Today, I'm submitting an idea that has been growing in the back of my mind for some time. The American political system is broken, and it's high time we apply our hacker creativity and startup ingenuity to reverse the rising tide of ignorance and apathy that threatens to sweep away any remaining semblance of informed, rational political discourse in the United States.
The Simplevote website doesn't explain many of the details; I'm still working those out. There are a myriad of potential objections and pitfalls; some of them are easily mitigated, some less so. Please ask questions and point out shortcomings in this idea; feel equally free to suggest solutions.
I'm an entrepreneur and web developer by expertise; I'm currently the founder of InQuickER, which was discussed here a few months ago. Ultimately, I may not be the person to spearhead this concept and push it forward over the next couple of years, and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, I think it's time for this idea to become reality, and I can't help but commit my time and money to getting the idea off the ground.
How can you hope to change democracy with only 1 member out of 435?
Aren't US Representatives supposed to represent their district, not the country as a whole? Why would voters in a district vote to reduce their representation?
This sounds a bit like Jury Team, which fought the recent European elections in the UK and came 14th, gaining no seats.
Excellent questions. Yes, 1 member out of 435 is a drop in the bucket - the goal would not be to control the congress, but to give people a reason to care about the issues, and a reason to engage in discussion and debate that encompasses all sides of an issue, rather than gravitating to radical punditry and entrusting the entire decision-making process to politicians.
A friend derisively described this idea as "American Idol for democracy", and that rings somewhat true, but is it a bad thing? Wouldn't it be a good thing if the average American knew as much about the current goings-on in congress as they already know about the current goings-on in American Idol?
although you need to make a way so that only the constituents get to vote. Senators/Reps are there to represent their state/district, not the overall U.S. population
And since the thing will be online, you don't know whether foreigners are screwing the polls
Good point. Members of congress are supposed to represent their voting district; unfortunately, this has fallen by the wayside, and now each member of congress represents a party, an army of campaign contributors and lobbyists, a set of political ambitions, and occasionally the people of the district as well.
I covet a congressperson who never acts based on future political ambitions or campaign contributions; it seems like this is a backhanded way to accomplish that goal.
Frankly having a congressperson who represented the US population, would be a step up from one who represents their campaign contributors/lobbyists/etc...
(yes, I'm aware that the demographic of people who are online will skew the results, and that actually I probably DON'T want individual citizens voting on every issue (I don't trust folks to be well informed or intelligent) but this would be a good step forward, imho)
It's a good idea: You're competing against "traditional" congressmen by providing an enhanced service. You may force other representatives to offer more transparency to compete against votesimple: Even if votesimple loses a race, that would still lead to a win-win situation.
Exactly! Transparency is key. Our current legislative system is a convoluted mess that violates all sorts of principles of good design. For instance: The often-repeated of packing a bill with unrelated provisions to pick up additional support is positively ridiculous, and leads to inefficient government by design. I believe this would improve if citizens had a better opportunity and incentive to know and care what's going on in congress.
I think it's one hell of an experiment, but in all honesty I don't wish you luck. When it comes to many things having to do with politics - and the clusterfuck that is California in the wake of their ballot initiative system is the prime example - people are dumb.
For lack of a better word, legislating is hard work. It's complex, it involves a lot of details about things that most people have no idea about, and it often involves putting the good of he few about the good of the individual. Congresspeople have an entire staff devoted to leaning about bills and telling their bosses how to vote - do we as individuals have enough time and knowledge to make a meaningful contribution?
You might also consider that if you're trying to represent the views of "everyday Americans," they're not (in general) the kind of people who will spend a few hours honestly and impartially considering the pros and cons of a bill in Congress and then coming to a reasoned decision. The vast majority of the people you'd get participating would be either political geeks who would talk forever, or drop-in participants who are only there because the NRA/NARAL listed you in a partisan mail shot.
I also wonder how you would deal with the speed of Congress - while most things are scheduled, it's rare to have much lead-time when dealing with floor amendments or things coming out of Committee. You'd also - especially in the House - need a solid educational component to explain what's being voted on (why is a vote on a Rule important and what does it impact, etc.).
I think the system is somewhat broken, but I don't think this is the way to fix it. Direct democracy works in very few places - Switzerland is the closest to the ideal you're presenting, I think - and those have very long participatory democratic traditions, and a high level of civic involvement. For the most part, it ends up with places having a huge number of specific budgetary requirements that are good in individuality, but when taken together hamstring the place from working (and make it issue IOUs).
Lastly, the minute you start dealing with any money, talk to a lawyer who does FEC stuff. Campaign finance is complex, and you (being pretty much anyone who doesn't specialize in it) almost certainly don't understand it well enough.
Like I said, I don't wish your idea luck, but I hope it doesn't fail for simple regulatory reasons.
This is an excellent point: Simple majority rule is dangerous, and California is a perfect example. That's why we're not aiming to take over congress; Votesimple is designed to be a minority third party that happens to represent the interests of the American people directly.
If congress was 60% Votesimple, 20% Democratic, and 20% Republican, that would be bad. But what if congress was 2% Votesimple, 49% Democratic, and 49% Republican?
I think it's one hell of an experiment, but in all honesty I don't wish you luck. When it comes to many things having to do with politics - and the clusterfuck that is California in the wake of their ballot initiative system is the prime example - people are dumb.
The clusterfuck in California proves that the Government is dumb. People did the right thing voting down on more taxes. California is already among the most highly taxed states. More taxes would damage the economy even more and would only extend the agony of the government.
The government has to shrink and cut expenses instead of wasting and taxing all the way to hell. People voted on letting the government go broke instead of going broke with government.
I would love to have a third party in the US Congress! However, a more traditional third party in congress is probably pretty much impossible, thanks to Duverger's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law).
My hope is that this idea is off-the-wall enough to circumvent the forces that keep America firmly entrenched in the two-party system.
"Americans can read, analyze, discuss, and vote on each bill that comes before congress." What about the cases where the full text of the bill is not made public until like 2 hours before the vote?
Even if it was up 48 hours before the vote, how many people are even able to understand 400 pages of legalese with amendments and appendices?
Bottom line is: Who is going to explain to constituents that the "Blue Skies Bill" is actually bad for the environment? Some Congressman may just be serving Big Oil, but at least they usually understand what it is they're voting on.
This is a perfect example of why Votesimple (or something similar) is necessary! Americans should be up in arms over the opaque, back-room nature of our legislative process.
We can easily design a system that results in a "no" vote on last-minute legislation, and in the meantime, I believe the public backlash for last-minute legislation would be much worse with a system like Votesimple in place. Net effect: more transparency in congress.
Running elections is hard, but it's getting easier. If web, phone, and (limited/proxied) snail mail voting mechanisms were in place, we could reach out to far more Americans than a traditional congressperson ever does.
You need to appear extraordinarily legitimate. On the website you need to refer to backers. As is, this scares me. If I had an agenda, I would pay India and a proxy to setup accounts and vote, vote, vote.
Simple is good, especially for marketing purposes, but complexity can be good too.
Good point. Votesimple has gone as far as it can go on an after-hours shoestring; to take the next steps (backers, detailed plans, some fundraising) I need to start dedicating a significant amount of time and money to the project.
> In 2010, votesimple will run for one congressional seat in one district in the United States. If elected, we will establish a website where all Americans can read, analyze, discuss, ... each bill that comes before congress.
Cool.
> ... and vote on .... If the American people vote "yes" on a bill, our congressional representative will vote yes; if they vote "no", our congressional representative will vote no.
Not so cool. There are good reasons for having a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct one. I'd prefer not to head in that direction.
28 comments
[ 9.4 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadToday, I'm submitting an idea that has been growing in the back of my mind for some time. The American political system is broken, and it's high time we apply our hacker creativity and startup ingenuity to reverse the rising tide of ignorance and apathy that threatens to sweep away any remaining semblance of informed, rational political discourse in the United States.
The Simplevote website doesn't explain many of the details; I'm still working those out. There are a myriad of potential objections and pitfalls; some of them are easily mitigated, some less so. Please ask questions and point out shortcomings in this idea; feel equally free to suggest solutions.
I'm an entrepreneur and web developer by expertise; I'm currently the founder of InQuickER, which was discussed here a few months ago. Ultimately, I may not be the person to spearhead this concept and push it forward over the next couple of years, and I'm perfectly fine with that. However, I think it's time for this idea to become reality, and I can't help but commit my time and money to getting the idea off the ground.
What do you think of this?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Condorcet_met...
Aren't US Representatives supposed to represent their district, not the country as a whole? Why would voters in a district vote to reduce their representation?
This sounds a bit like Jury Team, which fought the recent European elections in the UK and came 14th, gaining no seats.
A friend derisively described this idea as "American Idol for democracy", and that rings somewhat true, but is it a bad thing? Wouldn't it be a good thing if the average American knew as much about the current goings-on in congress as they already know about the current goings-on in American Idol?
although you need to make a way so that only the constituents get to vote. Senators/Reps are there to represent their state/district, not the overall U.S. population
And since the thing will be online, you don't know whether foreigners are screwing the polls
I covet a congressperson who never acts based on future political ambitions or campaign contributions; it seems like this is a backhanded way to accomplish that goal.
(yes, I'm aware that the demographic of people who are online will skew the results, and that actually I probably DON'T want individual citizens voting on every issue (I don't trust folks to be well informed or intelligent) but this would be a good step forward, imho)
For lack of a better word, legislating is hard work. It's complex, it involves a lot of details about things that most people have no idea about, and it often involves putting the good of he few about the good of the individual. Congresspeople have an entire staff devoted to leaning about bills and telling their bosses how to vote - do we as individuals have enough time and knowledge to make a meaningful contribution?
You might also consider that if you're trying to represent the views of "everyday Americans," they're not (in general) the kind of people who will spend a few hours honestly and impartially considering the pros and cons of a bill in Congress and then coming to a reasoned decision. The vast majority of the people you'd get participating would be either political geeks who would talk forever, or drop-in participants who are only there because the NRA/NARAL listed you in a partisan mail shot.
I also wonder how you would deal with the speed of Congress - while most things are scheduled, it's rare to have much lead-time when dealing with floor amendments or things coming out of Committee. You'd also - especially in the House - need a solid educational component to explain what's being voted on (why is a vote on a Rule important and what does it impact, etc.).
I think the system is somewhat broken, but I don't think this is the way to fix it. Direct democracy works in very few places - Switzerland is the closest to the ideal you're presenting, I think - and those have very long participatory democratic traditions, and a high level of civic involvement. For the most part, it ends up with places having a huge number of specific budgetary requirements that are good in individuality, but when taken together hamstring the place from working (and make it issue IOUs).
Lastly, the minute you start dealing with any money, talk to a lawyer who does FEC stuff. Campaign finance is complex, and you (being pretty much anyone who doesn't specialize in it) almost certainly don't understand it well enough.
Like I said, I don't wish your idea luck, but I hope it doesn't fail for simple regulatory reasons.
If congress was 60% Votesimple, 20% Democratic, and 20% Republican, that would be bad. But what if congress was 2% Votesimple, 49% Democratic, and 49% Republican?
The clusterfuck in California proves that the Government is dumb. People did the right thing voting down on more taxes. California is already among the most highly taxed states. More taxes would damage the economy even more and would only extend the agony of the government.
The government has to shrink and cut expenses instead of wasting and taxing all the way to hell. People voted on letting the government go broke instead of going broke with government.
My hope is that this idea is off-the-wall enough to circumvent the forces that keep America firmly entrenched in the two-party system.
Bottom line is: Who is going to explain to constituents that the "Blue Skies Bill" is actually bad for the environment? Some Congressman may just be serving Big Oil, but at least they usually understand what it is they're voting on.
We can easily design a system that results in a "no" vote on last-minute legislation, and in the meantime, I believe the public backlash for last-minute legislation would be much worse with a system like Votesimple in place. Net effect: more transparency in congress.
Running elections is hard -- you want to do it for each bill?
Simple is good, especially for marketing purposes, but complexity can be good too.
Cool.
> ... and vote on .... If the American people vote "yes" on a bill, our congressional representative will vote yes; if they vote "no", our congressional representative will vote no.
Not so cool. There are good reasons for having a representative democracy, as opposed to a direct one. I'd prefer not to head in that direction.