Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Direct Voluntary Democracy >>> Representative democracy

[/ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world this may be true (and perfection has nothing to do with technology). No individual is qualified enough in all areas to have input into the actions of the government...in fact no individual is qualified in very many of the areas where the government acts.

The purpose of a representative government isnt just to mimic the representative's constituency's opinions (or his perception of their majority opinion), it is to apply the resources of the constituency to raise the overall quality of the decisions made beyond what a group of individuals would decide. That may be through the representatives own expertise, or through networks with other experts.

Cliff notes: the whole >>> the sum of the parts

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

Tom, good start. Certainly it's impractical but I like it alot.

I'd be more for privatizing alot of the things that would likely appear on that list, but as for a more likely solution then that, I like it.

Cody

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No individual is qualified enough in all areas to have input into the actions of the government...in fact no individual is qualified in very many of the areas where the government acts.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree and that's why I'd imagine there would be groups that people could join. The difference would be that no one would be forced to be beholden to any leader that they did not want to voice their opinion. Representative Democracy wasn't choosen because it was a better absolute method for governance it was choose for praticality. Vast Distances, and slow communications. These no longer apply as technology has bridged that divide. All constituents no longer need to travel to a single location to weigh in a decision.

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of a representative government isnt just to mimic the representative's constituency's opinions (or his perception of their majority opinion), it is to apply the resources of the constituency to raise the overall quality of the decisions made beyond what a group of individuals would decide. That may be through the representatives own expertise, or through networks with other experts.

[/ QUOTE ] Hopefully that is a good byproduct of representative governance. And there are some people that agree with you that it is the intent. I personally don't accept that the quality of decisions would drop under direct democracy, or that informed persons need someone to represent them. Strength in numbers still applies, the decision would be better, since a number of different experts could represent you. For instance you could vote along with Nader on consumerism, Perot on the business of government, Reagan on foreign affairs, Google on the distribution of air frequencies, and so on. Why is it better to have only one advisory and force that same adviser on everyone else.

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This proposal has several crippling game theoretic problems. Generally, I think any voting system that incentivizes dishonest voting is a poor solution. Just about all voting systems create some incentive for dishonest voting in certain situations, but this one takes it to the extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you go into detail?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to go into detail because your example is a little unclear. For instance, how many times are people allowed to revise their ballot? Because, depending on certain variables, I'm not sure you would ever get any sort of equilibrium.

Is the voting secret? If so, it looks to me like you've basically reconstructed the prisoner's dilemma.

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world this may be true (and perfection has nothing to do with technology). No individual is qualified enough in all areas to have input into the actions of the government...in fact no individual is qualified in very many of the areas where the government acts.


[/ QUOTE ]

the question is whether or not to have competing bureaucracies and communal societies versus a monopolistic bureaucracy.

do you think your point proves that latter is greater than the former?

few people know anything about computers and tvs also, do you propose the government monopolize this service?

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...acktosleep.gif

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

Another idea would be to elect representatives to make these decisions on our behalf. We could hold them accountable through periodic elections.

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This proposal has several crippling game theoretic problems. Generally, I think any voting system that incentivizes dishonest voting is a poor solution. Just about all voting systems create some incentive for dishonest voting in certain situations, but this one takes it to the extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you go into detail?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to go into detail because your example is a little unclear. For instance, how many times are people allowed to revise their ballot? Because, depending on certain variables, I'm not sure you would ever get any sort of equilibrium.

Is the voting secret? If so, it looks to me like you've basically reconstructed the prisoner's dilemma.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except when everyone defects the program is cut. So "always defect" is a poor choice. It is 'iterated' in a fashion since he stipulated that people would get their bill and then be able to revise, so your decision to free-ride increases the cost for everyone which increases their likelihood to freeride and so on. So any freeriding feeds back and shuts down programs. Which sounds awesome.

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program

[/ QUOTE ]

how do you define social democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

A democratic state where taxes are collected and redistributed through state programs in an attempt to create a better society?

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this differ from just "democracy"?

Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world this may be true (and perfection has nothing to do with technology). No individual is qualified enough in all areas to have input into the actions of the government...in fact no individual is qualified in very many of the areas where the government acts.


[/ QUOTE ]

the question is whether or not to have competing bureaucracies and communal societies versus a monopolistic bureaucracy.

do you think your point proves that latter is greater than the former?

few people know anything about computers and tvs also, do you propose the government monopolize this service?

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly I dont have a clue as to how you got to "competing bureauocracies and communal societies" from here. I was responding to the claim that durect voluntary democracies are superior to representative democracies, which I think is clearly untrue for the reasons stated.

In your computer and TV question, no. I would suggest that those people rely on people with that expertise or "representatives" who know how to find those experts, which has nothing to do with the government. In the case of erepresentative democracy however, it is the elected who bear the responsibility to address those issues that I am incapable of providing meaningful input toward.