4 ms·

Actually, E-voting could revolutionalize politics. Right now, we have to have presidents, prime ministers, even kings; making all the big decisions for us beca

Actually, E-voting could revolutionalize politics. Right now, we have to have presidents, prime ministers, even kings; making all the big decisions for us because that was the only practical way. E-voting makes it possible for the population to be consulted on any major decision. This, IMHO, is the reason it's so unpopular amongst politicians. Right now in the UK, for instance, MPs get to vote on their own salary increases. Wouldn't it be nice if they were obliged to ask the voters instead? Recent years have seen several unpopular wars begun by Western countries - if political leaders had been unable to start those wars unless they'd had majority approval from their populace, the world might well be a more peaceful place right now. E-voting is something with a lot of promise. But if diminishes the power of the people who would have to implement it. So don't expect to see it widespread any time soon.

orf 13y ago
Consulting everyone on every major decision isn't the best way to make decisions (who says the majority is right?). Most people wouldn't understand the issues they are voting on and would be heavily swayed by the media.
- xyzzy123 13y ago
  Agreed. There are interesting intermediate forms of representative democracy though. Most forms of voting are actually delegation and it would be nice to be able to do that in a more nuanced way than "kick the bums out, and empower other bums with basically the exact same views"
- yaddayadda 13y ago
  Once there is an easy online system in place then alternatives to an all or nothing vote could be established. For example, you may vote for a representative every X years and this representative would vote for you when you opted not to. Over the course of X years there are hundreds of votes, but you are passionate about 20 of them. You could directly cast a vote on those 20 issues, but your representative would cast votes, as a proxy, for the rest of the issues.
  - Fargren 13y ago
    What happens when there's a big decision that heavily affects media interests? They start using their sway on public opinion to make the decision important, and a disproportionate number of people become "passionate" about an issue they don't really know more than they were fed. There are probably other problems, but I don't think this one is small.
    - yaddayadda 13y ago
      I don't disagree. There are other potential problems also, such as protection of minorities. But right now I don't have the OPTION to vote directly, even if I do know more than my elected official. Online election systems can provide such options. Was my elevator spiel for one possible method perfect - no. But hopefully it got you and other readers thinking about the general concept (it appears it got you thinking about it), possible challenges (it definitely got you thinking about it), and possible benefits (yet to be seen).
    - keymone 13y ago
      well that's exactly what happens every couple years and is called "president/parliament elections". and then people are locked up with shitty options for years and can do nothing about it.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Most politicians don't understand the issues they are voting on and are heavily swayed by the media (and other high-power organizations).
eli 13y ago
I do not think this is a good idea at all. Take a look at California where voters are constantly being asked to vote on tax increases and ballot initiatives. It's hard to argue that the state is better off for it. You could easily make a rule that MPs can't raise their own salary without changing the fundamentals of a representative democracy.
rospaya 13y ago
Direct democracy doesn't work most of the time.
- TeMPOraL 13y ago
  If it was as fluid as up-voting posts on HN, maybe it could? If for even every minor decision you could vote directly or pass your vote to a representative (who could either vote for all collected votes or pass them forward to another representative), then maybe this kind of fluid, real-time changing network democracy could work? I have no clues about potential issues or failure modes of this, but the concept is interesting and - I think - worth discussion.

orf 13y ago

Consulting everyone on every major decision isn't the best way to make decisions (who says the majority is right?). Most people wouldn't understand the issues they are voting on and would be heavily swayed by the media.

xyzzy123 13y ago
Agreed. There are interesting intermediate forms of representative democracy though. Most forms of voting are actually delegation and it would be nice to be able to do that in a more nuanced way than "kick the bums out, and empower other bums with basically the exact same views"
yaddayadda 13y ago
Once there is an easy online system in place then alternatives to an all or nothing vote could be established. For example, you may vote for a representative every X years and this representative would vote for you when you opted not to. Over the course of X years there are hundreds of votes, but you are passionate about 20 of them. You could directly cast a vote on those 20 issues, but your representative would cast votes, as a proxy, for the rest of the issues.
- Fargren 13y ago
  What happens when there's a big decision that heavily affects media interests? They start using their sway on public opinion to make the decision important, and a disproportionate number of people become "passionate" about an issue they don't really know more than they were fed. There are probably other problems, but I don't think this one is small.
  - yaddayadda 13y ago
    I don't disagree. There are other potential problems also, such as protection of minorities. But right now I don't have the OPTION to vote directly, even if I do know more than my elected official. Online election systems can provide such options. Was my elevator spiel for one possible method perfect - no. But hopefully it got you and other readers thinking about the general concept (it appears it got you thinking about it), possible challenges (it definitely got you thinking about it), and possible benefits (yet to be seen).
  - keymone 13y ago
    well that's exactly what happens every couple years and is called "president/parliament elections". and then people are locked up with shitty options for years and can do nothing about it.
ams6110 13y ago
Most politicians don't understand the issues they are voting on and are heavily swayed by the media (and other high-power organizations).

eli 13y ago

I do not think this is a good idea at all. Take a look at California where voters are constantly being asked to vote on tax increases and ballot initiatives. It's hard to argue that the state is better off for it. You could easily make a rule that MPs can't raise their own salary without changing the fundamentals of a representative democracy.

rospaya 13y ago

Direct democracy doesn't work most of the time.

TeMPOraL 13y ago
If it was as fluid as up-voting posts on HN, maybe it could? If for even every minor decision you could vote directly or pass your vote to a representative (who could either vote for all collected votes or pass them forward to another representative), then maybe this kind of fluid, real-time changing network democracy could work? I have no clues about potential issues or failure modes of this, but the concept is interesting and - I think - worth discussion.