Hasn't been attempted since Greece, I believe.

It's rather impractical.

-------
Fook meplz.

Think about it; you have millions upon millions of people. The larger group size, the less one's vote counts. Democracy is outdated. Technocracies ruled by massive corporations are the future. That, or a autocracy/oligarchy ruled by the enlightened.

-------
Long live love, and all her glory.

---

That, or a autocracy/oligarchy ruled by the enlightened.

---

Seriously..philosopher kings?

Not a chance Socrates.

-------
"Well this is new....and scary" - Serena on a Convent Scarab

---

Quote: from Khadgar at 5:16 pm on Nov. 27, 2007

---

That, or a autocracy/oligarchy ruled by the enlightened.

---

Seriously..philosopher kings?

Not a chance Socrates.

---

1. Your idea has been proposed before, and is unoriginal and trite.  It sucks for the following reasons:

[ ] Direct democracy quickly devolves into mob rule, as the majority group squashes and silences the minority group.  Obviously, this is a bad thing.

[ ] Internet access is not equally available to all citizens, especially those in rural areas.  Also, voters in urban and suburban areas would have a louder voice than voters in rural or less populated areas, thus creating large expanses of disenfranchised voters.

[ ] Internet security is not sufficently advanced to ensure that the voting process would be authenticated and private.  Security and privacy are often conflicting goals in information technology, and even though a balance may be struck between the two variables that maximizes each, the levels of each would be insufficent to conduct any kind of poll in a worthwhile manner.

[ ] In order for a direct democracy to function properly, each voter must have high levels of knowledge on a wide range of policy issues.  Also, all issues must affect all voters equally in extent, so that the voter's level of interest aligns with the state's level of interest.  If an issue that affects me greatly doesn't affect you very much, then you're less likely to make the right decision, or to be even arsed to vote in the first place.

[ ] Even with the force-multiplier of the Internet, the concept of a direct democracy continues to scale to large numbers poorly.  This is partly due to human individuality, free will, and the fact that even in a utopia, some people will continue to refuse to be arsed to vote.  

[ ] Changing a democratic republic or a parlimentary democracy, the two most common forms of Western democracy, into a direct democracy would require a massive revision of the country's constitution or charter.  As such, the time, money and effort that would required to revise the charter would be enormous, and any efforts to revise the charter would be met with large amounts of inertia and resistance.  

Assuming that this obstacle was cleared, the costs of setting up the infrastructure, as well as the reorganization of government bureaus and education of the populace, would be astronomical.  In short, it just won't be worth the effort, Jack.

-------
[SIGNATURE]

---

Poli Sci 101 Final Exam.  Check all correct answers.

 
1. Your idea has been proposed before, and is unoriginal and trite.  It sucks for the following reasons:

[ ] Direct democracy quickly devolves into mob rule, as the majority group squashes and silences the minority group.  Obviously, this is a bad thing.

[ ] Internet access is not equally available to all citizens, especially those in rural areas.  Also, voters in urban and suburban areas would have a louder voice than voters in rural or less populated areas, thus creating large expanses of disenfranchised voters.

[ ] Internet security is not sufficently advanced to ensure that the voting process would be authenticated and private.  Security and privacy are often conflicting goals in information technology, and even though a balance may be struck between the two variables that maximizes each, the levels of each would be insufficent to conduct any kind of poll in a worthwhile manner.

[ ] In order for a direct democracy to function properly, each voter must have high levels of knowledge on a wide range of policy issues.  Also, all issues must affect all voters equally in extent, so that the voter's level of interest aligns with the state's level of interest.  If an issue that affects me greatly doesn't affect you very much, then you're less likely to make the right decision, or to be even arsed to vote in the first place.

[ ] Even with the force-multiplier of the Internet, the concept of a direct democracy continues to scale to large numbers poorly.  This is partly due to human individuality, free will, and the fact that even in a utopia, some people will continue to refuse to be arsed to vote.  

[ ] Changing a democratic republic or a parlimentary democracy, the two most common forms of Western democracy, into a direct democracy would require a massive revision of the country's constitution or charter.  As such, the time, money and effort that would required to revise the charter would be enormous, and any efforts to revise the charter would be met with large amounts of inertia and resistance.  

Assuming that this obstacle was cleared, the costs of setting up the infrastructure, as well as the reorganization of government bureaus and education of the populace, would be astronomical.  In short, it just won't be worth the effort, Jack.

---

Those are some good answers DBZ fan. Nevertheless I think there is a better system out there and one day I hope there will be a system of government that isn't corrupt and actually listens to their people. Though that is mostly wishful thinking.

---

Quote: from holysaiyan1 at 9:11 pm on Nov. 28, 2007

---

Poli Sci 101 Final Exam.  Check all correct answers.  

   
 1. Your idea has been proposed before, and is unoriginal and trite.  It sucks for the following reasons:  

 [ ] Direct democracy quickly devolves into mob rule, as the majority group squashes and silences the minority group.  Obviously, this is a bad thing.  

 [ ] Internet access is not equally available to all citizens, especially those in rural areas.  Also, voters in urban and suburban areas would have a louder voice than voters in rural or less populated areas, thus creating large expanses of disenfranchised voters.  

 [ ] Internet security is not sufficently advanced to ensure that the voting process would be authenticated and private.  Security and privacy are often conflicting goals in information technology, and even though a balance may be struck between the two variables that maximizes each, the levels of each would be insufficent to conduct any kind of poll in a worthwhile manner.  

 [ ] In order for a direct democracy to function properly, each voter must have high levels of knowledge on a wide range of policy issues.  Also, all issues must affect all voters equally in extent, so that the voter's level of interest aligns with the state's level of interest.  If an issue that affects me greatly doesn't affect you very much, then you're less likely to make the right decision, or to be even arsed to vote in the first place.  

 [ ] Even with the force-multiplier of the Internet, the concept of a direct democracy continues to scale to large numbers poorly.  This is partly due to human individuality, free will, and the fact that even in a utopia, some people will continue to refuse to be arsed to vote.    

 [ ] Changing a democratic republic or a parlimentary democracy, the two most common forms of Western democracy, into a direct democracy would require a massive revision of the country's constitution or charter.  As such, the time, money and effort that would required to revise the charter would be enormous, and any efforts to revise the charter would be met with large amounts of inertia and resistance.    

 Assuming that this obstacle was cleared, the costs of setting up the infrastructure, as well as the reorganization of government bureaus and education of the populace, would be astronomical.  In short, it just won't be worth the effort, Jack.  

 

---

Those are some good answers DBZ fan. Nevertheless I think there is a better system out there and one day I hope there will be a system of government that isn't corrupt and actually listens to their people. Though that is mostly wishful thinking.

---

Contrary, I don't believe that there ever will be a system without corruption.  Corruption is not about the system but rather about the humans that run the system.  The only way to solve this is a human-free, centralized system...but then...we'll end up with the HAL-kills-us-all incident again...

-------
I hate quotations.  Tell me what you know.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

Those are some good answers DBZ fan. Nevertheless I think there is a better system out there and one day I hope there will be a system of government that isn't corrupt and actually listens to their people. Though that is mostly wishful thinking.

---

Quote: from kenflyken

---

Contrary, I don't believe that there ever will be a system without corruption.  Corruption is not about the system but rather about the humans that run the system.  The only way to solve this is a human-free, centralized system...but then...we'll end up with the HAL-kills-us-all incident again...

---

I'd like to think that a better system than representative democracy exists, but kenflyken is right.  Like anything else in politics, it is a question of balancing opposing goals.  Human free will causes ineffienency in government.  Reducing one variable increases the other.  

I didn't mean to come off so angry; I overestimated the amount of passion you had behind your proposal, and responded in kind.  My apologies, if you were offended.  And, yeah, I wish I could change my user handle, but I don't want to have to go through the process of re-applying to SL, Intellectual, etc.  


-------
[SIGNATURE]

---

uh, I think ANY system looks great on paper, and American "democracy" is just as contemptable and corrupt as any other. I don't believe that the only uncorrupt way of organizing society is to take humanity out of the equation, but rather to take the system out of the government. I suspect that a large part of what we culturally think about "human nature" as dog-eat-dog social darwinism is propaganda made by the State (and I mean the state not as any particular government but as a system of power) to keep us fearful of what in fact might be a functional civil society.

---

Okay, I'll bite.  Allow me to rephrase what you said, to make sure I understood it: 1) Inherent human traits don't cause organizational dysfunction, attempts at organization of groups cause organizational dysfunction, 2) people equate "lack of a state" with Social Darwinism, and 3) the idea that--given the chance-- humans will take advantage of other humans is propaganda intended to make people think that government is necessary.

A functioning anarchy assumes perfect cooperation and perfect community integration.  All members work towards the good of the community.  However, humans are not perfect, as you will probably concede.  Some humans are more community-minded than others.  

Those others will work for their own gain, and the community's output will decrease over time, as those who work for themselves are rewarded by the economy more than those who work for the community's benefit.

Your dislike for organizational systems also is oblivious to the human concept of leadership.  Humans are tribal animals, and tribes have leaders.  Even in a group of anarchists, there will emerge a leader or dominant member whom the others will be influenced by.  The anarchy will inevitably become a monarchy, due to simple human nature.  

In theory, anarchy sounds nice.  Yes, it might be a functional civil society. However, it is foremost an untenable state of government, due to a number of factors that your textbook analysis ignores.  It is a transition state that can not be maintained for more than small periods of time (as far as societies go), no matter how the utopians wish otherwise.

Perhaps "the propaganda made by the State" is correct, and you simply feel like being contrary.

-------
[SIGNATURE]

Time to toot my own horn as a Native American: Not all tribes have leaders, mine historically had no one chief or dominant authority, and the only time that leadership would emmerge was in times of crisis, in which a tribal council would be held. This "authority" which I argue is still only a community of people would dissipate after the crisis had been taken care of.

I don't believe in total anarchy, where everyone is a monad fighting one another for food an shelter. I think that communities will always form and help one another in civil society. I believe you underestimate the power of these communities to keep themselves from being ruled over by whomever tries to grab "power".

-------
I probably don't even mean it.
---
queer Native mixed pride