When Democratic ideology was first applied to large governments, it was not deemed logistically feasibile to let everyone vote on everything--and perhaps not advsieable as we don't all have time to pay attention, and we typically ask our smartest friends for advice on things.


TODAY, we still have our REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. Granted, we don't elected our smartest friends, because voting is done through parties, so we elected the whitest people we can find who went to Harvard or Yale or wherever.



NOW...

My question is this, due to the internet, C-SPAN, or other yet to be created forums on current technology, is it possible to open up the democracy.


We debate the issues on these chatrooms like cats do on the floor of congress.

It's possible to do online voting.


Have we created the technology for full-democracy?

>NOW...
>
>My question is this, due to
>the internet, C-SPAN, or other
>yet to be created forums
>on current technology, is it
>possible to open up the
>democracy.

Do you mean let more people in on how politics works?
Educating the masses?

It is unclear to me what benefit you would gain from this?

Case in point, you ever been to a comic book convention or a anime club meeting, or any gathering of smart folks who know their stuff? Nothing gets done. People can't decide on language, nuances, what to eat for lunch?

The alternative is to let the smart people handle it, and obviously they ain't doing a good job either.

Look at nations where folks are vigorous voters, or places with multi party systems, or highly educated literate societies. In many ways their political life is not better. Instead of tyranny of the aristocrats, you get a far more encompassing tyranny of the majority. Which then puts the power back into the hands of the information providers.

Which is where we are now.

I think the more I think about democracy, the more I lose faith in it.

k. orr

>My question is this, due to
>the internet, C-SPAN, or other
>yet to be created forums
>on current technology, is it
>possible to open up the
>democracy.

perhaps...but this would put a large responsibility to inform themselves. i'm not sure if folk are ready for that (i mean, i'm not sure folk would take it)

>It's possible to do online voting.

As a computer scientist, i think this has too much potential for tampering.

>Have we created the technology for
>full-democracy?

the technology MIGHT exist, but folks these days can't be counted on to watch the news, so regardless of the availability of information (which is debatable because not everyone has cable or the 'net or access to either) we still have apathy and folk who are willing to just vote on the party based on tradition despite the lack of real defining differences.

------QUOTE STARTS HERE------
BooDaah-OkayActivist Moderator
** PLEASE READ THE POSTING GUIDELINES:
http://www.okayplayer.com/guidelines.html

(no, i don't work in the office)

-----------------------------
Sister SheRise's Activist Stew Recipe:
Step1:inform yourself step/Step2:inform others/Step3:discuss the problem/Step4: DISCUSS SOLUTIONS/Step5:EXECUTE SOLUTIONS/Step6:evaluate the results/Step7:start over at 1 until desired result is accomplished.
-----------------------------

>We debate the issues on these
>chatrooms like cats do on
>the floor of congress.

still get 'stars' and the same cats that manipulate words even more seductively when they've had (thinking) time to type.

>It's possible to do online voting.

see boodaah's reply - how secure can it be when a single group can bypass sht then bomb it.

>Have we created the technology for full-democracy?

same as with posts, same sexy stuff will keep get the hits/attention and get debated repeatedly while interesting issues surface only sporadically and sink soon after.
______________________________________

seize your time! - marley/wailers

sometimes I believe the hype, man - ice cube

For instance? What posts have died without adequate attention or commentary?

peace
k. orr

>For instance? What posts have died
>without adequate attention or commentary?

alright, you've got me because I haven't been in here a lot of late..but I'm sure more than a few of your own posts only get a couple of hits. is that because you didn't word yourself right to get people to do more than read (apathy) or because the issue you were addressing was seemingly only interesting to yourself..but I guess posts don't so much sink as get soggy - activist board mostly moves sluggishly.
______________________________________

seize your time! - marley/wailers

sometimes I believe the hype, man - ice cube

>alright, you've got me because I
>haven't been in here a
>lot of late..but I'm sure
>more than a few of
>your own posts only get
>a couple of hits.

It's mainly cause folks don't recognize your name, as opposed to the content in your messages. I get plenty of responses in other spots cause other readers know my name. I am much more "accepted" in those communities, so the dialogue and conversation is there. Here you also have folks that are well established and always have folks reading their posts, Janey for instance. I always check for hers(as well as a whole lot of other cats that regularly post, but I forget names) Illosopher and Expertise also have a lot of recognition, because they are major characters on the board, even though few if any cats check for them.
This discussion board doesn't get a whole lot of attention. and since so many of us are like minded, there is really not a whole lot to debate and discuss. But this is like my slashdot for activists. Folks will put news here that I am interested in, and talk about them. Somethings don't get a lot of comments cause there is not much to say about them, other than word I agree, thanks for the info.

is
>that because you didn't word
>yourself right to get people
>to do more than read
>(apathy)

That's part of being an activist though. If I don't know how to get folks to click on a link, how can I expect them to rally around a flag or a cause?

or because the issue
>you were addressing was seemingly
>only interesting to yourself..but I
>guess posts don't so much
>sink as get soggy -
>activist board mostly moves sluggishly.

no doubt.

k. orr

I always check
>for hers(as well as a
>whole lot of other cats
>that regularly post, but I
>forget names) Illosopher and Expertise
>also have a lot of
>recognition, because they are major
>characters on the board, even
>though few if any cats
>check for them.

Blah. People know me but decline to respond do so because they know I am a distinguished Nader hater. I'll always have something interesting to say, but the most they can respond with can be paraphrased "Oh, to hell with him, he's a right-wing nut.".

Anyways, lemme go ahead and get started on the rest of these threads I've been neglecting. I heard people have missed me. :-)

agreed - that's what I meant in my original post, people's names become recognised like stars do..but that has a root too, using your examples it's like a question of extremes.

feel like janey's posts rub folks the right way because they tend to very lucid and inclusive, you know? you feel like you're adding something.

illosopher or expertise get the hits from posting against the grain and rubbing folks the wrong way..might put yourself somewhere between.

but you get a sense of posters that are open-minded even as they're opening minds..and those that are opening a closed shop, that can only be broken into.

guess this is real in a sense..but then I'm speaking specifically on okayplayer, it's the only discussion board I've been on with any sort of regularity.
______________________________________

seize your time! - marley/wailers

you're better off being a nerd - phesto/souls of mischief

Yes. Actually it has for decades now with the innovations of world-wide broadcasting. The fact that you can gain information on the other side of the world within a matter of minutes has revolutionized the world far more than the internet has. Television MADE the 60's, believe me.

The question actually should be, will people care?

Because lets be realistic: People collectively aren't interested in politics. They aren't interested in tonite's debates. They don't care about who's their representatives in their district, nor in their state legislature. Therefore, the real question isn't do they have a chance to take active participation in the process. They already have that. The question is how to get them interested in doing so. That I believe is harder than providing the opportunities.

Then the second question is, "How are you to make sure that they recieve is fact and not proporganda?" That's a blurry line.

I say it's impossible for both cases, especially the second question. That's why I am against democracy.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other." -Voltaire

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

I work as an employment counsellor with the big bad 'ole guvment up here in Canada. I deal with people on income assistance, help them with upgrading, career planning, training etc.....
I would say the majority of them--and I'm talking a wide range of age groups--have little to no knowledge of computers.
It could be a lack of access to equipment, lack of training, learning disability...perhaps a variety of reasons?
BUT, there are a lot of people out there who are standing at the side of the "information super hi-way" trying to hitch a ride!(sorry that was bad).
Heck I know people that don't even HAVE a bank card?And these people have bank accounts!They are simply not interested, or are intimidated by technology.

Then again, the world changes so quickly...its probably only a matter of time.

But, if you are talking about doing away with politicians and instigating some sort of computer-based system overthrow--well then
Viva la Revolution!!Count me in.