I am on the shitter instead of the shower. So, sorry if I babble crap. But imagine something like GitHub but for the purpose of restructuring society.
I am on the shitter instead of the shower. So, sorry if I babble crap. But imagine something like GitHub but for the purpose of restructuring society.
Voting on opinions is a very bad idea, because opinions doesn’t have to be backed by facts or reality. I can have the opinion that it should be law that all people should wear green socks on Tuesdays. Should there really be a vote about a opinion like that? If yes, then then floodgates will be open and the system gets overwhelmed with input to vote on. If not, who decides what kind of opinion is valid to vote one, and how can a misuse of that power be prevented.
Why not. A good system should be one that it’s easy and cheap to put a vote out. If the voting you put on its ridiculous, people simply wont vote it and that’s it
It’s not like that doesn’t existe now. I don’t know in the US, but in most european countries and in the european union itself people can try to raise a vote on anything, they just have to be backed up by X number of people.
Just make that easier, 100% online, and instead of sparking a debate of representatives, if the thing had enough support an online referendum is held and if people vote hes it automatically become law.
I don’t really see an issue.
We don’t have this already only for one reason. The people that would need to allow this (the representatives) would be the ones that would be jobless and powerless if direct democracy where to be implemented, so they won’t.
There are more reasons, for example that all systems that use online or digital voting can be easily manipulated and lack the possibility to be monitored or validated by independent 3rd parties. I really wish it would be different.
I am a huge fan of direct democracy, but I don’t see a good way to implement it.
It could be different.
I’ve been thinking a long time. And I think it may be one scenario where a public ledger would actually make sense, aka a blockchain.
Instead of economic transaction, votes are casted. It could be anonymous using one way pseudonyms for the public key. So the caster may be able to verify at any point that their vote was correctly casted, but no one could know who the caster is. The signature keys could be issued by the government same as it’s already done in most european countries with digital signatures.
The ledger would be public and anyone could be able to verify the votes in a similar manner as most cryptocurrencies.
I really think there is not a technological barrier here. It’s not only more democratic but probably safer that the current way of casting votes. As it could be proven at any point that all votes are casted and valid without interference, no moron could say that “election was stolen” because it could be proven that it was not.
And with the idea of “permanent open polls” would mean that even if somehow your vote was stolen, you could just change it again. So any malevolent actor should need an insanely amount of work to keep constantly tampering election results (while nowadays the malevolent actor only need to tamper one election and their work is done for years).