Also, interactive voting is prone to hacking. (4.00 / 1)

No evoting system is really secure, and this one would be especially vulnerable, since it relies on people using their own computers to make their choices, systems that can't be safeguarded. Plus, what about all the people who don't own a computer or don't know how to use it? Sry, but that's a very bad idea.

And, of course, Paul's point 2) applies, too. Everybody can see at the example of California the problems of direct democracy. If the Californians are unable to make reasonable decisions, Nancy's idea would only result in multiplying the madness.

---

by: Gray @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 22:17:27 PM UTC

Online banking is pretty secure (0.00 / 0)

The security issue that concerns me is simple fraud, wherein one pretends to be many people, so as to load the electoral dice. I think there's a pretty simple solution, though not available to a large minority of the population. I'd rather not discuss it, publicly, though.

I also think that, to instill confidence in the system, voting has to be public, with names and addresses associated with the votes. (So that people can verify their own vote, plus at least the votes of people personally known to them, plus the totals.) I think Nancy is only considering private votes, so far, so we will see how this works out.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 03:13:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Online banking is pretty secure"??? (0.00 / 0)

Man-in-the-middle attacks, complete takeover of systems by trojans, phishing mails, ID fraud...

No, sry, but I don't have your confidence. Online banking is only as reliable as the customer using it. And too many people are totally reckless regarding vcomputer security or personal data. The good image only comes from the banking lobby working hard to suppress negative reporting.

---

by: Gray @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 12:16:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

complete takeover of systems by trojans?? (0.00 / 0)

Are you talking about server farms owned by the banks??

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 21:52:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with your concerns (4.00 / 2)

I'd go further and say that perusing huge numbers of policy options, digesting the details and then ranking them will very plainly appeal to only certain types of people: Professors, voracious readers, obsessive list makers are few that come to mind. Most people don't enjoy taking the SATs or reading policy papers.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 22:21:55 PM UTC

It's a feature, not a bug, that one will be able to register only a single policy option (4.00 / 2)

15 minutes to register, and 5 minutes to select a policy option, do not excessive demands make, for entering the system. I do agree that in order to achieve mass adoption, the system must be able to be used profitably by the 'politically lazy'.

Do you think that if the system only required a few 'touches' every couple years, for let's say a grand total of 5 hours, that that would not scare most people away? My own expectation is that if the system is as efficient to use as an online dating service - i.e., if people can find a voting bloc about as easily as they can find a list of compatible dates and maintain modest cyberspace communication with a handful of them - then this will prove to be such a tiny barrier to entry that it won't drag down adoption rates much at all.

My current roomate found his girlfriend via an online dating service. If and when that relationship ends, I don't have the slightest doubt that he will jump right back in to the online dating service he spoke so glowingly about. Certainly, he never complained that it was too much work, though he did end up ignoring a lot of solicitations that he received.

One group of people that I absolutely expect to be ecstatic over the rate of efficiency is activists. E.g., I participated in a conference call for the PDA having to do with healthcare. One woman spoke glowingly of an action that involved (IIRC - the memory is hazy) presenting/burning/strewing about healthcare receipts in front of a healthcare corporate office building. As much as I admire the idealism involved, unless there was some embarrassing media coverage, and unless similar acts and similar media coverage were repeated indefinitely, I just couldn't see how this particular action had a prayer of being effective.

Now, consider instead if this activist group had expended those 3 hours of their time first getting themselves into voting blocs that had strong healthcare reform as a policy option, and then furthermore recruited their friends and family into the same voting blocs, and asked them to propagate invitations to join the bloc to their friends and family, etc..

IMO, the first path of action carries basically zero chance of success as a one-off action, and a very poor chance of success as a repeated option. After all, the healthcare companies are in business to make money, first and foremost. In contrast, the vote bloc path of action has a chance of going viral ( which implies complete success ) after a single activist action, and a much stronger chance of success after repetition (but to new groups of friends, family, associates, and eventually strangers.)

As long as the similar-issue voting blocs cooperate (either by coalescing permanently, or just allying episodically on an election-by-election basis), I expect that the 'bang for the activist buck' will be astonishingly more efficient for the voting bloc path of action.

Most people aren't activists, so this rosy scenario won't necessarily apply to them. However, I think the main reason why a huge majority of non-activists don't vote is because they perceive that their votes won't make a lot of difference. An easy to use system will not only help make activists effective and convert the politically lazy into the politically involved - it'll also help convert the politically inactive into the politically lazy, and beyond.

So, while non-activists can't expect a vast increase in their effectiveness from a baseline consisting of activists' actions which they never make ( :-) ) , they can at least get enthused by a conviction that their votes, as members of a voting bloc that is large enough to determine elections, will actually matter in a big way.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 04:03:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

digital divide(s) (0.00 / 0)

also other aspects of the material/social nature of the infrastructure of the internet - once you make something matter in politics, all of a sudden, you find that it's politicised.  

however, a system like this would be an amazing improvement over current methods of finding out what people think.  i would be wary of putting it into any position of power though. call me a luddite :)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 02:03:52 AM UTC

It wouldn't make sense for online pattern matching to be a final determinant for candidates (4.00 / 2)

Meaning: you don't want to invest your voting bloc with a business rule that says "the candidate(s) who most closely match our policy options must be the one(s) we vote for in the real-world primary/general election."

The reason is simple: trust. An online carpet-bagger, who is unscrupulous and is looking to be your next Senator not so much for the $173,000/year that it pays as much for the sweetheart deals that they may encounter (compliments of an equally unscrupulous lobbyist), will have a strong motivation to mis-represent himself/herself. Scamming voting blocs in terms of membership will be very hard for large voting blocs - you would need lots of scammers! But for candidates, it's relatively much more easy.

So, to protect themselves against people that say all the right things, but have no background consistent with their marvelously compatible policy options, voting blocs need to conduct online votes where non-quantifiable factors loom large. Factors such as personal history, integrity, recommendations from long acquaintances and family members, history of participation in civic society, etc.

In short: online pattern matching is cool for voting blocs consisting of large numbers of citizens. I don't think it's smart to be a luddite wrt this aspect. However, it'd be very smart to be at least a partial luddite when it comes to who your voting blocs are going back as candidates for office.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 04:16:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

i generally don't think 'impartial' systems to reflect voter interests are realistic (0.00 / 0)

for exactly some of the reasons you point out - some things are quite honestly best done the old fashioned way, given that its harder to disfigure a paper ballot or not account for it these days than it is to do so with electronics.  Partly this is because any system needs to be verified and for something like this, the verification system and more generally the way it works needs to be widely accessibly understood for it to ensure legitimacy and fairness.  but there is 'more' impartial and 'less' impartial (e.g. public financing vs. the current system).  

anyway, as i said in another comment a system like this would be useful for helping people with information and identifying interests - basically consolidating and clarifying information - though even then it could easily be altered and misused to brainwash people (just like cable TV).  but not for investing with any real power that would make it a target of the kind of people you're talking about (or worse).

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 11:04:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are we there yet? (4.00 / 5)

I would say that the political process is a much more intimate, if not to say atavistic one than Nancy's tool allows for. You have to know people before you can do politics with them. True, you can walk into any campaign headquarters, and someone will hand you a telephone and a precinct list, and bingo you're doing politics, but that's not the kind of politics that either Nancy or we are talking about.

Take just a couple of examples. What about this?

My 22 year-old son just got back from Iraq five months ago, with a knee injury serious enough that he's going to have to wear a brace from now on. He just got orders to return, with the same combat unit he was in when he was injured. His  duties won't be changed to reflect his injury. A kid from his graduating class was arrested last month for killing his wife and year-old daughter. He was discharged eight months ago, after returning from Afghanistan. His mother is saying that the VA refused to treat him for PTSD. I ask around, and discover that almost 30% of the graduating seniors from my son's high school over the last four years are either in Iraq or Afghanistan, waiting to go back there, in training to go there for the first time, in the VA hospital, or buried in the cemetery. Now the recruiters are calling my younger son and my daughter every week.

Or this?

I'm between jobs, and for the moment, my wife is bringing home all the bacon. A lot of our savings went when my daughter was in an auto accident last year. She's okay now, but the hospital bill just about killed us, even with my wife's health insurance. I was self-employed at the time, so we were all on her plan. She just got told that they're closing the plant where she works. The good news is that she can keep her job if we move to Dallas. The bad news is that I don't see how we can do that without selling our house, and houses in our neighborhood haven't been selling since last year. I'm really worried, especially since my daughter still needs some surgery for the scars. The union says that it can't help; the new contract traded a no pay-cut clause for an agreement which allows the company to lay people off without the severance package that was in the last contract.

These are made-up examples, yes, but if we look, we kind find many real ones which follow the same outlines. Ask Cindy Sheehan. Anyway, it seems to me that politics with real staying power comes people in situations like this, and those people are more likely to turn to their friends before they turn to online organizing tools, at least at first. There's a missing link between the motivation and the tool. As Eliot (that famous political organizer) once put it:

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

Nancy's done a lot of work, but how one gets people to her doorstep, let alone across her threshold, is still as opaque to me as any organizing dilemma of the past.

---

by: William Timberman @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 02:09:14 AM UTC

This Is Why I Think It Makes More Sense For Activists (4.00 / 2)

God knows there's enough lack of coordination amongst progressive activists, that Nancy's tool would do tremendous good if it were only used by the progressive activist base.

We could then turn around and do fairly sophisticated polling to see how well our priorities play with the general public, and then to develop framing and messaging to strengthen support and address public concerns.

Of course, we'd have to take measures to avoid the sorts of class disconnects that educationaction has written about, or else we could easily end up with an agenda with very little union support, and ther would be really no point in that.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 02:51:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, I agree (4.00 / 3)

Ever since she first presented her ideas here I've thought that her work is tailor-made to bend the Democratic Party back in our direction, much more so than either MoveOn, or ActBlue, as grateful as I am to them for what they've accomplished. I'm beginning to believe that especially in marginal states, we could create parallel organizations which might eventually replace the decrepit existing party structures, simply by bringing more people, with clearer ideas and better plans of action to their meetings.

---

by: William Timberman @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 03:07:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

'Intimacy' as a major factor for the average citizen/voter? I don't think so. (0.00 / 0)

My vote for Obama wasn't intimate, at all. I went into the voting booth, I held my nose, and I pulled the lever. OK, I didn't literally hold my nose, but the flavor of the level of 'intimacy' involved in my political life in 2008 is well described by the previous sentence.

I have to admit, some people within my circle are very secretive about their vote, which suggests a type of 'intimacy', perhaps. One that completely baffles me....

Even so, the people in my family that I've talked politics with generally show no signs of 'intimacy' concerns, but they do share a tendency to speak of politicians with a lack of fondness, and we are generally resigned to a philosophy of lesser-evilism. My grand-mother (a very religious woman) used to have a picture of FDR on her wall, next to the Greek Orthodox patriarch (similar to the Roman Catholic pope), and my uncle (her son) once told me he thought Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents, but that's about the extent of political hero-worship in my family. We just don't do political intimacy, I guess.

Now, as to whether activists, such as Cindy Sheehan, have a much greater tendency to be motivated by damage to an intimate relationship, that may well be the case. However, I fail to see the significance of this as a serious argument against an IVCS. If Cindy Sheehan discovers a way to shift power to a new set of lawmakers who will genuinely work for peace, like her - even if they've suffered no painful loss amongst close relatives - isn't that still cause for her to rejoice?

I must confess, I'm a bit baffled by your post and some other comments in this diary. I'll take a stab at a psychological assessment - some of the posters in this thread have a deep appreciation of positive personal relationships that appeared in their lives in a political context, and others have a more abstract (but very real and emotional) attachment to activists who paid dearly for their activism (like MLK) and/or victims of society's slings and arrow that activists have tried to help. These attachments are not only inspiring, but they also reinforce a sense of purpose and meaning in life.

Which is nothing to look down upon. However, my main concern is helping create a more humane society, which necessitates a diminution of planetary-suicidal control by plutocratic forces. If that process is made more mechanical, but far, far more efficient, I simply can't allow such considerations to affect my assessment of what is the best way to proceed.

An analogy: I'm mostly a pacifist, but if I was a general, and I believed (as the US military evidently does) that sending remote-controlled Predators to attack a target was the best way to proceed in a given conflict, I wouldn't let the loss of opportunities for members of the armed forces to demonstrate heroism deter me. No, you can't be a hero when your greatest occupational hazard as a soldier is spilling coffee on yourself. If you want to prove you're a hero, or bond deeply with your military colleagues, you'll have to sign up for the Army or the Marines, and be put in mortal danger. (Sorry, Air Force dudes.)

Likewise, nobody will be able to claim heroic victories for issues that have majoritarian buy-in in an IVCS-driven democracy. People who struggle and sacrifice for the greater good are honored by their less heroic countrymen - and rightly so. The loss of a  sense of bonding that can result from a shared struggle might well throw some people for a loop, maybe leading to an existential crisis.

Well, sorry! Where I live, you can see homeless people at the nearby train station late at night. They also have crises of their own to deal with. If my choice is between helping create a more humane society where they can hold down living-wage jobs and get the healthcare they need, vs. depriving others of part of their sense of meaning in life, I'm going to go with the former. The homeless dudes have very few options in their present circumstance, while those more fortunate can always find ways to be of service to their fellow man, to show compassion, and to find high-minded, inspiring friends.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 23:01:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Easier Solution (0.00 / 0)

I agree with everyone else's concerns.  Also... it still ends with promoting candidates to be elected via the same voting system we have now, which is inherently two-party dominated.  We don't need a new system to create more third parties, or even to help people find that one special party that best-fits them; we need a system that is capable of actually electing the third parties we already have.

And what about people who lack constant access to the internet.

---

by: mudlock @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 02:12:00 AM UTC

How IVCS Can Help Progressives Take Over the Democratic Party (4.00 / 2)

New York Times' Frank Rich in his Sunday column notes that 44% of
Americans now identify themselves as Independents, whereas only 30%
identify themselves as Democrats and only 17% identify themselves as
Republicans, according to a recent WSJ/NBC
News Poll: Trusting the Government to Do the Right Thing

This is an all time high for Independents and an all time low for
Republicans, if memory serves. On the Democratic front, nearly 25% of the Americans who identified themselves as Democrats when Obama was elected no longer do so.  

Even more astounding is the finding that "nearly one-third of Americans
are strongly in favor of the creation of a new, independent political
party that could run a presidential candidate in 2012", according to
the same article.

These findings are backed up by Democratic veteran Joe
Trippi in a recent article in Huffington Post: "What voters are
ready to tell anyone who will listen is that they would like to reject
both parties right now if they could".

Moreover, he writes, "I am a Democrat and have been a Democrat all my
life and I want Democrats to win in 2009 and 2010. But Republican, or
Democrat, it would be a mistake to not see that both of our parties are
in trouble and that many of our incumbents in 2010, in both parties,
will be in jeopardy."

The dire shape of the two party system is reflected in the dire shape
of Congress, which voters have held in contempt for more than a decade.

This contempt is mushrooming as it becomes clear in the bills that the
House and Senate have crafted on health care reform that Congress and
the White House are willfully flouting the popular will.

They have refused to even consider the health care system
preferred by an overwhelming majority of voters, the single payer
system, and have put forth bills that force all Americans to buy
private insurance from an unregulated private health care cartel.

The electorate appears to be awakening to the reality that the nation
is no longer a functioning democracy but a plutocracy.

Now that the verdict of the voters is in, namely that they reject the
two party duopoly, what are their alternatives?

And what are the alternatives of progressive activists and advocacy
groups like Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy for America,
the Progressive Majority, and Independent Voting.org that are working
to get progressives elected at all levels of government?

Can the American people be rescued from the clutches of the plutocracy
if only a handful of progressive candidates are elected every election
cycle, while the plutocracy continues to run the government and use the
Federal Reserve Bank as a financial arm of the too-big-to-fail banks
and investment houses that have brought the nation to the brink of
economic disaster and financial ruin?

The strategy I recommend, given the entrenchment of the Democratic and
Republican parties inside the electoral system and the corporate
fund-raising machine, which enables their candidates to fund their
election campaigns by selling their votes to their corporate campaign
contributors, is that progressives use my patent-pending Interactive
Voter Choice System to take over the Democratic Party.

If that fails, they can use the system to create new parties. But I
doubt that will be necessary due to the ease with which they can use
IVCS to wrest control of the party system from the two major parties
and the special interests that bankroll them, their candidates and
their incumbents.

Anyone who is interested in learning more about my ideas on this topic is invited to do so by clicking here. Hopefully, we will be able to exchange our views in greater depth in forthcoming Open Left diaries.

Nancy Bordier is the author of Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government and Restore Popular Sovereignty in America. The book can be read free online by clicking here.

Breakthrough Internet inventions like the Interactive Voter Choice System enable voters to set U.S. policy priorities, build winning voting blocs and elect representatives who will enact their priorities into law.
                 

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 02:36:21 AM UTC

This Suggestion Is Actually Rather Close To My Own (4.00 / 1)

It's focused on progressives--and presumably activists in particular--working to gain power within the Democratic Party.

Compared to a plan based on the whole population and all voters, it's a much better fit of the existing technological possibility and the state of other resources and the broader political reality.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 02:55:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is true (4.00 / 2)

but it is worth bearing in mind that IVCS policy options will be comprehensive and designed to appeal to voters across the political spectrum.

I do happen to be a progressive myself and a life-long Democrat and it is abundantly clear to me that progressive activists and advocacy groups can use IVCS to help the emerging progressive majority get control of the Democratic Party rather easily.

The electorate is pulling away from the two major parties so quickly that I think progressive activists and advocacy groups are much more likely to seriously consider IVCS now rather than later, especially since voters are demanding change that the two major parties refuse to give them.

As Joe Trippi pointed out, what we are likely to see in the absence of alternatives are frustrated voters shifting back and forth between the "least worst" candidates put up by the two major parties. To the extent that this happens, the nation is going to remain in crisis mode for the forseeable future.

The other reason that I am sanguine that IVCS can help progressives get control of the Democratic Party in the near term is the fact that the progressive Millennial voters, who gave Obama 7 million of the 9 million votes he won over McCain, are solid social networking afficionados.

I predict they will be the first to grab hold of IVCS because the IVCS website is a policy-oriented social networking website that has a unique potential to spawn winning voting blocs whose members can act collectively to get control of the party system by taking over the two major political parties -- hopefully starting with the Democratic Party.

More about these possibilities as our Open Left dialogue proceeds. Thanks, Paul, for re-lighting the flame this week-end!  

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 03:29:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is it more flawed? (4.00 / 2)

(1) Fantasy beliefs. There is no fact-checking.  If there is fact-checking not included in this diagram, then how does that work?

(2) Delusional expectations. Many people prefer things that can't be done.  Losing 50 pounds on a beer and ice cream diet.  How to deal with preferences like these?

(3) The pernicious influence rightwing hegemonic discourse.  See Jeff's diary on Gerald Bracey for an idea on how massively misinformed people have been about education going back at least as far as Sputnik.

These things are also all significant "flaws" of representative democracy as it's currently practiced, on two fronts: large proportions of voters have erroneous and delusional beliefs, as do many of our representatives.  Should we therefore abandon representative democracy until these flaws are ironed out?  Of course not.  So what do we mean when we say we favor democracy?  For some, it is to say that the right of the people to decide trumps the elite's belief that it is right, even when it is, in fact, right.  A more moderate view says that we want the version of democracy that produces (among other things) the most factually accurate policy possible while still respecting the majority's desires.  Yet it's tricky to defend any case when a large majority prefers X but their duly elected representative votes for Y (cf, Lieberman), particularly if you are making a more general argument that the advantage of representation is that it allows representatives to systematically vote in ways directly contradicted by the majority of their constituents.  Sure, if you could somehow ensure that the representative voted against his/her constituents only when they were factually wrong, that would perhaps be acceptable; but of course you can't.  And, indeed, the voting records of congressional members have quite weak relationships to the views in their districts.  Is this a good thing?  Again, democracy is about the real world: if we could ensure that they diverge only when the people are factually wrong, it might be okay; but since we can't, it seems like a major flaw.  So given all that, when someone creates a system that better measures the will of the majority on a set of issues, it's pretty tricky to argue that that will should be systematically ignored, unless you can prove that a) it will mostly be ignored only when the people are factually at error, or b) you can provide a system that does a better job of ignoring the people only when they are in factual error.  

So the question is: does representation do a better job than direct democracy of a) respecting the will of the majority, while b) ignoring that will when it is in factual error?  On the one hand, representative democracy produces many more false positives (cases when representatives ignore their constituents for clearly political, non-factual matters) than would direct democracy.  On the other hand, direct democracy would presumably produce more factually erroneous policy.  But representative democracy itself produces tons of erroneous policy (cf California), with little sign of getting better (apart from rising education, which helps both kinds of democracy).  Is the slightly lower factual error rate of representation worth the considerably higher political discrepancy between policy and public will?  Where you stand on that question mirrors where you stand on a continuum between benign oligarchy and pure direct democracy. To me, it seems that the best spot is still much farther in the direction of fewer political discrepancies -- even at the cost of a slightly higher factual error rate.  On the other hand, if you think that the discrepancies have mostly worked in your political advantage (ie, policy to the left of what the true majority wants), you might be totally happy with the political discrepancy -- but you aren't a very good democrat.  And finally, to repeat the beginning, some democrats even believe that the will of the people should be respected even when it is in factual error.  But I suppose that is a bit extreme...

---

by: Lester @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 03:17:04 AM UTC

A DIfferent Comparison (4.00 / 1)

I was comparing Nancy's proposal as I read it to the ideal of what she hoped to achieve.  I don't believe that democracy can function in any form--direct, representative, participatory, workplace, whatever--without active effort (in fact, struggle) to ensure that it is functioning properly.  Democracy is just not the sort of thing that can go of its own accord.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 03:30:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sure, but (4.00 / 1)

The substance of your critique, as I understood it, was that her proposal wouldn't achieve what she hoped because of the three flaws you cited.  Yet those flaws are also endemic to the existing system that she hopes to improve upon.  I don't think she would be too disappointed if you were arguing well, you won't reach your ideal (because of these flaws), but it will sure be a huge improvement on what we currently have.  That would be great, I'm sure, from her point of view.  But you seemed to be implying that, because of these flaws, the project as a whole was seriously damaged:

until we develop a much greater capacity to screen out the sorts of effects I cited above--and that's just a brief, off-the-top-of my-head sample--I believe we would only be creating one more potentially democratic instrument that could all too easily be gamed and hijacked, and used to confound the very impulse toward rational self-governance that gave it birth.

That is not the sort of phrasing that implies that the project has its flaws but is still a good idea that significantly improves on what we have.  Instead, it seems to imply that we are better off without such a form of governance -- that is, better off as we currently are, with our current representative system.

None of us will ever achieve our ideals, but the practical question is, will proposal X on the table do a better job than the status quo.  By saying it is so flawed, you seem to be implying that it would not.  

---

by: Lester @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 04:22:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Saying It's A Good Tool (0.00 / 0)

and because of the flaws it doesn't overcome, we need to combine it with other measures that better respond to those flaws.

You can agree or disagree, but it's a pretty straightforward argument to make.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 14:15:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay... (0.00 / 0)

It's a good tool and because of the flaws it doesn't overcome, we need to combine it with other measures that better respond to those flaws

isn't much of an argument, straightforward or not.  

The more detailed argument you made in the original post concluded:

But I simply don't believe that most people care enough about politics (as opposed to the end results) to ever make such a process a matter of mass democratic participation....And so I think that the use of this sort of tool needs to customized and tested in a variety of different settings, for a wide range of more narrowly-tailored purposes, such as, perhaps, developing a state party platform.

This is a much more specific point, and was what I was responding too, as the core of your objection: that detailed policy decisions should not be put directly in the hands of the ignorant public, except in very controlled circumstances, such as decisions by state party elites.  Your criticism was based on quite general points -- your 3 flaws -- with the conclusion that, due to these flaws, such a system should not work for mass, direct democracy.  It was that larger point, implicit in both your criticism, and the exception you make for "state party platforms," that I was debating.  

You may want to make a "Bush-v-Gore" move and say your points only pertain to this specific model by this specific person, but your arguments depend on more general claims about the dangers of direct democracy, so you need to either defend this as a general argument against direct and democratically determined policy, or find some other grounds for objecting to the implementation of this system.

---

by: Lester @ Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 00:51:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Town Halls (4.00 / 3)

To Timberman's point that politics is a personal activity, I would like a system that fosters personal, real world connections between people.

When we lived in a small CT town, I loved the politics because the town was run by volunters, school board and fire department, as well, there were two weekly papers with great letters to the editor back and forthe, and everyone in town who cared knew when to show up for meetings to listen and vote. It was highly personal. You knew people you disagreed with and met them around town.

The personal connection made the whole process mostly civil despite some very strong policy differences. That personal connection is what I see missing in alot of technology in general. Yet in politics the personal is what makes politics viable, even fun.

Short version: this idea should include something like Meetup and letters to the editor.

---

by: TSlavin @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 03:28:20 AM UTC

Very Good Points! (4.00 / 1)

This is broadly in line with what I'm arguing--that this is a very good tool, but it needs to be integrated into the texture of broader framework of reforms, as well as traditions like those you speak of here.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 03:32:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am in accord with the points raised by both of you (0.00 / 0)

Permit me to share with you the following excerpt from The Interactive Voter Choice System on the topics you both have raised:

"Barriers to the formation of consensus can also be attributed to corporate special interests that use their overwhelming financial clout to fund conflict-producing disinformation campaigns on television, radio and print media designed to incite such voters to oppose legislation that corporations oppose. An example can be found in the case of health care reform, where corporations have indirectly funded multi-state campaigns that incite these voters to disrupt democratic processes such as town hall meetings, in a nationally coordinated effort to mislead and intimidate the public, create fear of government when only government intervention can help them, and instigate public opposition to legislation that is in their best interests.

Lacking IVCS, these difficulties would continue to gravely hamper efforts to mobilize the majority of voters who are dissatisfied with the nation's two major parties, Congress and president. However, with the system at their fingertips, political activists and advocacy groups have ready-made tools that they can use to get members of any face-to-face or online group actively involved in learning about their policy options, making policy choices and building consensus within the group to formulate a shared policy agenda that reflects the preferences of group members as a whole.

One of the most significant benefits of IVCS is that by giving voters the power to set their own personal policy agendas and those of the entire country for the first time in history, and use their agendas to run and elect representatives who will enact them into law, voters will have the motivation and the means to develop a comprehensive understanding of what is actually going on.

The system will not only enable voters to take back their sovereignty from the lawmakers who have usurped it, but to acquire the knowledge they need to immunize themselves against the manipulative disinformation campaigns that the adversaries of the public interest use to confuse the public and cause voters to espouse positions that are inimical to their vital interests.

For example, an increasing number of re-aligning voters know that they and many of their neighbors share many policy priorities that the two major parties and their candidates tend not to share. Despite right wing opposition to government intervention, research has shown that one of the policy preferences of re-aligning voters is that public-minded law makers and agencies should take action to enable government to play a more active role in overcoming the crises facing the nation, particularly in preventing corporate interests and market forces from dictating solutions to these crises.

While many voters still embrace the view advanced during the Reagan presidency that government is the source of societal problems and not to be trusted, re-aligning voters and progressive members of the Millennial generation favor a more active role for government, particularly in light of the abject failure of corporate-centered political parties, politicians and unfettered free markets to provide prosperity to all.

What IVCS enables re-aligning voters to do is to join forces with voters across the political spectrum to sort through these conflicting views and come up with their own approaches and policies. They can use the system and the web-based social networking tools and services it provides to join with political activists and advocacy groups to recruit like-minded voters from across the political spectrum to build IVCS-enabled voting blocs around shared policy priorities. By so doing, they can get control of existing political parties and run candidates who support their policy priorities — or, failing that, create new parties under their control that they can use to run and elect candidates who will enact their priorities into law."

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 03:41:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe I don't understand it, (4.00 / 4)

but it seems to me a system like this is based on the assumption that people vote for ideas, instead of for other people. And I just don't see it. Even with my worthless Blue Cross Dog of a Congressman, I hear people say, "I don't agree with him on everything, but I like him."

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 10:40:14 AM UTC

Idea-wise, ito policy option profiles, it's mostly data entry, not voting, per se (4.00 / 1)

Think of a data service, analogy. Filling out your online profile is a mechanical process, analogous to filling out your policy option profile in an IVCS. Searching for compatible voting blocs is analogous to searching the database for compatible mates. However, at some point early on, the mechanical aspect yields to a less mechanical aspect. In an online dating service, you have to decide whether or not you are actually going to contact somebody, or respond to somebody else's attempt to initiate contact. There will likely be some back and forth before any mutual decision is reached to go on a first date. In an IVCS, the pros and cons of various candidates are going to be discussed in online fora and blogs, similarly to how they are discussed on OpenLeft. Also, you will have to decide which voting blocs to join, and furthermore (I argue), which voting bloc you will identify as your primary voting bloc. I.e., which one you are willing to commit to casting your real-world vote with. (Obviously, you can't commit to more than one voting bloc as a primary one, for a given level of voting - federal, state, or local - which is large enough to be supporting candidates which can run in opposition to another one of your voting blocs' candidates. Even mostly compatible voting blocs cannot be guaranteed to always agree on which candidate they will support.)

Now, while you could theoretically also use an IVCS system to deterministically select the candidates, based on nothing more than their policy option compatibility, it wouldn't be wise. (See my comment above.)

I've already discussed this with Nancy, and I'm pretty sure she agrees with this last point.

Other non-deterministic online processes, requiring votes and (possibly) quorums, are (in my estimation) required for determining temporary alliances with other voting blocs on a one-off basis, for a particular election; as well as necessary to allow some basic restructuring for purposes of merging with another voting bloc, on a long term basis.

As an example of the latter: Suppose you have two large voting blocs that are progressive, one of which requires that members support de-criminalization of marijuana use, and the other which makes no such requirement, even if it's the bloc's common preference. In order for the groups to merge, permanently, the members of the progressive voting bloc which demands support of de-criminalization can drop that as a 'must-have' policy option of it's members. Or, the other progressive voting bloc can vote to adopt such a requirement. (I suppose the merge votes would best be bundled with this marijuana-legalization votes. I.e., the online vote would ask a question such as "Do you support dropping marijuana-legalization as a mandated policy option for our voting bloc, and then merging with Progressive Voting Bloc B?" The details of how to handle the merge votes would be decided by the vote blocs in question.)

You will not only be able to say "I like him/her" all you want, you will be able to do so in a public forum where not just your learned discussion of Candidate's X positions will be available to a large audience, but your personal sentiments, also. Also, there's no good reason why candidates that a voting bloc are considering can 'appear before' the voting bloc for debates and discussions, both purely online. The money aspect will tend to limit how many such appearances can be arranged in traditional venues. I suppose you could simultaneously consider that a bug and a feature. It's a bug because lack of funds for travelling the state and country can and will inhibit such real-world appearances by candidates. It's also a feature because candidates can still win elections without getting financial support from corporations, the corrupting implications of which is one of the main reasons for desiring an IVCS.

================================

This is slightly off-topic, but I'd be curious to hear what people think about quorums. In a system which has lots of politically lazy people in them (doing about the minimum to participate in democracy, responsibly), they may only be willing to invest a couple of hours per year in the system. It might prove to be very hard to have respectable quorums. My guess is that an intelligent business rule for voting blocs to adopt is that at least "big" restructuring votes be confined to twice per year (say, the first two weeks of January, and the first two weeks of June), during which time there is no quorum. All voting bloc members would be informed that, if they want a say in the biggest decisions, they have to vote during those times.

Since participation during the other 48 weeks of the year could be even less, the idea of quorums may not be workable, at all.

(A bare minimum level of participation is to just cast  real worlds vote in line with the group decisions of your online, IVCS voting bloc. Even if most people participated at only that level, which would require not using the system directly, at all (vote bloc candidate selections would be emailed to members), the effect would still be revolutionary, for large-enough voting blocs.)

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 12:19:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, "Suppose you have two large voting blocs". Which one will win? (0.00 / 0)

The one with more money behind it and the better marketing campaign! Countless examples show that. And what's to be gained for democarcy from that?

And the quorums will be ruled by bullies, by money interests paying for groups of professional debaters, and by those who are most unsrupulously in manioulating the rules. We already saw this at the nimination process in some states during the campaigns. It resulted in less voters participating, in the disenfranchisement of those who are too hard pressed by making a living to participate, and of those who aren't as articulate or too frail to engage in the struggle. Horrible idea.

Oh, and btw, what about privacy?

All in all, this proposal directly leads to getting rid of lawmakers and implementing a system that is open to much more manipulation. No precedent for this anywhere, afaik. Because its nuts.

---

by: Gray @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 12:35:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unconvincing, though you point to a difficult problem (0.00 / 0)

You didn't offer much of an argument as to why money should have the same power in an IVCS driven democracy as our current dysfunctional mess:

The one with more money behind it and the better marketing campaign!

I think you've got most things wrong (except possibly "privacy", which you don't explain. IMO, lack of privacy should be a feature, not a bug. By which I mean, I'd prefer it if everybody was forced to use their real names, and all of their votes were public.)

My understanding of the great advantage of campaign cash in the current system is that it allows you to buy TV advertising. However, the online voting members of a voting bloc are most unlikely to be swayed by a bunch of 1 minute advertisements. If they were so inclined, then why bother joining a voting bloc? Because they are counting on their fellow voting bloc members to be similarly swayed by 1-minute ads? Without a preponderance of TV-ad-driven-deciders within their ranks, how can an call the shots for an IVCS voting bloc? Answer: they can't.

It's to be hoped that voting blocs provide a "smarting up" mechanism (as opposed to "dumbing down"), similar to reading good blogs like OpenLeft. The only scenario I can see where it makes sense to expect a negation of a "smarting up" mechanism is if your voting bloc is dominated by TV watchers who take 1-minute campaign ads seriously, and can't be bothered with seriously arguments. I suppose another possible scenario is if all of your voting blocs' most popular commentators are all dumb/saps/shills. Such a voting bloc would indeed tend to 'dumb down', not 'smart up', leading to poor choices of candidates.

I have to admit, this is an interesting line of inquiry to pursue, even though you specifically talked about "bullying", which is something that a shill might be paid to do.  ("Professional debaters" are presumably smart guys, no?) This reminds me of similar problems in deciding scientific debates (even absent shills). I've actually proposed a technological solution that would help 'prune' debates of disproven notions, and deprecate the writings of, ahem, less clever debaters. However, that is not designed or implemented, yet, so is of no help.

I'll have to think about this problem, which is basically this: How can voting blocs protect themselves from shills and 'unclever' posters within their ranks, who effectively dumb down the voting bloc, rather than 'smarten it up'? I accept this as a potentially serious problem, unlike most of your other concerns.

N.B.: I've also suggested "Voter Guides: Gurus, Watchers and Watchdogs" in the past, but don't want to get into this suggestion, here.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 01:47:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good points, mm. (0.00 / 0)

Well, of course I totally disagree regarding privacy, but you sure provided food for thought on the other issues.

However, excuse me pls for not answering in detail. To be totally honest (and pls don't shoot me for this!), I think the whole idea is just bad science fiction, and I'd rather invest more time into thinking about real life issues we have in Germany now. Especially that horrible GM/Opel decision...

---

by: Gray @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 19:19:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Quorums (4.00 / 1)

This gets at one of the most basic problems I have with this whole approach, which is simply that most folks aren't cut out for this kind of detail.  My proposed alternative is to using public interest polling to supplement this work.

More on this next weekend, I hope.  But basically, it means intelligent polling that fairly fairly discerns what people's preferences are.  By asking a series of questions one can readily get a degree of specificity that people would find difficult to achieve in an unstructured way, and then you can cross-check it to make sure you that you aren't merely recording an artifact of your questioning structure.

I would also point out that what I'm proposing has parallels to the original Swiss model of initiatives.  In it, the primary purpose of the process is to get the legislature to act.  Once an initiative is first passed, the legislature has a chance to write a substitute initiative.  This provides a chance for something devoid of the buried language and extreme measures that often crop up in US initiatives.  Most of the time, people approve the legislative substitute, and those who proposed the original initiative often endorse it themselves.  But if they remain dissatisfied, they can campaign against it, and for their original initiative.  IMHO, this combines the best of direct democracy with the best of representative democracy.

I'm looking for something similar here--the best of wonky passionate intensity to work out the details, and the best of popular sovereignty to ratify the basic thrust and prioritization.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 13:04:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rightly implemented, IVCS needn't be more daunting than normal voting (0.00 / 0)

At a minimum, you can just sign up, join a single voting bloc (even a single-issue single voting bloc), let the other members of the voting bloc decide who to support, and just show up for the real-world votes, armed with your email notification of your voting blocs' choices.

Your other concerns (voters with fantasy beliefs and delusional expectations) are, IMO, more on the mark. Specifically, an IVCS will empower voters, and that means empowering voters to do very stupid things. If, e.g., a majority of voters choose not to believe in global warming, then our goose is cooked. (In about 40 years, quite literally!)

Contrast that sad scenario with what we actually are doing to the planet, under the current power structure, and as far as I can tell, there's not a lot of difference. However, I frankly don't think we would have done any worse with an IVCS, even with a lot of magical thinking already going on in the populace. And, in fact, I think we would have done much better.

In a country where Rush Limbaugh is idolized by a good portion of the populace, am I 100% confident that a voter-controlled government will not make major mistakes? No, not really. But continuing on our current course is such a depressing prospect, that I much prefer putting my trust in my fellow citizens. Where they are ignorant, or selfish, I will have to help change their ways, and when I am ignorant, or selfish, I will have to depend on them to correct me.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 23:28:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to be Un-American... (4.00 / 1)

But your reference to the Swiss approach suggests a great future direction for this debate: how do other countries and communities solve these problems? What works and for what reasons? What fails and for what reasons?

This approach on health care has helped me understand that issue. Probably a practical context would help on this issue. Even if it is un-American to think other countries might have better answers. 8-)

FWIW I agree polling like the GSS is a very effective guide for debating and setting policy. Certainly GSS should be the benchmark for Nancy's system.

---

by: TSlavin @ Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 04:55:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Afaik the Swiss way of initiatives... (0.00 / 0)

...led to some horribly right wing results, based on popular prejudices. I know this is arrogant, and a sign of missing confidence in the democratic system, but the more results of initiatives I see, the more I think there's something to "vox populi, vox Rindvieh"...
|-(

---

by: Gray @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 19:23:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And this isn't totally baseless, btw. (0.00 / 0)

I know this sounds even more arrogant, but the plain truth is, the allocation of IQ in the populace is represented by a Gauss bell curve. At least 15% have an IQ of 85 or less. Well, 15% can make a wole lot of difference in every election or initiative vote! So, how can we expect to get rational votes on complicated issues if 15% don't understand what the eff we are talking about???

---

by: Gray @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 19:28:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly! Most people don't want to be burdened with poltical details... (4.00 / 1)

...and so they are happy to delegate this to someone they trust. This system, called democracy, may have its flaws, but it's still the best in the world today. Forcing everybody to be his own politician doesn't really look like somethign people want. They already have enough troubles of their own, and their life is already complicated enough with all that small print everyhwere. Plus, we see the problems with the proposition votes everyhwrre, this system favors the lobbies who can spend obscene amounts of money for phony "informations" to the public. Why make the problem even worse? Sounds nuts to me.

---

by: Gray @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 12:26:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In spite of life's complications, people join dating services (0.00 / 0)

A former boss found his wife through one, another former boss found dates. My current roomate found his current girlfriend through one. Not sure what my unmarried former boss is up to these days, but I've no doubt that my roomate will jump into online dating, again, as the need arises. A repeat customer! Sort of reminds us of an election cycle, no?

All of them spoke well of their online dating service experience. How can this be, since they all lead complicated lives, to begin with? Were they all just fibbing?

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 02:27:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Finding a partner is a very basic desire, meta! (0.00 / 0)

Finding the best policy to support, not so much. Imho that's an apples and oranges comparison. Face it, many (if not most) people just aren't into politics.  

---

by: Gray @ Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 19:57:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This Is Why I Think It's A Good Tool For Activists, Sadie (0.00 / 0)

But to engage the broader public it needs to be integrated into a larger framework with other tools, such as public interest polling.

Here's the crux of the matter for me: When people say, "I don't agree with him on everything, but I like him," the challenge is to either get him to change or to make the disagreements more coherent, and so salient that they either no longer like him, or no longer care that they like him ("He's a nice guy, but he just doesn't fight for what we need.")

This sort of goal is a big part of what guides my thinking about Nancy's proposal.  It's not that I don't want to change the world.  It's that I think you've got to look at the challenge of changing your Representative as a good indicator of how on track you may be.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 12:50:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's what I was missing. (0.00 / 0)

As a micro tool, I think I can see it. I thought it was for moving voters but moving candidates is a different angle.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Mon Nov 02, 2009 at 19:25:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]