I've often thought about this. Approaching it as an abstract for what representation is supposed to do seems intriguing. Approaching it from the perspective that representation is obsolete seems profound.
Thanks, I agree and that's exactly why I mentioned in the draft of the constitution in Article 4.2: "Reputation can influence access to specialist responsibilities, moderation, research and advisory functions, but cannot increase the weight of an individual's fundamental vote. This is to prevents a system in which the most popular or experienced citizens gradually become a new political aristocracy."
Because that's exactly what representation is nowadays in most so-called democratic countries: an expert system auto-spawning representative experts. That's the definition of aristocracy. The only way to stop this is to give equal access and equal rights to every citizen to adapt laws. The model proposed by Stack Overflow is interesting in this sense.
I imagine a server (or better, a decentralized system) hosting the ODD (the open direct democratic system) where each citizen could connect (i.e. with a phone, a tablet) and easily shape their own country's laws. Directly, with no proxies, which is what the representatives are.
But the danger of this could be the imposition of a kind of technological tyranny where a "disconnected" person would no longer have access to the shaping of laws; so it is important that, as soon as the borders of the digital world are transcended, we implement physical offices to serve as an alternative bridge between the citizen and the ODD without any need for computers or digital devices. This is precisely to ensure democratic access to the ODD because a digital-only way to go is a de facto tyranny in disguise.
Rimmer introduces direct democracy by holding endless referendums on trivial or complex matters via postal voting and televoting, which generates so much voter apathy that the populace protests against the reform. Having introduced direct democracy in a bid to gain ultimate power, Rimmer holds a last vote to 'streamline government', which would give him dictatorial powers; with the populace exhausted, the proposal passes.
1970 British satirical film directed by Kevin Billington, and starring Peter Cook, Vanessa Howard and John Cleese. It was co-written by Cook, Cleese, Graham Chapman and Billington. The film was devised and produced by David Frost
Ha ha, good point!
BUT…! Fortunately, the model proposed by Stack Overflow isn’t based on referendums! Fortunately, Stack Overflow users aren’t required to answer every question!
So I think we could set up a system that would distribute laws or legislative amendments both across the entire population (horizontal axis) and according to current trends or severity (vertical axis).
This could lead to situations where certain minor and very localized changes would affect only a very limited number of citizens who have subscribed to them: those directly affected by these changes (for example, a village), even though all citizens of the country could access this information and contribute to it.
On the opposite, a very significant change (such as a revision of the Constitution at the national level) would require broader citizen participation and would likely necessitate a referendum mechanism.
I believe I’ve observed these two mechanisms at work on Stack Overflow:
- Their default system for sorting questions, tags, and categorization could be used to target a specific segment of the user base (while remaining open to all other users).
- They also have a global voting system that sends all users an invitation to vote (for example, to elect a Stack Overflow moderator). This could serve as inspiration for a simple and accessible referendum system.
What’s interesting about the ODD is that if citizens are dissatisfied with a feature (let’s say a poorly designed referendum process has been implemented), they can simply propose redesigning it themselves, and the system would adapt accordingly.
5 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 15.9 ms ] threadBecause that's exactly what representation is nowadays in most so-called democratic countries: an expert system auto-spawning representative experts. That's the definition of aristocracy. The only way to stop this is to give equal access and equal rights to every citizen to adapt laws. The model proposed by Stack Overflow is interesting in this sense.
I imagine a server (or better, a decentralized system) hosting the ODD (the open direct democratic system) where each citizen could connect (i.e. with a phone, a tablet) and easily shape their own country's laws. Directly, with no proxies, which is what the representatives are.
But the danger of this could be the imposition of a kind of technological tyranny where a "disconnected" person would no longer have access to the shaping of laws; so it is important that, as soon as the borders of the digital world are transcended, we implement physical offices to serve as an alternative bridge between the citizen and the ODD without any need for computers or digital devices. This is precisely to ensure democratic access to the ODD because a digital-only way to go is a de facto tyranny in disguise.
So I think we could set up a system that would distribute laws or legislative amendments both across the entire population (horizontal axis) and according to current trends or severity (vertical axis).
This could lead to situations where certain minor and very localized changes would affect only a very limited number of citizens who have subscribed to them: those directly affected by these changes (for example, a village), even though all citizens of the country could access this information and contribute to it.
On the opposite, a very significant change (such as a revision of the Constitution at the national level) would require broader citizen participation and would likely necessitate a referendum mechanism.
I believe I’ve observed these two mechanisms at work on Stack Overflow:
- Their default system for sorting questions, tags, and categorization could be used to target a specific segment of the user base (while remaining open to all other users).
- They also have a global voting system that sends all users an invitation to vote (for example, to elect a Stack Overflow moderator). This could serve as inspiration for a simple and accessible referendum system.
What’s interesting about the ODD is that if citizens are dissatisfied with a feature (let’s say a poorly designed referendum process has been implemented), they can simply propose redesigning it themselves, and the system would adapt accordingly.