[apsa_itp] a quiet revolution in democracy

[Michael Allan <mike@xxxxxxxxx>]

This is a challenge, to find a flaw in the reasoning that supports
the assertion, "A quiet revolution in democracy is unfolding."

Summary of the reasoning:

  A. Detailed plans exist to re-found government on the direct
     authority of the public, expressing its will through social
     and collaborative media.

  B. Each step in implementing these plans depends on the
     initiative of ordinary citizens, volunteering their time
     and working together.

  C. No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step.

A. Plans
--------

The main branches of government are covered: legislative, executive
and judiciary.  For the legislative, one plan is to base it on
community law-making:

  1. Any citizen could draft a proposal (bill) for a new law;
     or the amendment or abrogation of an existing law.

  2. Other citizens (drafters) could copy the bill, modify it,
     and thus create their own variants (drafts) of it.

  3. Each citizen would have a single vote per bill,
     which he might use to 'back' any draft of the bill.
     A drafter could thus aquire a 'constituency' of backers.

  ... and so on

  http://zelea.com/project/textbender/d/overview.xht#Law-Making

For the executive and judiciary, one plan is an electoral system based
on a delegate cascade:

  1. Each citizen would carry a single vote per office, which he could
     use to 'back' any other citizen as a candidate for that office.
     He could also withdraw his backing at any time, or transfer it
     to another candidate.

  2. A candidate's own vote (as a citizen) would carry with it
     the votes of all her backers.

  3. At the start of the next term, the candidate with the most
     backing would automatically enter office.

In this way, the public would choose its own candidates, and elect
them directly to office.  A social medium such as 'Smartocracy' could
be used for this purpose.
http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/HICSS.2007.484

The delegate cascade (2) would support a 'pyramidal meritocracy'.
Most of us (to explain) are not really qualified to choose among
candidates for all the various public offices. But we probably know
somebody *more* qualified than we are, for each of them.  ("I don't
know who should be Public Health Officer, but my friend is a nurse, so
I'm backing her. She can decide.")  Voter competence would thus be
reached within a few degrees of separation: each higher candidate
being more fit for that office; more worthy of public trust; and also
more worthy of the added electoral weight she carries.  And so this
'pyramid' would ensure that high public offices were held by the most
competent and trusted citizens.

B. Initiative
-------------

Each step in implementing these plans depends on the initiative of
ordinary citizens, volunteering their time and working together.  The
underlying social and collaborative networks can be built on free and
open technology. No private interest or government program would be
needed to develop them.  We could depend entirely on the public spirit
of engineers, like those volunteers who built free Unix, and much of
the Web.

Socially, too, the intiative can come from the grassroots.  And it can
come quickly.  Here is a scenario:

  1. A simple voting system based on a delegate cascade is developed.

  2. People begin to use it. They cast 'pretend' votes and elevate
     their own 'pretend' candidates for the next election.

  3. A newspaper runs a story: "Public Electing Its Own Candidates!"

  4. The participation level rises, approaching that of an election.

  5. The news media begin to interview the top candidates.

What would prevent the top candidates from running in the next
election? And who would dare to run against them?

This scenario might become the reality within a few years. The
technology for such a voting system is not terribly difficult. It
might still be imperfect in 3 years time, but it would not need to be
perfect in order to be decisive in an election.  For some public
offices, perhaps some very high ones, the most recent election may be
the last in which people are told, in advance, who they can vote for.

The legislative branch is not so easy to change. It could not be done
so quickly.  The technology is more difficult, and any shift of
legislative responsibility would have to be gradual and cautious, to
avoid confusion.

However, in places that did not already have a legislature, the
institution of community law-making might come more quickly.  One
place that lacks a legislature (lacks accountable government, period)
is the world.

C. Opposition
-------------

No power within a liberal democracy would oppose any step in the
implementation of these plans. A liberal democracy cannot easily
resist its public.  Its whole bent is to serve the public will.  There
is one high institution -- supreme judiciary -- that has the power of
sustained opposition. But there is no reason to suspect, in this case,
that the justices would use that power.

Nor could any state (democratic or otherwise) do anything to prevent
the founding of an international world government.  After all, the
authority of that government would not derive from any nation state;
it would not be a 'United Nations'.  Its authority would come directly
from a worldwide polity -- from us.  And we are, all of us, tired of
nations that do not get along with each other.

(Is there a flaw in this reasoning?)

-- 
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/

--
apsa_itp mailing list served by Harvard-MIT Data Center
List Address: apsa_itp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/?info=apsa_itp