Representative direct democracy through a web forum

Phier

Interesting experiment if nothing else.


From the site below:

Welcome to United Minds! This website proposes a new system of representation in government where individuals use an internet based forum to debate all issues relating to their lives. From these debates, the desire of the majority is established, prioritised by a committee and then brought to Dail Eireann.

I am running for election for a seat in the Irish Parliament, Dail Eireann, in the upcoming by-election for the constituency of Dublin South. When elected I will strictly follow the opinion of the users of this website. This will create an almost-direct democracy with a deflated middle man where you will have a much louder voice on key issues.

Looking forward to serving you,

Ross O’Mullane.


http://unitedminds.ie/index.php

sink

Interesting but it might turn out to be a case of who shouts the loudest wins.

turgon

As an experiment it fine, but he says he will follow the forums wishes once elected. Even though anyone can sign up??? Wait til Stormfront get a load of this - watch out for Dublin South to be the Fascist constituency of Ireland.

But lets theorize on how this could work.

Obviously in the real world constituents would apply to become an member of their constituency forum. Once they are entitled (they live there and are registered etc etc) they are given a user name, and allowed to debate. The wat ROM has the forums categorized is good.

Like any forum strict rules will be adhered to, and mods will be appointed to "keep the peace" and encourage productive debate. At the end of all debate a conclusion is to be made, obviously some objective people will have to be hired to anaylize the discussion and its findings. Polls could be taken, but for that sake of fairness I would have these as consultutory only and non-binding.

It seems like a good idea. I am doubtful as to how its could be made official (ie its findings would have to be adhered to), and how it mightened be hijacked by irrational minds.

abelard

As said, who can join? Anyone? Does the mandate he could have from his constituents not potentially get diluted?

Who will mod? What happens when someone feels unfairly treated or takes issue with a mod? Somewhere like boards is privately owned, so it's easy enough to deal with these kind of things, but this idea needs to work very differently.

Is posting anonymous? If so, what is there to stop abuse? If not, how will this be implemented, and will people be far less inclined to speak their minds?

Will decisions eventually be put to a vote? And will all decisions be subject to this process? In the case of something delicate (maybe think votes of no confidence or something), this surely becomes open to abuse again.

It seems a nice idea, but I really don't think we're ready for it.

note: all the above questions are really hypothetical, I don't actually expect concrete answers, but if you;ve got an idea on them, fire away! I'd love if someone could answer them all probably and make the idea workable!

Phier

I've alerted Ross to this thread so watch this space.
You can give him feedback here:
http://unitedminds.ie/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54

I think there's a comittee, which straight away leads to human error and bias. The site is anonymous so wouldn't properly represent the Dublin South constituency. I would say this would lead to people more likely to speak their minds. The forum is littered with set simplistic polls, you can no doubt request your own.

Having recently read this piece on meritocracy:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/01/1643227

I wonder if a similar method can be applied.

pokerpaddy

Howdy folks,

The concept is that technology can make government more efficient - how exactly this is achieved is open to debate. I believe that in the future this is how the world will operate - why not get the ball rolling on it now? Or should the current proved-to-be-inefficient-system stay the same forever?

Hadn't planned on posting on here till now, have made some revisions to the concept.

Looking forward to serving you ;o)

Ross O'Mullane

abelard wrote: »

As said, who can join? Anyone? Does the mandate he could have from his constituents not potentially get diluted?

Who will mod? What happens when someone feels unfairly treated or takes issue with a mod? Somewhere like boards is privately owned, so it's easy enough to deal with these kind of things, but this idea needs to work very differently.

Is posting anonymous? If so, what is there to stop abuse? If not, how will this be implemented, and will people be far less inclined to speak their minds?

Will decisions eventually be put to a vote? And will all decisions be subject to this process? In the case of something delicate (maybe think votes of no confidence or something), this surely becomes open to abuse again.

It seems a nice idea, but I really don't think we're ready for it.

note: all the above questions are really hypothetical, I don't actually expect concrete answers, but if you;ve got an idea on them, fire away! I'd love if someone could answer them all probably and make the idea workable!

The concept is that any internet user can join in the debate, only constituents of dublin south can vote on issues. Strategy Page on United Minds

Mod-ing: hoping to use this in moderation, haven't had any issues so far. Will cross this bridge when the times comes.

Posting would require registration. I dont believe people will be afraid to speak their mind?

Yes any busy issue will be put to a vote.

Also any vote taking place in dail eireann can be discussed and voted upon. (what other TD could say exactly how the people he represents would vote?)



thanks for taking the time to post - open to all and any feedback you may have.

Mike Summers

I am a politician in waiting here in my province in Canada.

Our party would seek to strip all politicians of the free hands they currently enjoy and install a system not that different from the one the Swiss use where NOTHING is beyond the grasp of the electorate.

The Swiss model of governance allows the citizens to "UNDO" anything their legislative body puts forward.

Thus, with few exceptions, it matters little WHICH party governs or which party a politician belongs to because all legislation is passed knowing that if they arouse the anger of the populationin the process, the voters will force a referendum to decide the matter finally.

We seek to give Canada at least one democratic province.


However, we are being given a chance to vote in a referendum to decide by what method we wish to elect politicians to our provincial legislature.

Ireland has been held up as a shining example of the electoral system we are being presented with.

1.Are you Irish people happy with the system?

2. Do you feel your elected politicians really listen to you the voters?

3. Do you feel your politicians are out of control and that the voters are helpless between elections to stop politicians from doing anything they want?

I am against the system being proposed but I want your most bold opinions of politicians and your political process so I can finally decide.

I also did look at your nation's constitution. It doesn't appear to have any recourse to control polticians. Am I correct in that assumption? (Canada and it's provinces does not have a constitution. We have a Constitution Act. That means we have laws passed that say our parliaments can pass laws. )

Is control of politicians something the Irish people desire?

pokerpaddy

Maybe your post deserves its own thread Mike?

Mike Summers

I actually started one. But I was so interested in this thread that I felt I should post here as well.

I generally don't trust politicians and always want somebody who is not afraid to think and act in the best interests of the people in the area represented. Even if it means voting against their own party.

But because we are stuck with a variant of the Westminster Parliamentary System, a failed vote here means it's election time.

So free thinking and acting politicians are never welcomed here. The parties all want those "TEAM PLAYERS"... You know what they are right?

Phier

Bit of a thread hijack there mike tbh...

Mike Summers

Sorry. I was trying to suggest that politicians cannot be trusted anywhere to do what's right.

I also wonder how many people will be disenfranchised by online polling.

Phier

Ya gotta play the game to change it.

...

Alot.

Hrm, website seems down now.

Ostrom

Would Habermas be impressed?

Seriously though, has this been tried anywhere else? Seems like a sound enough approach for somewhere as small and compartmentalized as Ireland

pokerpaddy

Myth wrote: »

Hrm, website seems down now.

Apologies for that Myth - have had a few problems with hosting provider.

pokerpaddy

efla wrote: »

Would Habermas be impressed?

Seriously though, has this been tried anywhere else? Seems like a sound enough approach for somewhere as small and compartmentalized as Ireland

senator online in australia is the closest thing i've seen to this concept.

PeakOutput

its an ok idea assuming its one person one vote etc but their goal is to have a majority in the dail but i can only see having a load of independants with only their local constiuencies in mind as a disaster for the country

if they got a majority the forum would have to change immedietely to a national one were the entire country can have their opinions heard on national issues

otherwise it would a magnification of our current local politics influencing national agendas system

Mike Summers

That assumes that a local politician would only be looking to the absolute local issues. It assumes that the politician would ignore outside influences which make actually benefit his constituents. And it would also assume that the locals would have zero for a global perspective would it not? And as witnessed by this forum, that simply is not the case.

However, the constituents should have the ability to claw back any legislation which does not meet the interests of the local community and the state/country as a whole.

Legislators should not have the ability to act unilaterally above that of the folks who elected them.

Our best examples are in corporate and union structures which do allow the shareholders/members the grace to claw back decisions made by the boards of directors. Why should this not also apply to government?

PeakOutput

Mike Summers wrote: »

That assumes that a local politician would only be looking to the absolute local issues. It assumes that the politician would ignore outside influences which make actually benefit his constituents. And it would also assume that the locals would have zero for a global perspective would it not? And as witnessed by this forum, that simply is not the case.

but in reality is it not the party system that forces the tds to think on national issues rather than local ones. for example we see the uproar that happens whenever a new dump is needed or the incinerator everyone is says not in my back yard. now these things happen because of party policy but with a hole load of independants there is no1 to unify them on national issues. certainly there are ff tds that dont agree with some government actions but they go along with them because they are in ff and they believe in ff in general.

However, the constituents should have the ability to claw back any legislation which does not meet the interests of the local community and the state/country as a whole.

an individual constituency should not have the power to change anything that affects the nation imo

Legislators should not have the ability to act unilaterally above that of the folks who elected them.

Our best examples are in corporate and union structures which do allow the shareholders/members the grace to claw back decisions made by the boards of directors. Why should this not also apply to government?

ok but the problem is, imo obviously, these people are elected to national government on their local achievements and they stay there based on how their constituency view the works they do for them not for the country. a td could have some amazing talent that means he is able to persuade the eu to give loads of grants and money and other support to farmers but if his constituency is dublin north its either not worth his while or he still runs the risk of not getting re elected because his fortee does not relate to his local constituents even though it is in the best interests of the country

i hope im explaining that clearly im no expert but basically i want to know how the united minds idea aims to solve this problem when i can only see it making it worse

Mike Summers

PeakOutput wrote: »

an individual constituency should not have the power to change anything that affects the nation imo

Please forgive me. The constituents are on the national level. Or, in our case here, a provincial level. No one district should have that kind of power. You are very correct.

What our party hopes to establish is a system where politicians are denied final say. The Swiss use such a system. Then it really doesn't matter who is elected because the citizens enjoy final say on anything the politicians do. Thus they govern more by concensus than on individual agendas.

At that point, the local decision as to local rep is down to who can best serve the individual communities rather than a party with some extreme agenda. The Swiss don't tolerate extremes and shoot down any legislation that goes that way. So legislators don't pass anything that could possibly face defeat by the electorate in the first place.

turgon

When operating a political environment such as this it is highly probable that a lot of the users will have a vested interest. If they have this it will be in their interest to fight tooth and nail for their corner. On the other hand people who are just contributing on a rational level will be less passionate - and less likely to be heard.

Does everybody deserve to have such direct power, especcially where theres no culture of "direct democracy" like in Switzerland? A lot of people will be ignorant in summing up evidence, and will their innate bias' come out and will refuse to deal with evidence satisfactorily. Why should they be permitted into what is supposed to be a reasoned debate?

Mike Summers

turgon wrote: »

When operating a political environment such as this it is highly probable that a lot of the users will have a vested interest. If they have this it will be in their interest to fight tooth and nail for their corner. On the other hand people who are just contributing on a rational level will be less passionate - and less likely to be heard.

Does everybody deserve to have such direct power, especcially where theres no culture of "direct democracy" like in Switzerland? A lot of people will be ignorant in summing up evidence, and will their innate bias' come out and will refuse to deal with evidence satisfactorily. Why should they be permitted into what is supposed to be a reasoned debate?

We currently live in an atmosphere of apathy. If you talk to those who don't vote, you will get a nearly single reason. "Why bother? What difference does it make? They all promise one thing and do another anyway. So why?"

If it because possible for voters to have direct democracy, is it not more likely that voters will pay more attention to things knowing that they CAN make changes?

The wholely apathetic won't get involved no matter what you do. The majority of the currently disinterested will bone up some on what's going on around them.

But either way. Why should we disenfrinchise anyone if we call ourselves democratic?

turgon

Ok consider two people, Mr Passionate and Mr Rational.

So Mr Passionate is, as the name suggests, passionate about a number of things. So this new bill comes along, and hes getting pretty into it. Not in a good way though, in the sort of way Coir got involved in the Lisbon Treaty. Hes spreading lies and mis truths, refusing to concede anything, he doesn't really read much but trusts his assumptions, and hes being in general ignorant. He will vote NO for some stupid idealogical reason, in the same way Coir voted NO because of abortion, which wasnt even an issue in Lisbon*.

Mr Rational is present too, and he weighs up matters in an even minded approach: he wont vote NO just because he doesnt like the name of the bill. He'll read all the facts, which a lot more time consuming than his passionate friend's action.

At the end of the day Mr Rational and Mr Passionate have the exact same voting rights, even though the former is well more informed than the latter. Why is this? Surely in order to have the right you must take the responsibilities.

Come the next bill theyre at odds again. Except Mr Rational doesnt have time to take his responsibilities on board so he makes a reasoned decision to not vote due to a lack of informatory. Mr Passion equally has been up the wall at work, yet he doesnt care, he lets his passions get ahead of him and votes NO regarding some rumor he heard off of the bin man or the fish lady.

So this is the system you want? You want the Mr Passionates in control of all the important decisions?


*Really it wasnt, and if you disagree let Scofflaw, Sink or OscarBravo make crap of you on the EU forum because god knows thats what their good at.

Mike Summers

You are going to have those two at odds with each other all of the time anyway. And in all likelihood, you have them now as elected legislators.

You are also making assumptions that ALL people who can vote will be like one of the two, and if I am not mistaken, you are suggesting that the majority are like Passionate and apparently are disqualified from having an opinion or a right to an opinion...even if it's wrong.

That is undemocratic at the very least.

Given an option, I'll go with the majority rule because contrary to what you are suggesting, the majority of people are not stupid. But rather, they are currently helpless.

As for Lisbon, if I'm again not mistaken, it had a number of flaws which the intelligent people of Ireland rejected. And that was their right. Wasn't it?

turgon

Mike Summers wrote: »

You are going to have those two at odds with each other all of the time anyway. And in all likelihood, you have them now as elected legislators.

I think most legislators would be far more sensible considering they got elected in the first place.

Mike Summers wrote: »

You are also making assumptions that ALL people who can vote will be like one of the two, and if I am not mistaken, you are suggesting that the majority are like Passionate and apparently are disqualified from having an opinion or a right to an opinion...even if it's wrong.
That is undemocratic at the very least.

Within the context of the internet I would imagine that more posters would have extreme views in comparison to the real world. You wouldnt see a moderately thinking person going around the internet trying to plaster there opinions, this would more than certainly be the actions of an extremer person.

There are flaws in democracy, for sure, and for this work these flaws will have to be controlled.

Mike Summers wrote: »

As for Lisbon, if I'm again not mistaken, it had a number of flaws which the intelligent people of Ireland rejected. And that was their right. Wasn't it?

Im not starting a discussion on the Lisbon Treaty, but will only mention points relative to the thread. Im not biased btw, I voted no myself.

The Lisbon Treaty was rejected for a number of different reasons, for simplicity sake we will categorize them into 3 groups:
*Genuine Concerns
*False Concerns
*Anti-treaty-ism (some people would vote no even if it was flawless)

Obviously in our democracy forum genuine concerns are appreciated, and necessary. False concerns, which in all probability carried the treaty through, are not. However an internet forum is a perfect place for these to breed, clouding peoples views. In such a fast paced non-accountable environment people will not fulfill their obligations to research the issues properly and will come to incorrect conclusions.

The last group is even worse, these people come on the scene with their opinion even before they have read any material (dogmatism). It is my opinion that these people are very vocal on the internet, because they are against something so passionately they will always want to voice their opinions.

I just feel that our forum may be hijacked by the latter two groups who will use their pre-disposed passion to force their irrational opinions on others. Moderation seems the only way, but how is this achieved within the context of direct democracy. And will they have vested interests.

I am actually pro the idea in theory, im just trying to determine how practicable it is.

Mike Summers

Okay. I can go with that. So, it seems reasonable to me then, that a conclusion that the internet might a good place for a straw poll of sorts, but that it cannot have any binding powers at all.

turgon

Mike Summers wrote: »

Okay. I can go with that. So, it seems reasonable to me then, that a conclusion that the internet might a good place for a straw poll of sorts, but that it cannot have any binding powers at all.

That would seem to be the solution. But then will it just be bypassed?

Mike Summers

Oh of course it will be bypassed. The politicians aren't interested in what you the citizen want. They have agendas that need to be addressed. And your opinions may not jibe with their agendas very well.

I think the mistake here is the thought that politicians are honourable people. I'm sure some are. And I'm sure that some are that way when they start out. But there is something about legislative assemblies, be it in the air, I don't know. But something there turns otherwise decent people into untrustworthy scum.

I am seeking elected office myself and I can see the dangers ahead of me.

Those dangers are from opportunism that presents itself where there are no controls. Our legislative bodies have no controls on them. Working for the greater good becomes tempered by the human desire for advantage.

I believe that everyone has their price. I don't know what mine is.

pokerpaddy

Howdy folks – in response to your comments:

PeakOutput:

Moving the system to a national level – all for that, once it gets big enough.

“Magnification of current local politics” I’d like to think that most people realise and appreciate the bigger picture. i.e. how national and global events affect their lives.


“but in reality is it not the party system that forces the tds to think on national issues” I would say the party system forces the tds to think on party issues.

Turgon:

I think the system by it’s design will attract passionate and extreme people to begin. Over time as more people come online, one would expect extreme and polar view points to be diluted by the masses.

Mr Passionate, and Mr Rational, exist outside of the unitedminds.ie forum. It’s up to the Mr Rational’s out there to spread the word (thus becoming Mr Extremist). It’s up to the Mr Passionate’s to get better informed (with a weak economy, many Mr Passionate’s will be looking for answers and further information)

- the idea of the forum on unitedminds.ie is that Mr Passionate’s might become better informed.