Direct Democracy through the Internet?
Debate: Do you think the Internet could be used to create a direct democracy in the United States?
Support your response with a clear explanation and relevant examples for evidence. In your explanation, discuss specific benefits and/or drawbacks and how they can be addressed. After posting, read through your classmates' opinions and respond to a student who shared a different point of view. Did their explanation change your mind? Do you agree with any of the points they made? Can you question or refute something they said?
Democracy is not electing a leader every four years, democracy is having a say in key issues. Facebook, Twitter and other social media forms allow people to have their say with relative ease. There is always the threat of hacking, but with proper protection, the is absolutely nothing to worry about.
It is time that democracy has evolved. Look at the Arab Spring.
Internet Democracy (Sourced Wikipedia Article) (en.wikipedia.org)
I agree with you, to an extent. I would argue that social media in the United States is not as influential as it was during the Arab Spring. Countries that were influenced by the Arab Spring were countries that have experienced oppressive forms of government, unlike the United States.
I believe we could have a direct democracy through the internet. The reason why I believe that is because we can t talk to each other and have a discussion to each other just like we do in class on the internet. I also believe we can because people already have direct democracies on the internet. It might not be about politics but you can have a direct democracy about anything. I feel that we can get the same out of a direct democracy on the internet as the same we get out of in a class democracy.
I don't think that the internet should be used for a direct democracy. I believe this for a couple reasons and the first one being not everyone has access to the internet and having a direct democracy where everyone has and should have say where people do it over the internet, it would be hard to get everyone involved. Another reason, on the internet, people are behind a computer and others cant see their face so they are more likely to just do whatever they want because they won't feel the consequences behind it as much. There are also people on the internet called "trolls" who are on the internet to mess with people or purposefully mess stuff up so that it's not fair. Hackers are another big issue, hacker would easily be able to hack the system and change everything to however they want it and could rig elections and other stuff. There are just too many of these people that we meet on the internet now that if we did use a direct democracy with the internet that it would just be a big mess and be almost impossible for anything to get done correctly. There are also other factors like spam that would make it difficult but I won't go into those. I think that there an be a way to deal with these problems or at least somewhat help. First, we could a really good security system in which hackers won't be able to get into the system and completely destroy anything. A way that might get rid of the trolls and the people who don't feel the consequences of their bad decisions, we could have everyone take a survey and if it seems bad in anyway they won't be able to do anything for the direct democracy because they over extended their rights, and this would also help weed out the stupid people not to be mean or anything. One way to help everyone get involved is to make sure everyone has access to internet, this might have cost issues but it would help resolve the issue of not everyone getting involved. So in conclusion, I believe that a direct democracy through the internet is POSSIBLE but unlikely because of all the factors that would make it extremely difficult and cause problems.
Agreed, there are way too many chaotic factors that go into something like this. Take for example the group Anonymous. Anonymous is a very dangerous group of hackers that have attacked and threatened a lot of online organizations, one of which was the Pentagon. They have also threatened to destroy Facebook before. We should definitely stay away from the Internet if we were to do something like this.
I don't think that direct democracy would work, however, representative might work. People could directly vote for someone to represent them over the Internet, and then those representatives could all get together online somewhere (or in person as well) so that the result wouldn't be quite as botched if they were actually done directly. I feel like this would be a better solution than everybody directly voting for who they please.
no. too many things could go wrong. if someone disabled the internet to a highly populated region, that would greatly effect the outcome of voting, and even other events. it would be much easier for someone to disrupt things from anywhere in the world, where as someone going in and destroying secure, tangible documents is harder because they have to be right there. so no to online government.
I do not believe that any form of government should be done through the internet. I believe that there are some things that can be changed to being done on the internet but not something as big as Direct Democracy. I think that dealing with government should always have to be done in a direct manor or face to face.
I support some of your ideas, stokereb, but see a lot of potential in using the Internet to connect groups of people in ways that support the democratic process. We can increase participation through the convenience of voting directly through the Internet. We can get an "app" for that. We can participate in the democratic process on one chrome tab while watching cat videos on another! We can be more engaged than we ever thought possible through this type of participation and it will only get better through greater access among American citizens.
Hackers, cheats, and trolls can be handled and are a minor bump in the road to greater access to democracy!
I don't believe we should have democracy through the internet because I feel like there would be a lot of doubt on whether people actually voting are real or they could use fake names and end up getting someone else in trouble. Also the fact that the internet is a dangerous place and to do voting online I believe could very much falsify elections.
A Direct Democracy could be established through the use of the Internet, with the proper internet security, and monitoring. Having secure online polls/forums which could be easily accesible to the public. A place where people could share feelings, and debate, and vote nationally. Today Everything has turned electronic, nearly everyone has access to Internet. I feel it would promote participation, allowing people to have easy access from home, or a even a library.
The idea of using the Internet for direct democracy has more holes than a Michael Bay movie. The first and most important of these is that direct democracy is not a goal that should be pursued at all. There are many examples of direct democracies failing due to their inability to accomplish anything and the fickle nature of majority rule. The second problem is an issue with the core values of a democratic government, specifically fair and free elections. The Internet is not free for all to use. Computers, wireless or otherwise, are expensive. Using the Internet for direct democracy would mean that those who do not have access to the Internet would be incapable of participating. This would be an exceedingly unfair and would go against one of the most important values of any democracy. Third, the Internet is not a perfectly safe tool for democracy. It can easily be tampered with, hacked, or altered. No vote carried out on the Internet could be trusted. Furthermore, any action on the Internet can be viewed, meaning the votes would not be anonymous or secure. For all these reasons, the Internet should not be used for direct democracy.