Forums: Index > The Soapbox > Liquid Democracy

Where To Find More ContentEdit

The discussion below was copy and pasted to an actual page on Liquid Democracy that used the comments below as the beginning of it's perspectives section. That might be a better place to develop the idea if you're interested in working on it. - JenniferForUnity 01:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The July 7th to July 15th DiscussionEdit

The internet is the perfect place to change the way our government operates, but we do not need another debating society. What we do need is a way to move everyone closer to the decision making process. The Congress and Senate exist because when this country was conceived it was impractical for citizens to actually take part in a vote(CounterPoint); this is not the case any more.

The next step in the evolution of government is to get people involved by using the internet to vote daily. The debate is important so each side can present their view, but the vote is what will draw people in.

I believe that the most worthwhile endeavor we can undertake to improve our government is to move to a more direct form of democracy. Liquid democracy [1] is a form of direct democracy with proxy representation allowed."

How do we make this happen?

Going to have to disagree with you on your historical reference. It was obviously possible to conduct a vote of the entire nation--that's how presidents were elected. Additionally, the founding fathers were obviously not interested in making democracy particularly liquid as votes were restricted to landholders. But all of that is irrelevant anyway--the founding fathers are dead, and this is (or should be) a country ruled by living people. Whatever we say goes, and screw what our ancestors thought about it. I'm with you at least as far as getting people more-involved in our existing political system, and the best first step I can think of is to bring Congress closer to the people. We need congressional staff answering e-mails instead of letters and as far as educating people, we need to increase both prevalence and awareness of independant media and consumer choice. Compaqdrew 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Well if Jimbo or whoever controls the Wikia software would simply incorporate something like Forum:TECK:_The_Electoral_Corruption_Killer into this website, it might happen by itself. Jabowery 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, paradigm change will be hard. First of all we need to educate the populous, because I'll be most don't even know what the difference would be from representative democracy. Next, we need to change the government, which isn't as hard once you have an active, educated populous. So, the aim of this site should be to bring education and discussion to the political level, and we can't stay a niche. The message needs to spread to every American. Getting people politically active is hard, especially in our politcal situation today. Essentially, the first step the Campaign Wikia must take is to make itself as user-friendly as possible. Organization and a clear message are key. We should have platforms for every possible take on the issue, along with heavily moderated facts surrounding the issue. And your grandmother needs to be able to browse the site with ease. That is the most important goal at this point. Then we can worry about saturating the American people with our grand new vision of democracy. --Bobcobb 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Tend to agree with you Mr. Cobb Think Granny could get lost six months or more in hereMakharramKhan 20:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Forum:Political Reality has also branched into a discussion of this possibility. These were my thoughts on the issue:

The problem with this idea of resurgence of direct democracy, at least in the US, is the pandemic laziness and apathy that results in abysmally low voter turnouts for presidential elections every fourth year and even lower ones for more frequent polling. Can you imagine how few votes would be cast if it was a day-to-day occurrence? It's not really a consensus of the people if only the opinions of a small minority are considered, even if they are the minority who understand and care enough about the issue to vote on it.
Then again, in order to function, a democracy requires that voters have a sufficient level of understanding of the political process and the issues being voted upon to form their own opinions, lest all votes be decided based on things like which side had the most attractive spokesperson, while votes that are well-informed and born of strong conviction are mitigated to a minority. This wiki will undoubtedly help with this latter problem somewhat, but most of the voters are not well-informed enough to find it, nor do they have the interest to read it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to polish my cynic badge.

--Whosawhatsis 00:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Laziness and apathy...are those the voters or is that you? We don't need to worry about the lazy part because the internet makes things very easy. There may be a lot of apathy out there...but there are enough voters who care to swing any vote one way or another. As for calling the voters 'dumb'...that reeks of elitism.

That's pretty strong talk for an anonymous poster. No, I was not referring to myself in that statement. I have participated in all but one (local) election since I reached voting age, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of US citizens. The internet does make it easier (at least for people like us, who are using it all the time anyway), but enough so to overcome the aforementioned laziness and apathy? And what of those who still don't have computers or internet access? There are always enough voters to "swing a vote", but that doesn't mean that its an accurate representative sample... unless you count the no-shows as votes for "I don't know/don't care", in which case that side would almost invariably win.
And dumb? Where'd you get that? I believe the term I (accurately) used was "uninformed". --Whosawhatsis 02:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I would not say that participatory democracy means that everyone votes on or cares about every issue. The point is that they are welcome to participate in a genuine way if they choose. Currently, there are a lot of huge barriers to participation - financial, physical, and legal. On top of this, propaganda has largely replaced the press. A lot of the apathy is a direct result of these barriers. People feel (somewhat correctly) that their input in the system is not honored. They feel excluded from any real power. For example: effectively two candidates for president who are part of the same club. Some subset of the whole will always take the lead. The key is to create an opportunity for everyone to have a genuine say. Some will always not care about some issues, which is fine. It is a vote for "whatever you folks decide is okay with me". That's different than "you folks are bullies and are not listening to me and my group", which is what many people are now feeling. --Slije 22:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.