[apsa_itp] a quiet revolution in democracy - Very quiet!

[Steffen W Schmidt <sws@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's all very logical. The demand on the public time and energy is SO
unrealistic as to make this political utopia a nightmare! 

When people have the opportunity to shape policy at the most proximate
level - local elections; say school board races - the turnout is usually
abysmal. Often less than 10% vote. In many places where there are
"many elections" intelligent and motivated voters complain that
there are "too many elections" so voter turnout is low. 

We are all smart and well read. We have seen the data on the
"rational ignorance" effect which causes people to ignore
politics and even ignore spending a lot of time studying the
issues.

The "quiet revolution" also completely ignores the reality of
human behavior which will cause "vote auctions" and
"election brokerages" to pop up. These will commodify voting -
people will sell their votes to these brokers who will deliver them to
interest who can then overwhelm the system and determine what the outputs
will be - "digital Cyber elites" will become the centers of
power.

This discussion is very much like the early discussions about the
Internet as a democratic, kind, positive, empowering village green where
everyone is a "good person". How much maleware and malicious
spam did YOU get today! 






> 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

Steffen W. Schmidt, Ph.D.
University Professor of Political Science - Iowa State University, sws@xxxxxxxxxxx
Affiliate, Nova University Oceanographic Center, sschmidt@xxxxxxxx
Associate, Latin American Institute, U. of Wisconsin
-- 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