I've been considering for a long time attempting to form a political party which uses an internet based voting/discussion system to decide policies. What does everyone else think on the issue? Could it work? Woud majority rule be successful, or would we witness the tyranny of the majority?
You could create a political party with this system. But that's it. Good luck ever standing a chance in any election. You do realize that only young 20-somethings use social media politically at the moment? You would not get a single vote from old people, who vote in mass droves. I suggest you try implementing your approach to the parties that already exist in your electoral region. I think as a consultative guide, online democracy could work. But never as the ultimate policy decider of a party. Also, all parties have a policy process similar to that of create debate. They have people offer up ideas, there is a period to speak in favour or against ideas, and then, democratically, party members vote on policy. It's basically the same format as create debate, only that it happens in real life and is filled with old people.
The whole point of a political party in our system is to bring together those who support specific views/policies that are the most important to them. A party with no agenda or base, whose membership is not limited in any way will just end up representing random views based on plurality and thus not really represent any of it's members.
Good luck on your endeavor!
I like the idea, If you have success, give us a yell
I believe that "technology" such as CreateDebate could help a political party become successful. This website is a tool for people to pick apart issues and opinions. Political parties (and most large groups of people for that matter) would benefit from an improved way to communicate internally. If political party used a Rules Committee to govern use of the tool, corruption could be mitigated. I think its a great idea. I actually think its something that Ron Paul folks would really love.
I agree with using something like CreateDebate to aid a political party would help them become successful prior to their discussion would truly help them get down to business when it comes down to making any sort of decision.
I hope that something like this could work. I don't think our elected officials do a good job of representing my best interests. The Congress was formed because in that time people were uninformed about the issues that effected them, so they had to have an elected official represent them. I think that a tool like CD would work well if you could get the participation (especially the older population....my mom can hardly even check her email). I think this site can be used to make ordinary decisions as well. Something like, "Where should we go to dinner tonight" could be hashed out online instead of in tireless email threads.
I must say I think the people are even more uninformed about policies than ever before. Too much fake drama/ news that they don't bother themselves with real problems of the US/ world. Ignorance and uninformed voters are rampant.
This is the old the "grass is greener" argument. EVERY generation thinks that the decades preceding it was better, etc. It's the same stereotype that violence is increasing now more than ever before when in fact it's the opposite: Crime has fallen. People never had access to internet and learning took a long time back then. Nowadays we have the internet which can provide instant information on nearly everything. How many people read encyclopedias leisurely as they did before Wikipedia existed? Not many.
I am a bit confused by the titles that were chosen for the two choices. However as the debate went on a bit I figured out what was really being asked, or at least I think I have. I think that a political party would benefit greatly from having this sort of tool, and actively utilizing it. It would be a great way of solidifying platforms and maintaining a unified front. Because even within a party there are fairly significant disagreements on how an issue should be solved or even to what extent a topic should be addressed by government. It'd give candidates a better feel for what the voters are looking for, rather than the other way around. After all elected officials are expected to serve the constituent's agenda, not their own.
This can possibly work. But in a society where every person has his own strong oppinion. Has the guts to voice it. Has the ability to think sanely. And is independent from another persons oppinion. The democracy thing is all about it. Too bad that the ancient greeks when they invented the whole democracy thing were dividing the society into Demos and Ohlos if i am not mistaken. Those individuals that were close to the words in the beginning of my message were called Demos. And the rest of people that were just a crowd that was easy to manipulate was called Ohlos.
|
No. A political party is a group of like minded voters and politicians. A party doesn't succeed unless it has unity in ideology and approach. Create debate is the opposite of that. If you meant to ask if a electoral system like CreateDebate would work, than I'd say no. It would just be a big non secret ballot. Majority Rule, direct democracy, etc. is unconstitutional and unfair. A republic is the best system in my opinion.
No, I definately meant what I said. The traditional idea of a political party is exactly what you said, but does it always have to be that? Would people be more interested supporting a party that it knew would go ahead with policies that the majority wanted, rather than having to make up their mind about which party best matched their mindset (and, as with anyone, this means matching some of your ideas and opposing others - No one I know is completely like-minded to the party they support)? I think it's interesting to address this issue (a political party based on majority rule) rather than an electoral system.
Then you are bastardizing the concept of a political party. By definition, if a party is filled with people constantly disagreeing, rebutting, and campaigning against each other, then they are not a "party". People will already coalesce into parties based on what they already believe, and will be able to debate their views with people of opposing parties. If they are persuaded they can always switch. Within parties too, opinions can differ (but always only slightly). These issues are sorted our by nominating party leaders, which can and usually is majority rule.
"By definition, if a party is filled with people constantly disagreeing, rebutting, and campaigning against each other, then they are not a "party"." From what I hear on the news over here in the UK, that would be the Democrats. Haha. But no, I do understand what you're saying. I think you're looking at this from an extreme angle though, in that the debates would centre around completely differing views. This is certainly not always the case (especially in UK politics). The way I see it working is that it would simply give a centralised forum for people to discuss and debate potential policy, with the general consensus being the chosen policy. Obviously, I can see the eventuality of this being that a certain type of politics would emerge from within that certain party: For example, on-line republicans and on-line democrats, as it were. At this point we could be left with the same sort of political system that we have no, but with the added functionality of allowing the people to still remain in control of what that party chooses to persue as policy. A great example of this is in regards to the Iraq war. The majority of people in the Uk did not want to go to war, and I am convinced that if a system like this was put in place, war would have been avoided (regardless of whether the "party" wanted it or not). I know it's a bit of a wacky and out-there idea, but I think it is close minded to disregard it simply because it isn't the way that things are currently done. Maybe we've got it wrong at the moment? Who knows?
"I think you're looking at this from an extreme angle though, in that the debates would centre around completely differing views." If it's going to be similar to CreateDebate it will have to. You seem to be distancing yourself from your original proposition to give the idea more leverage. And the rest of what you posted was either irrelevant to CreateDebate, what you were replying to, or what your original idea was. In terms of the Iraq War, you're right about representatives not accurately representing their constituency. A CreateDebate type party would not solve this though (at any given time a party may be misrepresenting 49.9% of it's constituency too). For the party to be elected they would have had to came to a majority rule decision my then. So, if anyone descents from the decision to go to war, they are staying in a party they disagree with (illogical and inefficient). If they change to another "create debate" party, then they will likely be entering the same situation only with different people. More practically, they should just vote "No" on a direct vote ballot, instead of voting "No" for a party platform, which will go on from there to say "yes" or "no" depending on the majority and potentially leaving your vote uncounted. Which brings me to my second point. A party is only a party if there exists opposition. If there isn't more than 1 party then the "party" really is just the general population, and the notion of party becomes a redundancy. If createdebate party's actually existed, in theory and in your own words, they would be bickering and disagreeing like me and you are now. So, if party's are made up of views which don't reconcile, then how would one go about making 2 party's in the first place? It would be 2 random samplings of disagreeing people, that, if they ever did come to 2 different decision, would just be a reflection of what we have right now: Party's delineated by policy and ideology. I must reiterate my first point too, which you responded to with a joke. That party's must consist of relatively like minded adults in ideology and policy for it to be a party. This is not a matter of "the way things are currently done." It is a matter of definition. Also, I still think you meant "electoral system" instead of "Political party system." At least that would make most sense with all you have said so far.
You are correct only by assuming that the members can't come, via constant and informed debate, to a consensus opinion. There's no reason you can't have more than one party using the system. Each could list there core beliefs, then debates would evolve around issues using those beliefs as guidance. I think the idea rocks. In fact it was my suggestion.
Indeedy Doodie (Heh, I said doodie). You are the brainchild of online politics.
I would be nice, but the public would find it hard to make decisions against them, eg.tax increases. Also, all the old pensioners that don't have computers would complain and bitch about how they don't have one and/or don't know how to use one
1. The people that don't understand taxes probably wouldn't bother with voting in that area. 2. The old pensioners are the people that got us into this mess in the first place. 3. There's access to computers everywhere and if something like this were to be implemented, even more places, "voting terminals" if you will, would pop up everywhere there wasn't one yet.
A group with this sort of system would be abused through the process of entryism. Every radical and other party member would hijack the group through mass voting systems like this, and pass the agendas they want, even when most of the party has disagreement with the issue. Additionally, until everyone moves online, it's difficult to make a party that's truly representative since many older people do not browse the internet and thus miss their opportunity to contribute to the policy process. If you could actually get all party members to use the site, and you could ensure those who voted were only members of the party you created. Then yes, a system like createdebate could work. But you will never get those conditions to be met. Good idea on paper though.
The sad reality is that the majority of people are stupid and don't know what is good for them.
|
