What is the next structure of government?

Throughout history government's have evolved based on the populations size and ability to communicate with each other.

Early Years
Chiefs and elder councils.

Rome - Renaissance
As population expanded the development of a tiered government structure utilizing cities, regions, country under the control of lords and monarchs is established. Education is still lacking in the populace though.

Print Press - Now
Education is widely available to the populace and a need to be heard is born. Democracy is widely established from this. There is still a lack of swiftness in communication though so elected representatives are required to voice the opinion of their populace.

Future (IMO)
Education levels are higher then ever and the ability for real-time mass communication is present. Bills, Documents can be edited and/or provided feedback in real-time around the country from millions of people. These items are then reviewed by designated experts and resubmitted to the populace for review and approval. Obviously a workable system will need to be established so that things are actually completed.

Given today’s rising education and ability to mass communicate do you see a change in our government style? Is there a need for representatives if the mass populace can vote for everything and provide their feedback? If there is a need for representatives can this role be expanded to allow more people to participate in real-time discussions and development of policy?

This idea came to me when reading an article on companies like Facebook allowing their polices and business decisions to be driven based on the direction given by their customers and also after seeing the collaboration and meeting tools soon to be available like Google Wave.

What are your thoughts?

Next for the US is a fascist dictatorship serving the interests of the well connected. The Messiah has taken several "giant leaps" in that direction already.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Next for the US is a fascist dictatorship serving the interests of the well connected. The Messiah has taken several "giant leaps" in that direction already.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your pointless addition to this topic. :2wave:

I wouldn't say fascist dictatorship, but I would be willing to plunk money down on fascist oligopoly which panders to the new aristocracy. And it's not just Obama's doing, the whole of the Republocrats are driving that direction. But definitely with the leaps and bounds in technologies and the reluctance of the People to do anything to keep and constrain the government or research parties and candidates; some form of fascist police state is where we shall head.

I see the populace being more involved in the local, and possibly even the state levels. But the Federal will be off limits for quite some time. At least in the local aspect of it, it could be done as a sort of "social experiment" to see if it's even feasible. Then, hopefully, more expansion from there.

Gibberish said:

Thanks for your pointless addition to this topic. :2wave:

Click to expand...

Oh! You wanted some imaginary utopian improvement over the dying republic, not what's actually in the process of happening, the rise of the American socialist-fascist state under the Messiah!

My bad, I was answering the poll honestly, and you all didn't want THAT!

When vote-counting leans more and more towards digital, and with the powers of the states slipping in favor of a central system, I expect to see total democracy rather than an electoral system, with a better-informed populace overall hopefully getting more information before they vote from various neutral sites (maybe with a voting test thrown in, too). I doubt we're heading for fascism, especially anything built to serve the wealthy (based on how tax rates are going).

Gibberish said:

Throughout history government's have evolved based on the populations size and ability to communicate with each other.

Early Years
Chiefs and elder councils.

Rome - Renaissance
As population expanded the development of a tiered government structure utilizing cities, regions, country under the control of lords and monarchs is established. Education is still lacking in the populace though.

Print Press - Now
Education is widely available to the populace and a need to be heard is born. Democracy is widely established from this. There is still a lack of swiftness in communication though so elected representatives are required to voice the opinion of their populace.

Future (IMO)
Education levels are higher then ever and the ability for real-time mass communication is present. Bills, Documents can be edited and/or provided feedback in real-time around the country from millions of people. These items are then reviewed by designated experts and resubmitted to the populace for review and approval. Obviously a workable system will need to be established so that things are actually completed.

Given today’s rising education and ability to mass communicate do you see a change in our government style? Is there a need for representatives if the mass populace can vote for everything and provide their feedback? If there is a need for representatives can this role be expanded to allow more people to participate in real-time discussions and development of policy?

This idea came to me when reading an article on companies like Facebook allowing their polices and business decisions to be driven based on the direction given by their customers and also after seeing the collaboration and meeting tools soon to be available like Google Wave.

What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

See, now THIS is an intresting question.

I've been watching the Internet develop from the early days of ARPA and DARPAnets, BBS's, into its early incarnation, and still growing and developing. I can real-time chat with people in freeking China.

The exchange of information, data, ideas, opinions and so forth is taking place at an exponentially greater rate than ever before, and growing yearly.

This has already had substantial effects on society and the economy, and this will surely increase. Gov't may (and will) lag behind, but it cannot help but be effected also. When snail-mail was the only way to write your congressman, few bothered...now with email, they're so flooded with constituent opinion they have to filter for spambots and people outside their constituency.

The technology of information transfer may well advance faster than government can cope, and that gap may result in some surprising developments in the next 20-50 years. It may well involve more direct democracy, which is intresting but a cause for worry: untempered and unrestrained, direct democracy is mob rule, 51% voting to feed on 49%.

If gov't doesn't change to keep up with the new wave of ever-increasing information technology, gov't as we know it, might find itself obsolete and outclassed. We saw what happens when an Information Age society goes to war against a barely-Industrial-Age society in the US/Nato-Iraq war: we wiped out their conventional forces in less time than it takes to tell. In one engagement, a handful of US tanks took out a hundred Soviet-made Iraqi tanks in a full-speed moving engagement in a matter of minutes.

So too, the next phase of Information Age technology might outstrip old-style territorial governments as we know them, and even render their military might irrelevant. Artillery is useless if you don't know where to aim it.

Speculative futurism suggests a number of possibilities, among them non-territorial governments with voluntary memberships, organized as member-owned multinational corporations.

Its all speculation at this point, but I think one thing we can depend on: 100 years from now the world will be a very different place.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:

When vote-counting leans more and more towards digital, and with the powers of the states slipping in favor of a central system, I expect to see total democracy rather than an electoral system, with a better-informed populace overall hopefully getting more information before they vote from various neutral sites (maybe with a voting test thrown in, too). I doubt we're heading for fascism, especially anything built to serve the wealthy (based on how tax rates are going).

Click to expand...

Pure democracy is a bad bad idea, and removing the electoral system will definitely leave some states and rural areas out of the process almost entirely. And as currently people aren't as well informed and educated on the process and the system is becoming more police state dominated and the government as a whole pandering more and more to Wall Street and their new aristocratic friends, I don't see how this idealized, rosy future is going to be possible from our present position.

Ikari said:

Pure democracy is a bad bad idea, and removing the electoral system will definitely leave some states and rural areas out of the process almost entirely. And as currently people aren't as well informed and educated on the process and the system is becoming more police state dominated and the government as a whole pandering more and more to Wall Street and their new aristocratic friends, I don't see how this idealized, rosy future is going to be possible from our present position.

Click to expand...

This is why I think it will be more of participation towards policy rather then direct rule of the populace.

Why not ask for feedback from everyone that may have a solution and filter through them? I would hate to rely on 10 "specialists" in government to come up with a decision when there could be 100 people outside of government with a better idea.

Also, instead of requiring the voters to just vote Yes or No once or twice a year we can, if we choose to, give detailed voting per line item as a critque on current bills or propositions before they are submitted. We can call it the people's line item veto.

Gibberish said:

This is why I think it will be more of participation towards policy rather then direct rule of the populace.

Why not ask for feedback from everyone that may have a solution and filter through them? I would hate to rely on 10 "specialists" in government to come up with a decision when there could be 100 people outside of government with a better idea.

Also, instead of requiring the voters to just vote Yes or No once or twice a year we can, if we choose to, give detailed voting per line item as a critque on current bills or propositions before they are submitted. We can call it the people's line item veto.

Click to expand...

One of the most profound things about the Internet, that will make itself felt in coming decades, is how it allows good minds to interact much more easily, faster, in more detail and with a higher bits-per-second of information exchange than ever before.

Applying some of that to government might be an intresting idea.

Gibberish said:

This is why I think it will be more of participation towards policy rather then direct rule of the populace.

Why not ask for feedback from everyone that may have a solution and filter through them? I would hate to rely on 10 "specialists" in government to come up with a decision when there could be 100 people outside of government with a better idea.

Also, instead of requiring the voters to just vote Yes or No once or twice a year we can, if we choose to, give detailed voting per line item as a critque on current bills or propositions before they are submitted. We can call it the people's line item veto.

Click to expand...

Given how popular reality TV and shows like Daisy of Love are....I think we should be wary how much control we give people. Sure, it would be great if everyone researched and gave educated opinion on matters, but in all honesty that's most likely not going to happen. If we can avoid the future of Idiocracy, that would be a good thing.

I chose "The populace being less involved overall" altho I do not feel this will be by choice but instead by the power grab by the federal government is continuously imposing. People with every generation lose more of their influence to dictate our government.

Ikari said:

Given how popular reality TV and shows like Daisy of Love are....I think we should be wary how much control we give people. Sure, it would be great if everyone researched and gave educated opinion on matters, but in all honesty that's most likely not going to happen. If we can avoid the future of Idiocracy, that would be a good thing.

Click to expand...

Perhaps requirements to be able to give detailed feedback then?

Gibberish said:

Perhaps requirements to be able to give detailed feedback then?

Click to expand...

Such as?

The problem with requirements is, they can never be completely accurate in choosing something. Especially something like this.

Edit: Unless they are so cumbersome that it would take an unreasonable amount of time to decide something.

Gibberish said:

Perhaps requirements to be able to give detailed feedback then?

Click to expand...

You mean making it easier for a person to write an elected representative, or easier for that person to throw away what was written?

Ikari said:

Pure democracy is a bad bad idea, and removing the electoral system will definitely leave some states and rural areas out of the process almost entirely. And as currently people aren't as well informed and educated on the process and the system is becoming more police state dominated and the government as a whole pandering more and more to Wall Street and their new aristocratic friends, I don't see how this idealized, rosy future is going to be possible from our present position.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a good idea. It was the first prediction that came to mind.

As far as the police state goes, I still don't see it happening here. In the 1950s, we got closer than we've ever been, and as the war on terror peters out we'll trend toward freedom again. China is getting freer all the time, which makes me doubt the U.S. will ever be worse (than they are, at least).

Again, with taxes on the rich shooting up and up and up and Wall Street facing extreme regulation, what benefits are the "aristocrats" going to be reaping that they didn't have before Obama/Bush?

The Mark said:

Such as?

The problem with requirements is, they can never be completely accurate in choosing something. Especially something like this.

Edit: Unless they are so cumbersome that it would take an unreasonable amount of time to decide something.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking something like building a quality ratings algorithm assigned to participates. The community could rate individuals and their feedback and additions they make. A mix between Google Page Rank (but poster rank in this case) and Wikipedia's style community fact checking.

This would give higher priority in posts to those individuals with a higher quality rating. Of course no one would be left out but it would be a way to filter those pointless additions.

I also think those people that really don't care about politics won't be participating anyway. It will be the partisan hacks that will need to be filtered.

And now, to something completely different.

I think we will eventually reach a Machiavellian style government where people collectively make major decisions. The ability to connect via technology has already led to some of the principles that Machiavelli predicted in the Prince. For example, Machiavelli said that if the people were in control, war would be a thing of the past. This is because the people have to actually fight the wars, whereas the rich and privileged rulers, start the wars, yet are not in direct danger. As we have seen in the War in Iraq and going further back, the Somolian conflict in the 90's, now that the media is bringing war into the living rooms of the people, greater outcries against war are heard. I feel this will ultimately lead to less war in the long run. Also, I feel that as each generation becomes more informed, there will be far more referendums and even federal referendums for the populous to directly vote on legislation. This holds many benefits for the spineless members of Congress, that may avoid responsibility to constituencies by allowing the constituences to vote for themselves on select or controversial legislation.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:

I didn't say it was a good idea. It was the first prediction that came to mind.

As far as the police state goes, I still don't see it happening here. In the 1950s, we got closer than we've ever been, and as the war on terror peters out we'll trend toward freedom again. China is getting freer all the time, which makes me doubt the U.S. will ever be worse (than they are, at least).

Again, with taxes on the rich shooting up and up and up and Wall Street facing extreme regulation, what benefits are the "aristocrats" going to be reaping that they didn't have before Obama/Bush?

Click to expand...

The thing I see is definitely a bigger, more intrusive, more controlling government less enough people snap out of their apathy and start to engage in an intelligent manner in the political process. There is a new aristocracy being formed. While it appears that the rich are being taxed more, more money is being funneled in that direction for the top echilon. All that bailout money, our money, flowing to the big players and such. If you were really interested in going after the rich, you'd invade that Cayman islands, take over the banks there.

I wonder how many people would **** themselves if we surprised took over the Cayman? Now that would be reality TV.

The next form of national government is anarchy, with innumerable local governments ruling/governing by a myriad of methods -- some through a democratic process, some though despotism, some through something in between.

The national currency will be ammunition.

Goobieman said:

The next form of national government is anarchy, with innumerable local governments ruling/governing by a myriad of methods -- some through a democratic process, some though despotism, some through something in between.

The national currency will be ammunition.

Click to expand...

So every culture will revert to African nationalism?

tlmorg02 said:

So every culture will revert to African nationalism?

Click to expand...

I wasn't speaking of everywhere, just here.

But, upon consideration of the broader topic, when it happens here, everywhere else will follow.

Goobieman said:

The next form of national government is anarchy, with innumerable local governments ruling/governing by a myriad of methods -- some through a democratic process, some though despotism, some through something in between.

The national currency will be ammunition.

Click to expand...

An event of such magnitude that makes our federal government collapse on itself would be required for that to happen.