4 ms·

The HN consensus seems to be that digital voting is very difficult to do right. I trust the consensus opinion, but this also makes me sad. The bigger picture th

The HN consensus seems to be that digital voting is very difficult to do right. I trust the consensus opinion, but this also makes me sad. The bigger picture that I think we’re missing here is the opportunity for huge-scale direct democracy. I know the usual debates against DD, but I think there’s ways to safeguard against those problems. E.g. you can’t vote on an issue without hearing both sides of it and passing a test that demonstrates that you understand the pros and cons of each side. Idealistic, I know, but I’m a firm believer that most people act more responsibly when you give them more responsibility.

learc83 8y ago
>a test that demonstrates that you understand the pros and cons of each side Then you just moved the controversial part of the process back to what the pros and cons are, or another step further still to who decides what the pros and cons are.
- kaycebasques 8y ago
  Yes, the gatekeeper problem is tricky. I ultimately think that each side would submit pros and cons, with no rules around what they can submit. Otherwise we run into the gatekeeper problem. So some sides would submit sensational, false claims. And we’d have to trust the people to decide what’s true and false. We’re already trusting us, the people, to make these decisions when we elect representatives. We might as well directly face the consequences of our choices, rather than shifting blame to a representative.
Loughla 8y ago
>I’m a firm believer that most people act more responsibly when you give them more responsibility. Honestly, I believe the literal opposite. People act irrationally if they believe it's in their own self-interest. What leads to to think that way? I'm genuinely curious.
- kaycebasques 8y ago
  Some random thoughts, starting with personal experience: * When my team gives me ownership over a project, I take pride in that project and produce higher-quality work. This is loosely related to "people act more responsibly when you give them more responsibility" in the sense that direct democracy will make people feel like they have more ownership over issues. * Homeowners tend to take better care of their place of living than renters. * When people have kids, most tend to mature and act more responsibly in general. Not all, but most. In this case "having a child" is a proxy for "having more responsibility" in general. In terms of studies, I'm intrigued by experiments [1] where people are assigned leadership roles randomly. They seem to suggest that people tend to make better decisions when given more responsibility. An even more radical idea that is more closely related to this study would be to assign random citizens to be in charge of a certain political issue, say for 6 to 12 months. [1] http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/10/is-it-sometimes-rational-to-select-leaders-randomly-a-cool-old-study.html http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/10/is-it-sometim...
dogcomplex 8y ago
Or alternatively, encourage people to delegate their votes to whoever they trust in their local network to understand the problem best, who in-turn can delegate to their favored expert. Basically recursive representative democracy. It can't be worse than picking your representative from a group of 2-5 per region, that you only know about through biased media sources. And in aggregate it weighs expertise and trust much higher. https://markorodriguez.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/master-thesis.pdf https://markorodriguez.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/master-th...
- kaycebasques 8y ago
  Interesting idea that I have never heard of. Thanks for sharing.
specialist 8y ago
Voter fatigue is a serious downside to direct democracy. Especially within the context of our attention economy. (Which then leads to additional gaming of the system. Etc...) I'm a huge proponent of direct democracy. But I also think we are asked to vote on way too many things. Alas, I only have one idea for reducing the number of elections. (Which would also improve outcomes.) Replacing our current first-post-the-post (aka winner takes all) with approval voting (for exec positions) or proportional representation (for assemblies) would consolidate our separate primary and general elections into one event.
mc32 8y ago
>”E.g. you can’t vote on an issue without hearing both sides of it and passing a test that demonstrates that you understand the pros and cons...” I think this would be thoroughly gamed. You’d get “cheat sheets” on how to answer, or more importantly, you’d disenfranchise poorly educated people or people with learning disabilities (who afaik, still have a right to vote.)
- kaycebasques 8y ago
  I've thought about the gaming aspect. I'll put this idea out there, for any enterprising HN visitor who wants to take up the mantle: I think there's a general need for quiz technology that is difficult to game. I think this is a technology that could be applied in many different domains. The disenfranchisement angle is important and is something that I haven't thought about. Thank you for pointing out.

learc83 8y ago

>a test that demonstrates that you understand the pros and cons of each side Then you just moved the controversial part of the process back to what the pros and cons are, or another step further still to who decides what the pros and cons are.

kaycebasques 8y ago
Yes, the gatekeeper problem is tricky. I ultimately think that each side would submit pros and cons, with no rules around what they can submit. Otherwise we run into the gatekeeper problem. So some sides would submit sensational, false claims. And we’d have to trust the people to decide what’s true and false. We’re already trusting us, the people, to make these decisions when we elect representatives. We might as well directly face the consequences of our choices, rather than shifting blame to a representative.

Loughla 8y ago

>I’m a firm believer that most people act more responsibly when you give them more responsibility. Honestly, I believe the literal opposite. People act irrationally if they believe it's in their own self-interest. What leads to to think that way? I'm genuinely curious.

kaycebasques 8y ago
Some random thoughts, starting with personal experience: * When my team gives me ownership over a project, I take pride in that project and produce higher-quality work. This is loosely related to "people act more responsibly when you give them more responsibility" in the sense that direct democracy will make people feel like they have more ownership over issues. * Homeowners tend to take better care of their place of living than renters. * When people have kids, most tend to mature and act more responsibly in general. Not all, but most. In this case "having a child" is a proxy for "having more responsibility" in general. In terms of studies, I'm intrigued by experiments [1] where people are assigned leadership roles randomly. They seem to suggest that people tend to make better decisions when given more responsibility. An even more radical idea that is more closely related to this study would be to assign random citizens to be in charge of a certain political issue, say for 6 to 12 months. [1] http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/10/is-it-sometimes-rational-to-select-leaders-randomly-a-cool-old-study.html http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/10/is-it-sometim...

dogcomplex 8y ago

Or alternatively, encourage people to delegate their votes to whoever they trust in their local network to understand the problem best, who in-turn can delegate to their favored expert. Basically recursive representative democracy. It can't be worse than picking your representative from a group of 2-5 per region, that you only know about through biased media sources. And in aggregate it weighs expertise and trust much higher. https://markorodriguez.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/master-thesis.pdf https://markorodriguez.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/master-th...

kaycebasques 8y ago
Interesting idea that I have never heard of. Thanks for sharing.

specialist 8y ago

Voter fatigue is a serious downside to direct democracy. Especially within the context of our attention economy. (Which then leads to additional gaming of the system. Etc...) I'm a huge proponent of direct democracy. But I also think we are asked to vote on way too many things. Alas, I only have one idea for reducing the number of elections. (Which would also improve outcomes.) Replacing our current first-post-the-post (aka winner takes all) with approval voting (for exec positions) or proportional representation (for assemblies) would consolidate our separate primary and general elections into one event.

mc32 8y ago

>”E.g. you can’t vote on an issue without hearing both sides of it and passing a test that demonstrates that you understand the pros and cons...” I think this would be thoroughly gamed. You’d get “cheat sheets” on how to answer, or more importantly, you’d disenfranchise poorly educated people or people with learning disabilities (who afaik, still have a right to vote.)

kaycebasques 8y ago
I've thought about the gaming aspect. I'll put this idea out there, for any enterprising HN visitor who wants to take up the mantle: I think there's a general need for quiz technology that is difficult to game. I think this is a technology that could be applied in many different domains. The disenfranchisement angle is important and is something that I haven't thought about. Thank you for pointing out.