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

[Michael Allan <mike@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 05:38:01AM -0500, Steffen W Schmidt wrote:
> 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.

Hello Steffen,

I cannot forsee that low participation will be a challenge.  If
anything, there will be too much participation. Chronology is
important. Here is a prediction (best I can forsee):

Long before municipal, territorial or national houses are opened to
the public, an international legislature will be founded.  It will be
founded as soon as the technology is ready -- I hazard to guess, 6-10
years -- and will commence to code a body of world law.  The
participation level in this will be massive and widespread.  All of it
will be grassroots; none of it top down.

Before this, a global electoral system will be emplaced, ready for the
executive and judiciary to enter office. In short, we will have global
government, based firmly on the public will. It will answer to no
other power; its prestige will be enormous; and it will grow to
unprecedented power.

What will be the consequences of this -- politically, economically and
socially -- as it unfolds?

> 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.

That need not affect an open electoral system, any more than a
traditional one.  We can have secret ballots, for example, if we judge
it necessary.

> 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!

(I'm lucky, my case is atypical. I know how to prevent spam and
malware from reaching me. Maybe we can fix that problem more
generally. Maybe it, too, is a political problem.)

"Democratic, kind, positive, empowering" -- yes, that has been my
experience.  As an engineer, I have benefitted enormously from the
Internet.  All my tools (best in the world) come from an Internet
culture.  They cost the equivalent of billions of dollars in R&D, but
they come free to me, with no strings attached.  And most of my
development work, I return to the community, free of charge. And it's
not because I'm abnormally generous, but because the work is so
exciting, so new... To pull me away from it (for more mundane work)
that's when you would have to pay me!

I believe we can count on a similar 'economy' of participation, when
it comes to open government.

-- 
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