In the age of the internet, imagine a full incorporation of government with the web. We could truly govern ourselves. No more need to vote for representatives who actually represent corporations, instead we can vote for issues ourselves. Instead of having elected officials create laws to be voted on, we could use an "open source" system for law creation like github. Programming is very much law writing for computers, so why couldn't we take something similar and apply it to our laws? We could use an app for our telephones or whatever for voting. We are entering the age of the "Internet of Things," where every device we use is connected to the internet. An app on any device for voting is more than possible. This opens up the possibility of hacking and voter fraud. For hacking, spreading out the data amongst several different servers and servernets requiring the would-be "hackers" to hack several different servers at the exact same time would make "hacking" the vote virtually impossible. For voter fraud, as we enter the IoT (internet of things) we will see ourselves being a part of this internet, becoming incorporated to the web. This brings up several fears of each person being "hackable," a legitimate fear, but operating systems that are not capable of being infected with viruses do exist. Moving beyond that point, computers use binary to operate. Our DNA is written in "quadrinary." Think of binary as each digit, or switch, having two states, on or off; "1," or "0." In quadrinary, each switch would have four states. We are using "CRISPR," to research modifying DNA. As we learn more and more about how DNA is written, we will be able to apply that to our technology, more specifically, our computers. With the cryptography of a quadrinary system, we could further perfect the encryption, making it impossible to hack.
Open Source government
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Sounds great but the priests and politicians would never support that.
Government is a social construct.
There's a simpler, less intrusive way. We simply replace congressional elections with a system similar to jury selection (AKA "sortition" en.wikipedia.org
Because it's a random sampling of the population, it's guaranteed to proportionally match sentiments of average Americans. You also have a vetting process like in jury selection to weed out bad candidates. Oligarchy solved.
Or you could just use quantum encryption.
social constructs are a social construct
Look at the election in America and pretend it'd be a good idea for the people to govern themselves without representatives.
Representative democracy is designed to protect the nation's laws and policies from the ignorance of its people. Now, the politicians may not be smarter than you are, but they're smarter than a lot of their voters. I'd rather that the mouth breather was represented by someone with an average intelligence rather than by themselves. After the fact, a smarter person's word is more likely to have sway over that politician than an uninformed hick's.
The representatives are a filter that keeps the majority from making laws for the whole. If you really believe yourself to be smarter than average, you will be a person who's right when the majority is wrong. You would be a minority, and the laws would overwhelmingly reflect the views of people who are less informed than you just because they make up more than 50% of the people. That's why, a long time ago, people figured that a direct democracy is a bad idea. There needs to be a level of wisdom in the people who make the law of the land.
Total Democracy is bad. Guess what you'll always end up with? Some sort of godawful Christian Socialist coalition, because those are the two groups that vote. Imagine if Utah and Vermont were exclusively in charge of the US. It'd be exactly what it is now, except the only debates would be on abortion and gay marriage.
Republicanism allows technocracy to exist, and checks the power of the mob (religious fanatics on the right, marxists on the left). The American system isn't perfect, but that's the point of it. It forces shrewd compromise.
That "vetting process" is a major fault, much like publicly recorded votes are. You are 100% asking for all the "vetters" to be bought out and the only vetted people to be friends of established interests. Like it was before secret ballots.
>Because it's a random sampling of the population, it's guaranteed to proportionally match sentiments of average Americans.
But that's wrong.
Yep that is exactly how it should be in my opinion. Everyone is just registered for an open source app that we can all use to vote on any topic.
"Easy" to make secure as well with a blockchain.
What happens when I decide that you're not smart enough govern yourself, but I am?
>we could use an "open source" system for law creation like github
You have no fucking idea how github works. Each repo has "core" of people who hold absolute power of the repo. Those are usually the owners.
As if anyone who says what he did doesn't realize that already, they're just a few steps ahead of you, because:
>Other people already are governing people that actually understand what's going on enough to make meaningful choices.
I'd trade away the tyranny of an ignorant majority in an instant.
Just make lobbying illegal with punishment being death.
BAM
You become a politician :^)
It's not that certain people shouldn't govern themselves. If you wanna do dumb shit, that's your choice. The problem comes with those people making the laws for everyone else. Just because they can govern themselves doesn't mean that they should govern you.
explain it better
... obviously votes would be weighted on your digital footprint
The US democratic primary was riddled with voting booth closings, polling machines glitching out of commission, and the distribution of voting forms that wound up not being counted. In the end, they kept the skewed results, resulting in Hillary Clinton getting the nomination by a margin that didn't reflect the polls taken beforehand. Voting booths closed down in Bernie's districts which inhibited voter turnout at the remaining booths with long lines, a large portion of the glitches detected were switching Bernie votes with Hillary votes, and the uncounted ballots were directed to be distributed to people registered as independents voters which were a strong supporting demographic for Sanders.
The voting system could be done better, especially with current technology.
That's called anarchism, m8
It wouldn't be any more trustworthy. People trust paper and pen. When they don't know whats going on inside the machine they won't trust it to record their vote properly anyways.
> priests would never support that.
> godawful Christian Socialist coalition
> religious fanatics on the right
Atheifag troll detected.
I hate to burst your fantasy, but the Supreme Court justices who approved gay marriage? 6 Catholics, 3 Jews.
If there was a direct democracy instead of a Supreme Court, do you believe that gay marriage would have ever been approved? Civil rights? Immigration in any form?
>quadrinary
you've been beaten to the punch, hot stuff
enter BUSCO QUADNARY: youtube.com
what are you gonna use your wildcard dimension for? i think i'll use mine for porn
Lobbying is objectively good though.
Politicians are usually lawyers or poly-sci educates, and have no clue how different business sectors operate. Lobbyists are there to make sure politicians don't royally fuck up the economy by screwing over important business sectors.
The problems arise when the businesses lobbying don't have a vested interest in the success of the country's overall economy.
If any restrictions need to be placed, it's on the multi-nationals.
>but operating systems that are not capable of being infected with viruses do exist
[citation needed]
Oh my.
>he fell for the direct democracy meme
Enjoy total randomness over every results of every vote, except for the xenophobe ones
This basically. Look at what happened in the UK with the Brexit. Most leaders told the people it's a bad thing, economists warned it's gonna fuck up the economy, businesses warned it's gonna fuck up businesses, scientists warned it's gonna fuck up science, etc. Yet, most people still still for 'leave' because "dem immegrents".
>muh multi-nationals boogeyman
Having a democratic vote for each and every governmental decision would lead to some very bad decisions. Can you really expect the electorate to understand the complex factors behind every decision? That's why we appoint representatives with similar political leanings, who can devote all their time to understanding these issues and voting in the best interests of the people. Obviously there are many problems with this system too, but I think that it's better than complete democracy.
I agree that 99.9% of voters (including me) don't understand economics well enough to make an informed decision on Brexit, but I voted Leave and am still happy with my decision. The EU was taking more and more powers from national governments because the end goal was for a federal superstate with one European army. The EU officials had little or no democratic accountability, and we already saw how that deal was being exploited with deals like TTIP being done in secret.
And you poke fun at the immigration issue, but the reality is that having 300,000 net migration per year (the size of a city) is hugely unsustainable and drives down wages for the working-class - any problems it solves now will only be exacerbated in the future. If we cannot control the levels of migration, we cannot ensure that our infrastructure can handle it (and with growing strains on public services, it looks like we can't). That's not even to mention the concerns people have about the threat of terrorism, and the effect on 'traditional' British culture. If we have to take a hit to the economy and to science funding, it's a price that many people were willing to pay. That said, I don't actually think levels of immigration will change at all - the globalists are too powerful, and any post-Brexit solution which doesn't fuck up the economy even further will involve the free movement of people.
You're kinda contradicting yourself. You want to have the representatives, who as you stated devote their time to understanding these issues, and I assume you do not. Yet you condemn all their decision and actions.
Not necessarily, many of the elected political representatives were pro-Brexit. The government listened to a grassroots eurosceptic movement and allowed a referendum (obviously not completely out of the goodness of their heart, it turned out to be a pretty bad gamble).
>Having a democratic vote for each and every governmental decision would lead to some very bad decisions
>implying our current governments make good decisions ever
>>implying our current governments make good decisions ever
>implying our current governments make good decisions ever
Come on, that's just edgy 18 year old meaningless shit. Obviously the current government makes many good decisions, and some bad ones too.
>If there was a direct democracy instead of a Supreme Court, do you believe that gay marriage would have ever been approved? Civil rights? Immigration in any form?
If it's only taking you 0.5 secs and two thumb movements, yes.
This is a good idea, on paper. Terrible in practice. The majority of the population simply don't know what's good for them, as they're not learned in the topics at hand.
It's actually pretty much the literal attitude of our founding fathers. There's a reason our government is as inefficient as possible