A Shadow Government

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Assumptions
III. Democracy Now
IV. The Shadow Government
V. Conclusion

I. Introduction

Despite the title, this is not a conspiracy theory post. I'll say more about the title later, but basically I am posting to get reactions and a discussion going around a particular idea I have had running around in my head for about a year or so now. More importantly, I am interested in getting this idea out into the public domain in order to see if there is anyone out there willing to help implement some form of it. I lack, in particular, the technical expertise to do so myself, and I believe implementation would also require good inter-web contacts and some form of minimal financing.

As you will notice, this is my first post here. I tend to discuss politics mostly with friends and not online except on other forums where I have some other interest. I have in the past tried to get a blog going regarding the concept I will present here, but have finally decided that the best medium would be on a popular political forum as the concept is entirely political and there are millions of blogs out there already (though not specifically about this subject) vying for attention.

Yes, this is a super long post. I am hoping that those who end up taking the time to respond also take the time to read all of it before posting. I will definitely try to keep to the basics and keep it as short as reasonably possible. The idea I want to present, though easily summarized in one phrase, is rather weak without a lot of supporting argument and preamble.

My presentation is divided into 4 sections. In the first part I present the basic assumptions behind the concept. As with any assumptions, they are most certainly debatable, but they are not the main reason for this post, and discussing or arguing about them is off-topic as far as I am concerned. I would ask that anyone wishing to debate any of the assumptions please do so in their own separate thread and NOT this one because this would simply derail the discussion beyond the purpose of this post.

The final three sections present the actual concept and discuss implementation. The first of these is a purely theoretical discussion and introduction to the general theory behind the concept. The next section presents practical ideas for implementation and how the project might work in the short and medium terms. I conclude in the final section.


II. Assumptions

If you do not agree with the assumptions please a) write a separate thread about it or b) do not participate in this thread. My reasoning is that the concept I wish to present and discuss already has enough meat to it without adding more discussion which is really outside of the main topic and that will disrupt discussion germane to the actual subject. This may sound as if I am trying to entrap people into a circular argument or avoid any real discussion. I do not believe this to be this case, and I feel that my assumptions are reasonable and non-circular.

Without further ado:

1a) Current democratic governments in the free world (essentially North-America and Europe) have to a lesser or greater extent gone of their rails and no longer fully represent the people's will. In other words, they have gone off course from democratic ideals and are no longer democracies in several important ways, though most retain freedom of expression for now. I believe there is general consensus around this assumption. If you wish to debate it, do so elsewhere. I will not go through a long list of supporting citations but simply reference Mr. Charles H. Ferguson's academy award winning movie “Inside Job” as well as his recent follow-up book “Predator Nation”.

1b) Power is where the money is in our current systems, and money is in the hands of an increasingly smaller number of people whose interests do not coincide with the general population.

2) You get the government you deserve. At any point in history, when a majority of people have finally decided they do not want the form of government they have, they have overturned it. Final and absolute power resides in a people's willingness to accept the rules of the system they live in. When a population decides to no longer play, the game is over. A major corollary to this is that the majority of people also fear change, and there is an enormous amount of resistance and popular inertia regarding change, especially when no better possibility to the current status quo is in sight. In support of this assumption, I cite the general world historical record, especially this past decade.


III. Democracy Now

There is a general malaise in our democratic systems whose source is a lack of representation due to the subversion of the democratic system by various big money interests. Various forms of protests and activism have had some effect and are extremely important in potentially changing the status quo, but I would argue that these movements need more focus and a greater all-encompassing goal to be even more effective. There needs to be some general alternative that people can point towards as the way forwards. Taking to the streets for one cause or another, or several at once, certainly has some short term effects, but over the long term may be a losing battle if there is not some kind of overall vision that a majority of people can agree on and head towards.

I think that a perfect candidate for such an over-arching goal would be a more robustly democratic system then the current “representative” governments we have. It may be too early for some to consider a complete overhaul of our democratic systems, and many may still believe that a few tweaks here and there may put things back on course. After the past four years of the Obama government, I am no longer among those people. I strongly believe that we are in a permanent rut whose only possible exit is a total overhaul of the system, and that is what I propose... in stages. I will get to the various stages of the process in part IV, when I discuss practical implementation.

Before I go on, I believe it is important to have some idea as to what democracy actually is. Rather then giving some sort of dry academic definition, what I propose is to define democracy by its ideal form. In its ideal form, the people's government would be run directly by ALL the people, in other words by direct democracy. This would mean that ANY adult citizen of a nation-state ruled by a directly democratic government could propose laws and vote on the laws proposed by others.

It may be the case that direct democracies have existed in the past. At certain points in its history, it is believed that Athens was in fact a direct democracy. It is important to keep in mind two facts regarding this. First of all, Athens’s population was very low as compared to today's standards, secondly there were very few inhabitants of Athens at the time who were in fact considered to be voting citizens. The right to vote and propose laws was limited to the male aristocratic population. We cannot therefore speak of Athens as having been a pure direct democracy but more of a patriarcho-aristocratic democracy. In any case, we do have at least one historical example of a working semi-direct democracy.

Arguments against direct democracy are substantial, and most certainly explain why they do not exist in the modern world. The prime argument against it is the apparent technical impossibility of running a direct democracy for a population higher then several thousand voting adults. Where would all these people meet? Who would redact the thousands of law proposals? A secondary, elitist argument, is that most people are just not smart enough or educated enough to participate fully in a direct democracy; ergo we need leaders who are better and smarter than us. I personally disagree with the second argument, but certainly the first is strong enough on its own to eliminate any possibility of direct democracy? In any case, the above two arguments are in essence why we do not have direct democracy, and why we have, it is argued, the next best thing in terms of democratic government ; representative governments... as long as they continue to represent.

I would like to propose for consideration the idea that we now possibly have the technical potential to run national and world governments directly via the internet. Whereas direct democracy has been a technical impossibility in the past, it may be the case that some form of internet-run direct democracy may be possible today or in the near future. If this proves to be the case, we could perhaps run government directly ourselves without the need for highly corruptible “representatives”. If what I propose indeed proves to be true, this still leaves us with the second argument against direct democracy : our leaders are better and more suitable for running government then ourselves. I will not bother arguing against an assumption which is a matter of belief more than anything else, but I do feel politics over the last several decades argue against this assumption. Many people do continue to believe it to be the case that political leaders are somehow better suited to government then they are themselves, but this attitude may be changing.


IV. The Shadow Government

What I propose is to conduct an experiment in order to test the hypothesis that direct democracy is now technically feasible. This would involve creating a faux on-line government, a shadow government. The website would require forums with sections divided into various subjects in order to discuss potential future laws as well as a sophisticated voting system which could at least moderately, in its initial stages, reduce double voting.

In the first stage of the experiment we are simply testing out the technical possibility as well as seeing if we can attract enough interest in the overall idea. Assuming success on both counts in the first stage, in the second stage we could move on to perhaps a more robust voting system, but more importantly, the project could act as a moral beacon people could point towards as a potential better future for government. This sort of moral suasion is hugely important, and taking into consideration assumption 2), is of ultimate importance. I believe the reasons behind the first two stages are argument enough to attempt the experiment, but in a third and longer-term stage, perhaps 50 to 100 years from now, the result could be true directly democratic world and national i-government.


V. Conclusion

I have a lot more thoughts and how to proceed, but essentially I believe the way forward would require some sort of collaborative effort between people willing to spend the time on this project and who might also have contacts and technical expertise which would help get the ball rolling. This is the whole reason I am throwing this idea out there. I am hoping for discussion about the concept and its implementation and wondering if there are potentially others out there in the wide-world of like mind... or am I just totally off my rocker? Also please feel free to suggest other forums where you think I might be able to post this discussion piece.

I believe it is time that we, the citizens of our democracies, take back what is rightfully ours. We must act now, for soon it will be too late. Much of the current protest movement, though powerful in its own right, lacks a focus. I believe a shadow government, a direct-democracy project on the internet, could potentially serve as a powerful focus towards a better world. Although this shadow government would of course have no real power to enforce the laws it passes in the short or medium terms (assuming again success in stage 1 of the project), it could potentially serve as a popular focus for true change, not Obama- or Romney- “change”. True power resides in what we as a people choose to believe in and what we want for our futures, not with our governments and politicians. Our sense of lack of power is a very useful illusion for those few people in power, but in the end, the system we have now is there because we accept it. It is in our power to refuse, and it is in our power to act now for a better future for ourselves and our children.

1) Welcome.
2) Concise discussion starters, especially linking to outside materials of theses, work better than long personal essays.
3) Ending the original post with a question you would want to see addressed works better than broadcasting your own conclusions in post #1.

To the idea of a shadow government, I operate on a lot of intuition about this. I just don't see a reliable way to gather evidence scientifically or perhaps I just don't have the time or energy for it.

Most recently I've watched some of the Republican speeches and been so appalled by the idiocy and insincerity that I am convinced there is a shadow force behind the GOP planning their loss (as they did in 2008 when McCain selected Palin). They have been instructed to fall on their swords and so that's what they're doing. When I watch these politicians speak (the Democrats too for that matter), I find myself searching desperately for some indication of reality, and there's none. I'm trying to find hints of non-fiction in all the stagey bull****. Void of it. That feeling or intuition is enough for me. I don't need hypotheses. It's self-evident and it's screaming at me through the screen. These politicians have no conviction or true opinion. They are reciting lines, and someone back stage is doing the direction.

Good luck!

Howdy Doody, Daize. Welcome to the forum.

A few comments, if I may:

In the first part I present the basic assumptions behind the concept. As with any assumptions, they are most certainly debatable, but they are not the main reason for this post, and discussing or arguing about them is off-topic as far as I am concerned. I would ask that anyone wishing to debate any of the assumptions please do so in their own separate thread and NOT this one because this would simply derail the discussion beyond the purpose of this post.

Click to expand...

While I respect your right to request no discussion of your assumptions, these assumptions are fundamental to the rest of your presentation, they do exist in this thread, they are your beliefs and, in my opinion, should be defended by you.

Arguments against direct democracy are substantial, and most certainly explain why they do not exist in the modern world. The prime argument against it is the apparent technical impossibility of running a direct democracy for a population higher then several thousand voting adults. Where would all these people meet? Who would redact the thousands of law proposals? A secondary, elitist argument, is that most people are just not smart enough or educated enough to participate fully in a direct democracy; ergo we need leaders who are better and smarter than us. I personally disagree with the second argument, but certainly the first is strong enough on its own to eliminate any possibility of direct democracy? In any case, the above two arguments are in essence why we do not have direct democracy, and why we have, it is argued, the next best thing in terms of democratic government ; representative governments... as long as they continue to represent.

Click to expand...

There are other arguments against a direct democratic government:

Regions with low population density would be drowned out by regions with high population density. People tend to think locally. Those who submit citizen proposals would do so with their regions in mind. If their region has a high population density, it's more likely they will be able to enact their legislation. Conversely, a citizen proposal from a low population region would be unlikely to get much support and would fail.

A direct democratic government would be cumbersome and slow. There are times when a government must act quickly and your suggested government would not be able to do so.

I believe it is time that we, the citizens of our democracies, take back what is rightfully ours. We must act now, for soon it will be too late.

Click to expand...

If you are a citizen of the U.S., then you CAN take back what is rightfully yours. We have a Federal Constitution and 50 State Constitutions with clearly defined rules and procedures for running our government. You can more easily and effectively work within these rules and procedures to enact the changes you want than by protesting.


Anyway, I wish you luck in your experiment...but I sincerely hope your suggested government is never implemented in the U.S.

I support the idea of creating such an experiment, but, for various reasons, don't think that direct democracy is the way to go.

The biggest hurdles I see for such an experiment are these:

a) making the people actually care about their well-being and that of the country as if it were real. It's easy to be moral and make sacrifices when you and your children aren't starving.
b) keeping out trolls that would skew results (obviously)
c) simulating a realistic environment (realistic country-to-country interaction, economy, etc.). For instance, since so much of economic theory is so heavily disputed in the first place (e.g. trickle-down vs. Keynesian), any program that attempted to simulate the economy could not really be accurate (not even considering the fact that the hundreds of important components of the economy that would have to be programmed). And how could we simulate a country like Iran? In short, I think that simulating a nation with any kind of realism is beyond the means of the worlds' best programmers working with the best historians, economists, etc. and the fastest computers.

Or am I over-thinking it? Realistic consequences for actions may not be so important as the actions themselves. The consequences should still be reasonably realistic, but perhaps it would be more interesting to see what they would vote for, rather than actually simulating a developing world. But that brings us back to (A). Any scenario online is literally nothing more than a "shadow" of reality.

If you wanted to test this idea, the internet is literally the worst place to test it.

Deuce said:

If you wanted to test this idea, the internet is literally the worst place to test it.

Click to expand...

The problem is that it is basically the only place to test it. If you run the test within a group (e.g. a university), the demographics of that group are likely to be quite out of balance with that of the population of the United States, whereas turning to the internet would hopefully more accurately represent the population (both in terms of distribution and in terms of sample size).

evangambit said:

The problem is that it is basically the only place to test it. If you run the test within a group (e.g. a university), the demographics of that group are likely to be quite out of balance with that of the population of the United States, whereas turning to the internet would hopefully more accurately represent the population (both in terms of distribution and in terms of sample size).

Click to expand...

Except people aren't the same in person as they are on the internet.

Deuce said:

Except people aren't the same in person as they are on the internet.

Click to expand...

Yes, as I've already pointed out.

There have been several types of arguments against my proposal which essentially conclude that it is impractical for one reason or another. Rather than respond individually to each one, I'll address them in a single post.

1- regions being drowned : There is nothing stopping a direct i-government from having both local, national and international jurisdictions, exactly as our current system works.
2- We can work with the current system : Obviously I don't agree, see OP.
3- Most people won't care enough to make the effort : That's perfectly alright. You only need some people to care enough to make a difference. I imagine people separating themselves into 4 classes in this system. One class which does not bother, another which only votes on issues they care about but do not participate in discussion or law proposals, a class which participates in discussion, and a final class which not only participates but also works towards proposing implementable laws... Not very different from how things are now anyways.
4- Perhaps the strongest argument against is essentially a Hobbesian one : Human beings are by nature mostly nasty and brutish, especially on the internet. I subscribe to the more moderate point of view that human behavior is largely dependent on the environment provided. These forums are a case in point. Although there is a relatively large membership and it is entirely open to anyone who wishes to become a new member, like myself, and despite the fact that political discussion is often heavily emotionally charged, these forums remain reasonably free of the worst kind of e-violence. I submit that this is largely due to the environment provided by its moderators.

I would also like to suggest that some people might be jumping the gun here a bit. I propose starting off very small with just any number of people who want to join in such a project. Alot of the comments here go a bit beyond that and are overly speculative to my mind. I do believe there are alot of practical steps which can be taken in a working project to limit various types of potential problems.

Daize said:

3- Most people won't care enough to make the effort : That's perfectly alright. You only need some people to care enough to make a difference. I imagine people separating themselves into 4 classes in this system. One class which does not bother, another which only votes on issues they care about but do not participate in discussion or law proposals, a class which participates in discussion, and a final class which not only participates but also works towards proposing implementable laws... Not very different from how things are now anyways.
4- Perhaps the strongest argument against is essentially a Hobbesian one : Human beings are by nature mostly nasty and brutish, especially on the internet. I subscribe to the more moderate point of view that human behavior is largely dependent on the environment provided. These forums are a case in point. Although there is a relatively large membership and it is entirely open to anyone who wishes to become a new member, like myself, and despite the fact that political discussion is often heavily emotionally charged, these forums remain reasonably free of the worst kind of e-violence. I submit that this is largely due to the environment provided by its moderators.

I would also like to suggest that some people might be jumping the gun here a bit. I propose starting off very small with just any number of people who want to join in such a project. Alot of the comments here go a bit beyond that and are overly speculative to my mind. I do believe there are alot of practical steps which can be taken in a working project to limit various types of potential problems.

Click to expand...

Sorry if I'm one of the ones "jumping the gun" xD. I'm just trying to come to terms with exactly what this "shadow government" will be like, and just how intensive it will be to up keep (e.g. are hypothetical scenarios being created by the admin?).

There is definitely truth in stating that the behavior of internet-users varies widely based on which websites you go to, and that this website is more mature/friendly than many others, probably due largely to the moderators. It is probably also accurate to say that a government-simulation website would probably attract similar people, which, again, is unfortunately an inaccurate measure of the population. This doesn't mean the experiment shouldn't happen, simply that the sample must be considered before drawing any conclusions. A way to help this would be to ask things like gender, political views, age, income, level of education, etc. in an attempt to see what proportions of the population are participating and which groups are voting which way. The downside to this, of course, is that you'll need a secure database and an experience programmer (I'm probably looking too far ahead again ).

evangambit said:

Sorry if I'm one of the ones "jumping the gun" xD. I'm just trying to come to terms with exactly what this "shadow government" will be like, and just how intensive it will be to up keep (e.g. are hypothetical scenarios being created by the admin?).

There is definitely truth in stating that the behavior of internet-users varies widely based on which websites you go to, and that this website is more mature/friendly than many others, probably due largely to the moderators. It is probably also accurate to say that a government-simulation website would probably attract similar people, which, again, is unfortunately an inaccurate measure of the population. This doesn't mean the experiment shouldn't happen, simply that the sample must be considered before drawing any conclusions. A way to help this would be to ask things like gender, political views, age, income, level of education, etc. in an attempt to see what proportions of the population are participating and which groups are voting which way. The downside to this, of course, is that you'll need a secure database and an experience programmer (I'm probably looking too far ahead again ).

Click to expand...

Re rogrammer + database : No, now you are not looking too far ahead , I think thats one of the first things to look for.

Re : innaccurate sample of the population : Yes it most definitely would be, especially at the start. I do not see this as a problem since basically the system would be at the start just providing an example as to how an i-democracy would work. In addition the intention is not to take accurate polls, we have polling companies for that. Participation rates in some actual democracies are extremely low already and skewed as well since often the people not participating belong to a particular class. Any democratic system is skewed to a more or a lesser extent due to non-participation. I don't actually see this as a problem. As per point 3) in my above post. Basically what I am saying is that legislation will be decided by those who are concerned and have the time to vote on it. If even a majority of people do not participate, well that is their democratic choice and it doesn't stop the process from working.

evangambit said:

The problem is that it is basically the only place to test it. If you run the test within a group (e.g. a university), the demographics of that group are likely to be quite out of balance with that of the population of the United States, whereas turning to the internet would hopefully more accurately represent the population (both in terms of distribution and in terms of sample size).

Click to expand...

Yes, true that the internet is really the only way to really test it, though not without it's double-vote-avoiding challenges .. and when those get worked out, watch governments and representatives start to "poll" that way regularly.

(By the way, I really like your avatar. Though not too many people will get its relationship to your user name, it's still very clever.)

Just to clarify on my statement about not jumping the gun; what I mean by that is that creating a faux i-government can serve its own purpose (as per OP), without ever having to actually even entertain the possibility of actual i-government in the longer term future. That does not mean that we should not consider what a future like that might be, simply that there is also alot to talk about and work out on a practical basis before that potential eventuality. For instance, as the above poster mentioned, how to reduce double-voting.

As I reject some of the premises behind

1a) (we don't have a democratic system that went off course, we have a plutocratic imperial system that's still working mostly as designed, despite some democratic afterthoughts won in spite of rather than because of the system)

and

2) (majoritarianism is not democracy, and we have neither. Further, few people get the government they deserve. Most people get the government that is forced upon them, in a system they're born into with little or no say in the matter once they've been born)

I'll likely have to (mostly) sit this one out.

Ironically, I'd say the central question of the thread (whether or not it is *technically* possible to have a communications structure in place capable of handling direct constituent input on policy matters is actually the easiest/least contentious matter. OF COURSE we can. The most challenging aspect of such a direct input mechanism is not the communications technology, but the revolutionary shift in political consciousness and culture which would be required. The substantive participation is the key challenge, not so much the software or hardware engineering.

cmakaioz said:

The most challenging aspect of such a direct input mechanism is not the communications technology, but the revolutionary shift in political consciousness and culture which would be required. The substantive participation is the key challenge, not so much the software or hardware engineering.

Click to expand...

I think you could probably participate even while not accepting the assumptions 100% As to the above quote from your post, I entirely agree. That is why I propose rather modest beginnings and in the post just above yours talk about not jumping the gun. Even without arriving at actual i-government, I think the preliminary stages offer their own value without requiring substantive participation right from the get go. To reiterate from the OP : a stage 1 in the process with low participation would hopefully prove it can work and give a working example. We would only arrive at stage 2 (we are not yet at stage 3 where there is true i-government) if the future web-site gained some traction and there were a decent amount of participants (which would still be avery small % of the overall populations). In stage 2 the project may have some political influence purely due to moral suasion. Stage 3 would be a very big jump which I do not necessarily imagine occurring in my lifetime if ever.

I would like to add here a message I received by private email which people may want to comment on :

Both Switzerland and California practice a form of direct democracy where any citizen can propose changes that are then voted on. It works better in Switzerland because the government can counter with their own proposal, while in California there is no such input, which allows for a more chaotic situation. Without going back to ancient Greece there are current models that have been applied successively in a modern context, and it would be good if we could extrapolate this further. I find your concept on democracy thought provoking.

Click to expand...

cmakaioz said:

As I reject some of the premises behind

1a) (we don't have a democratic system that went off course, we have a plutocratic imperial system that's still working mostly as designed, despite some democratic afterthoughts won in spite of rather than because of the system)

and

2) (majoritarianism is not democracy, and we have neither. Further, few people get the government they deserve. Most people get the government that is forced upon them, in a system they're born into with little or no say in the matter once they've been born)

I'll likely have to (mostly) sit this one out.

Ironically, I'd say the central question of the thread (whether or not it is *technically* possible to have a communications structure in place capable of handling direct constituent input on policy matters is actually the easiest/least contentious matter. OF COURSE we can. The most challenging aspect of such a direct input mechanism is not the communications technology, but the revolutionary shift in political consciousness and culture which would be required. The substantive participation is the key challenge, not so much the software or hardware engineering.

Click to expand...

As DAIZE said, agreement that direct democracy is a better/viable alternative to the representative government we have now is not necessary for supporting such an experiment.

@actual project:
I have some HTML/PHP knowledge and may (time permitting) be able to set up an example site, however, if you want this to actually be implemented I'd recommend hiring/finding a professional. I'm an amateur/enthusiast, and as such, I know next to nothing about security in general and have no experience making professional sites.

evangambit said:

As DAIZE said, agreement that direct democracy is a better/viable alternative to the representative government we have now is not necessary for supporting such an experiment.

Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't quite put it that way. I'd say that belief in the possibility of true i-government is not necessary.

Re your time : You are now on what is so far an extremely short list But tbvh, I would like more opinions and discussion on the concept before wasting anybody's time, including my own.

Daize said:

Well I wouldn't quite put it that way. I'd say that belief in the possibility of true i-government is not necessary.

Re your time : You are now on what is so far an extremely short list But tbvh, I would like more opinions and discussion on the concept before wasting anybody's time, including my own.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that's very considerate .

The argument has been brought up in another forum that the general population is just too stupid and uninformed to be trusted with direct democracy. I'll repost my response here :

I mention the essentially elitist (no offense meant, that's just the correct term in this case) argument against direct democracy that the general population is simply too stupid to be trusted with direct rule in the OP as something I don't personally believe to be true, but of course that is a matter of opinion. I'll try to go a bit further.

First of all you should note that the same argument could and is used in support of monarchy and totalitarian regimes and is actually more relevant then raising this argument when already living in a form of democracy. I think that fact should make you stop and think, because taking it to its logical conclusion, you are in fact advocating a totalitarian regime.

Second, even if you assume that the statement "people are too stupid to run government" is true, what if (as I propose) current government is being run counter to the interests of the general population, in that case, would you not be better off with stupid government that might hopefully get things right sometimes rather than a government that is working against you?

Finally, as to the actual stupidity of the people. As I mentioned, this is not my belief, and in my opinion you have to seriously question whether you are a democrat (not the American party) at all if you hold this belief. But also, there is serious question as to whether there is any truth to it at all. Research has been done and books have been written regarding the question, and I think you would be surprised by the results. My readings have convinced me that statements like "the general population is just too dumb" are in fact totally false and based only on here-say. It is difficult for me to expound on all the details here because there is no space or time in a thread like this. BUT, I can give you a source which is a very good primer for the layman and that presents all the essential ideas :

"The Wisdom of Crowds"
by James Surowiecki
Amazon.com: The Wisdom of Crowds (9780385721707): James Surowiecki: Books

This is a well written and entertaining book with information based on scientific research that will be more than a little startling for those ascribing to the idea that the people are generally stupid. Its a fun and easy read and is wonderfully enlightening. I was definitely surprised when I first read it several years ago, as I tended to hold the same opinion as yourselves at that time.

Daize said:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Assumptions
III. Democracy Now
IV. The Shadow Government
V. Conclusion

Click to expand...

The introduction should include assumptions (and 'the assumption'/hypothesis).

Democracy Now and The Shadow Government (whatever those are) should be included in the body paragraphs but each of the body paragraphs (II, III and IV) should be a proof of the assumption (some kind of concept, angle, catagory or perspective, etc); perhaps more properly stated: a specific test of an aspect or factor of the hypothesis that supports the conclusion.

And don't forget your transition sentences at the end of each body paragraph.

I didn't read past the quote above, because I disagree with the structure.




I so like 5 paragraph essays, I'm such a nerd. It's probably too close to the due-date to restructure the thing, but whatevs.

ecofarm said:

The introduction should include assumptions (and 'the assumption'/hypothesis).

Democracy Now and The Shadow Government (whatever those are) should be included in the body paragraphs but each of the body paragraphs (II, III and IV) should be a proof of the assumption (some kind of concept, angle, catagory or perspective, etc); perhaps more properly stated: a specific test of an aspect or factor of the hypothesis that supports the conclusion.

And don't forget your transition sentences at the end of each body paragraph.

I didn't read past the quote above, because I disagree with the structure.




I so like 5 paragraph essays, I'm such a nerd. It's probably too close to the due-date to restructure the thing, but whatevs.

Click to expand...

er ok thanks
That I separate out the assumptions from the introduction doesn't seem like a non-starter to me, but that's your call. The assumptions are most definitely not to be confused with the hypothesis, please get out the dictionary. As to debate regarding the assumptions themselves, please see http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/135394-democracy-derailed.html

I don't think there are any insurmountable technical issues involved in what's contemplated. Many important things are kept very secure in an online environment and have been for a long time.

The use of "popular" political notions for purposes other than amusement however is certainly to be questioned. Direct democracy is a terrible system that has never worked, which is one reason why the founders took such pains to avoid it. They in fact went to great lengths to insulate the actors in their new government from the vicissitudes of popular passions, knowing how easily those could be influenced and corrupted by the silver tongues of charlatans and demagogues.

Political issues are further qualitatively different from such simple problems as estimating the number of jelly beans in a jar. In the latter case, one has a rational expectation that responses will fall into a normal distribution around some number near the actual answer. There is no such rational expectation to be had over political issues. Consider the number of people who thought in early 2003 that Iraq had arsenals of WMD. Consider the number who believe that Congress has stolen all the Social Security surpluses. Consider the number who believe that global warming is just a clever way for scientists to get more grant money. Finally, consider that averaging true and false is not nearly as good an approach as simply throwing false away.

Cardinal Fang said:

I don't think there are any insurmountable technical issues involved in what's contemplated. Many important things are kept very secure in an online environment and have been for a long time.

The use of "popular" political notions for purposes other than amusement however is certainly to be questioned. Direct democracy is a terrible system that has never worked, which is one reason why the founders took such pains to avoid it. They in fact went to great lengths to insulate the actors in their new government from the vicissitudes of popular passions, knowing how easily those could be influenced and corrupted by the silver tongues of charlatans and demagogues.

Political issues are further qualitatively different from such simple problems as estimating the number of jelly beans in a jar. In the latter case, one has a rational expectation that responses will fall into a normal distribution around some number near the actual answer. There is no such rational expectation to be had over political issues. Consider the number of people who thought in early 2003 that Iraq had arsenals of WMD. Consider the number who believe that Congress has stolen all the Social Security surpluses. Consider the number who believe that global warming is just a clever way for scientists to get more grant money. Finally, consider that averaging true and false is not nearly as good an approach as simply throwing false away.

Click to expand...

It has taken me awhile to respond to the above post as well as others in this thread as I reconsidered my position. I feel I have to concede on a particular point which is that access to information is highly asymmetrical. Given such is the case, a pure direct democracy cannot work. Our current system where a group of "experts" make decisions for us and are "corrected" by the electorate every 4-5 years is the best option, as long as the electorate retains its ability to correct. Unfortunately this is no longer the case. Since there is no better alternative, either the electorate will somehow regain its powers through protest, or things will worsen until we hit a point where violent revolution will be the only remaining alternative.

Daize said:

It has taken me awhile to respond to the above post as well as others in this thread as I reconsidered my position. I feel I have to concede on a particular point which is that access to information is highly asymmetrical. Given such is the case, a pure direct democracy cannot work. Our current system where a group of "experts" make decisions for us and are "corrected" by the electorate every 4-5 years is the best option, as long as the electorate retains its ability to correct.

Click to expand...

And so long as the number of "experts" who choose to sell out to something or someone entirely opposed to "expertise" remains small. Remember that there was once an independent Office of Technology Assessment established by Congress whose job it was to provide expert, non-partisan analysis on matters of science for the benefit of our elected "experts". As soon as Republicans took control in 1995, they defunded it out of existence.

Daize said:

Unfortunately this is no longer the case. Since there is no better alternative, either the electorate will somehow regain its powers through protest, or things will worsen until we hit a point where violent revolution will be the only remaining alternative.

Click to expand...

If it wishes to play a positive role, the electorate will have to become more sophisticated in its recognition of simple propaganda. Everybody does spin, but one group well-bankrolled by the nation's billionaires engages almost exclusively in distortions, exaggerations, misrepresentations and outright lies. None of those have ever really done all that much good for the country. Now isn't likely to be an exception.

There are going to be major problems facing the notion of a direct democracy, and more so when most humans are lazy by nature. The US has started to show signs that this line of thought is NOT sustainable. Voters are voting for hand outs that the country can't afford. Politicians have even ran up a multi trillion dollar debt, trying to keep them happy.

I have come to the conclusion one is usually better off having the least government as possible, as the only other choice includes a leader that will usually abuse his power as history shows.