Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

About thirty years ago, there was a device called the Q-box. It was the first attempt at interactive TV. It was an abysmal failure. Why would anybody in 1970 want to talk back to his television?

In the early '70's I wrote a paper called A Madman's Treatise On Electronic Democracy. It postulated a true democracy where everyone voted on every issue. I had seen the Q-box and I knew it would be possible for anyone with a TV to watch debate on an issue and then electronically cast his vote.

I don't think that democracy is a particularly wise way to run any organization. You can pool ignorance as easily as you can pool wisdom. A benevolent monarchy has always been my preference, or the dictatorship of the poet. As Plato would put it: The philosopher king.

But since we profess to be a democracy, at least a representative democracy, I thought it would be interesting to see what pure electronic democracy could be. Now, with the advent of the internet, it would be possible to have pure direct democracy. Every citizen could vote on every issue with the click of his mouse.

There is a thin line between direct democracy and mob rule. Perhaps it's too thin to discern.

I wish I could find the one copy of A Madman's Treatise On Electronic Democracy that exists. But it's probably yellowed and dog-earred. That was before pristine and indestructible digital copy. But as I recall, the conclusion to the paper was that electronic democracy would result in either chaos or hopeless confusion and stagnation. Call it the political corollary of entropy.

The founding fathers of our country were very wise to establish representative democracy. Jefferson and Franklin and the rest had just witnessed what the results of mob rule were in the French Revolution.

So, A Madman's Treatise On Electronic Democracy proposed this compromise: a new electronic democracy that would maintain representatives but insure the input of all citizens.

How can we accomplish this?

There is a social theory which says that we can only know approximately 200 people in our lifetimes. I'm sure this is not a hard and fast rule but there is probably some truth in it. Think about the people that your really know. Your family, your classmates or co-workers are the ones you know. I'm not talking about people that you might recognize if you passed them on the street. I'm talking about people that you really know.

Let's call this 200 people an "A Group." These are the people that you know personally and with whom you have social or economic interaction. This would be your tribe or family. Among them ideally would be a doctor, a good car mechanic, a lawyer, a house painter, an accountant, a plumber, etc. Also there would be a representative of the group. Every one in the "A Group" would know him personally. This representative would sit in a council of 200 'A Groups." This would be called the "B Group." It would roughly correspond to city or county government. (40,000 people)

The next level would be the "C Group" and would take the place of State governments. (8 million people)

The final or national level of governmental council would be the "D Group" In the case of the United States, the "D Group" would have less than ten members. It could have up to 200 members, so, in theory, it could represent 1.6 billion people.

This form of progressive representation would spare our democracy some of its current problems. The age-old problem of State's Rights vs. Federal Rights would by ended. Municipalities would not be competing with counties and States and the Feds for tax funds. Gerrymandering would be a thing of the past, and most importantly, every citizen would feel that he is part of the process. He would have direct communication with his representative.

The success of such a system would be determined, as usual, at the grassroots. The "A Group" would be the key to it. The membership in an "A Group" would have to be voluntary and not dependent on geography. With modern communication, an "A Group" could be spread all over the world.

Maybe I'm just nuts. What do you think?

I think we were not so much supposed to be a democracy as a republic. I should do my homework, there is a difference. Have you ever heard of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. A good group of people I think, or at least they seem to do good work. Problem with the electronic democracy is the same with the Diebold voting machines. Who is going to provide the software and hardware. I think of philosopher clowns more useful than philosopher kings.

This republic thing, the electoral college for example, the power was not meant to be in the hands of the great unwashed. Those founding fathers were aristocrats in their own way. I read somewhere that the word terrorist has its roots in the French Revolution.

This topic--the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority--is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ameri ... emrep.html
What do I think?

How much does it cost

I'll buy it
D A
The time is all we've lost

I'll try it
D A
He can't even run his own life
G E
I'll be damned if he'll run mine Sunshine
A
Sunshine go away today
E
I don't feel much like dancing
A
Some man's gone he's trying to run my life
D
He don't know what he's asking

remember Johnathan Edwards?
The song writer singer not the theologian
always liked that song
I think Bush sees himself as some sort of King ruling by divine right, I think the guy is wacked, bat shit crazy. He battles agains sinister dark forces, monsters from his ID,
http://www.phenry.org/movies/movienight ... planet.php

there are no ideal schemes that work for gov't. people have invented many schemes for representarive democracy, everyone from liberals to syndicalists, but they all have problems.

in the case of you plan, the definition of A group as those whom you 'know' and the later specification as a voluntary association, are not equivalent. in any event, there is still the problems, of tyranny of the majority -- a coalition of groups can screw the others -- and externalities a group controling one area can impose costs, enviro. damage etc. on others. tho in theory A groups could be dispersed, if it is voluntaey associations, it will not be geographiclly random, which is territorially imposible anyway.

what's great about representative democracy is that it is inefficient. enlightened monarchy invariable devolve into despotism. inept government is a redeeming virtue. rejoice.

Interesting, LR. I think we all ought to be able to vote directly on the larger national issues such as war. And there should be restrictions/requirements on getting a war vote on the ballots in the first place. Let's see, what else..... I would argue that since the Supreme Court is always at risk of infection from narrow agendas which could promote 'tyranny of majority' (or minority), citizens should be able to vote on its nominees.

But the most important thing is to get our policy-making out of the corporate boardrooms and good-'ol-boy political morass. No shady "dealmaking"....pet "pork" projects tacked onto unrelated bills. State taxes should fund state programs and projects and federal taxes should be reduced and fund only federal.

There should be a clear separation of church and state written into the Constitution. Public government is about keeping the secular machinery of society running. Private churches are about religion. And there should be an amendment added to clarify amendments themselves-- what a proposed amendment can and cannot do. Amendments should never be preemptively restrictive. Amendments are about protecting civil liberties, whereas laws are about restricting them.

I think I would keep the groups geographical: city-county/state/national. There should be a basic level of public funding in each that can't be screwed around with, except by special votes requiring a strong majority.... schools, infrastructure maintenance, etc..... and new votes for special/new projects.

Anyway. Just some thoughts.