people could ,if they wanted ,give their vote to othe people to vote. (politicians could gather vote's) ,maybe even you could give the youre vote only if it would involve certain issue's

Its just an idea ,give it youre constructive thought.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

"Basicly ,internet democracy is where all people vote on-line over ever issue posibly presented.For example the common people vote on new laws on-line.Administative personel are appointed by the people on-line.
this is just theory ,but technicly the internet makes it possible to construct a total democracy around it.though it's not easely constructed ,and it involves a lot of more issue's than here presented.Let's go out from the fact that a on-line voting system theoreticly can make a more total democracy. "

While theorectically this may be brilliant but unfortunately the majority of the people may not be that brilliant enough to make the best of decisions. Like someone used to say, "Never underestimate the stupidity of people in large numbers" or something to that effect. Sometimes a few brilliant people can make better decisions than the mass of society. I think the problem will lie more in getting these brilliant people into positions of decision-making.
Remember that Hitler was voted into power by a majority of the German electorate too. But of all forms of govt and decision-making, this will be the best and fairest.

 

[Apollo]

It would be nice to have a true democracy, where everybody after a certain age could participate. The one major problem that I see is that all the little things voted on by our different legislative bodies require knowledge on the topic that most common people don't have. This would result in a lot of uninformed decision making and some just voting randomly.

 

[starlifter]

American democracy is specifically set up to remove the most important decision making several levels from direct democracy. The House is responsible to a fairly small group of people in a generally similar area and background. The senate is responsive to the needs of an entire state. The President must (in theory) reflect on the needs of the nation as a whole. Incidents like the Sinking of the Maine and the resulting Spanish-American war of 1898 show how the masses can be whipped up into an unjust war fervor.

Unfortunately, direct democracy will not work, at least on a short cycle. The masses are not "stable" enough to make daily and long term decisions for a large democracy.

 

[allan]

Indeed, the scope of our government as a republic was intended to be small anyway--within the bounds of our constitution. The congress and president were to have very limited power, delegating most decisions to states and localities, and of course individual people.

The fact that congress today often exceeds its constitutional power without so much as a blink by the people or the judiciary (the judiciary simply rule on precedent), makes the idea of an "internet democracy" more palateable--micromanagemant by ALL the people seems better than micromanagement by few--but REALLY, the best form of government is the LEAST government power, leaving things that should be individual decisions in the hands of... INDIVIDUALS!

Tyranny of the majority is never a good thing. There are simply some things (actually many things) that are the business of individuals alone, not for others to interfere with. If that means congress has basically nothing to do, that's perfectly fine--it's better than them "looking busy" at our expense....

 

[Magnus]

American representative democracy is elitist, but it was intended to be that way form the start (when the Constitution was written) - it may not be the best government in a hypothetical sense, but it works very well on a practical level.

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by starlifter
(..)Unfortunately, direct democracy will not work, at least on a short cycle. The masses are not "stable" enough to make daily and long term decisions for a large democracy.

That depends of a intelligence of 'masses'.
With heighetened intelligence, everybody would be thinking
before talking/doing anything stupid.
Or is this temperament? I think it's wisdom.

 

[G-Man]

It'll never work.
1) You can't expect millions of people to stay updated the way you expect politicians to, so a lot of decisions will be made by people that have no idea what they're talking about.
2) Hackers
3) People change moods too quickly, usually without thinking what will be the results of that. How would the US feel if Israel will support them, then Bush will say something in favor of the Palestinians and we'll nuke Washington? People just can't tell what will happen after the action itself the way politicians with their advisors and experts can.
4) Secret information that must be revealed to the people that make decisions.

 

[Dell19]

I think G Man is pretty much correct. In a dsicworld boook it mentions that the intelligence of a group of people is the intelligence of the stupidest person in the group divided by the amount in tthe group. Also Juize's plan would give the media even more control because they would still be influencing how people think but now those people would directly control what decisions should be made.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

American democracy is specifically set up to remove the most important decision making several levels from direct democracy. The House is responsible to a fairly small group of people in a generally similar area and background. The senate is responsive to the needs of an entire state. The President must (in theory) reflect on the needs of the nation as a whole.

Unfortunately, direct democracy will not work, at least on a short cycle. The masses are not "stable" enough to make daily and long term decisions for a large democracy.

Like i stated in my previous post ,indeed ,the masses wouldn't probably be always the most intelligent group to have the power.Internet Democracy wouldn't probably be a perfect system, but plain democracy isn't either.Politicians can be corrupt too ,and it can lead to bad decissions too.In a plain democracy ,the mass can vote for "bad politicians" too ,like for ex. a Hitler like type of person.

Internet democracy would be an experiment ,plain democracy was a experiment too.there was a lot of scepticism on plain democracy in the beginning too.But eventually ,i think Internet Democracy could work reasonably good.It would take time ,we would have to make conclusions out of our faults ,but in the long run i think there are enough smart people in this world to make this "work".

I know there would be a lot of issue's involved here to make this system possible to work.But i think we could possibly handle the problem's and make it work.In my oppinion ,my idea just need's to be worked out ,it needs fine-tuning.Eventualy ,democracy didn't come in one day ,but it is a system that has evolved through some problems through history.There is a whole society build around democracy.There are a lot of institutions builded around democracy.This all would also apply on internet democracy.

A vote system has to be constructed.There are a lot of issues involved in that.The people would each have a certain number of "vote's".A vote for every issue presented to them.
or even maybe some "intterest groups" could have more vote's on certain issue's ,it doesn't have too ,but we can consider this sort of stuff.
You could still have some politicians that present their oppinions to certai issue's.But in internet democracy ,the politician could be more like a sort of counselor.
Or maybe we could "give over" our vote's to some politicians that may use them then to add more wheight to his dicesion.And then maybe people could distribute their vote's to numerous politicians
each granted vote's only on certain issue's.

This are just some thoughts on a possible point system.I dare you al to construct to you're oppinion a better voting system.

We don't have to give the people voting right's on every issue.But eventualy from the internet we can build a more integrated democracy.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

ok ,i gonna review some replies here:

from allan:

Indeed, the scope of our government as a republic was intended to be small anyway--within the bounds of our constitution. The congress and president were to have very limited power, delegating most decisions to states and localities, and of course individual people

The fact that congress today often exceeds its constitutional power without so much as a blink by the people or the judiciary (the judiciary simply rule on precedent), makes the idea of an "internet democracy" more palateable--micromanagemant by ALL the people seems better than micromanagement by few--but REALLY, the best form of government is the LEAST government power, leaving things that should be individual decisions in the hands of... INDIVIDUALS!

Tyranny of the majority is never a good thing. There are simply some things (actually many things) that are the business of individuals alone, not for others to interfere with. If that means congress has basically nothing to do, that's perfectly fine--it's better than them "looking busy" at our expense....

Individualis has it's pro's and con's in a "republic".It is good to give as much power as posible to "the best" politicians.Only ,that doesn't happen that much.Indeed ,in a republic individualism also leads to a lot of corruption.

I dont rule out individualism in an Internet democracy.some goverment body's would still exist.But the masses would appoint the politicians.Like i explained in my previous post here ,Politicians could still gather vote's.but the mass would have more micro voting possibilety's.

from magnus:

American representative democracy is elitist, but it was intended to be that way form the start (when the Constitution was written) - it may not be the best government in a hypothetical sense, but it works very well on a practical level.

Couldn internet democracy work on a practical level?It would be an experiment ,but republic was an experiment to.Eventually i think it would be a good evolution.

from g-man:

It'll never work.
1) You can't expect millions of people to stay updated the way you expect politicians to, so a lot of decisions will be made by people that have no idea what they're talking about.
2) Hackers
3) People change moods too quickly, usually without thinking what will be the results of that. How would the US feel if Israel will support them, then Bush will say something in favor of the Palestinians and we'll nuke Washington? People just can't tell what will happen after the action itself the way politicians with their advisors and experts can.
4) Secret information that must be revealed to the people that make decisions.

on point 1:

mass media would still be inportant.just like we do now ,we would inform our citizens and give the proper education.And politicians could still gather vote's.

point 2:

This is realy a strong issue.Hackers would really be a problem.We would have to construct a tight security system.plain democracy has that too.In fact ,there has been a lot of false election results through history in some democracy's.But yes ,it's a considerable problem.

point 3:

this just come's back to my points of the positions of politicians in such a system.It's explaind in my second post on this thread.

point 4:

it is something that we would have to work out to.But i guess we can find a solution for such problem's.