Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.
Politics 2.0 - what do you think?
3stripe
✭✭
I'm planning a blog article about this, but first want to ask you guys, who know about the web 2.0, what you think.
If you applied the attributes of web 2.0 (eg community-driven, to politics, what would you end up with?
I love the idea of an open-source, participatory, user-friendly and accessible form of government that put things back in the hands of communities and let everyone have a say in things, if they wanted to.
Speaking as a UK citizen, I find our notion of "democracy" to be slightly flawed and out-dated, in that all I'm entitiled to is a vote once every x years to choose someone to represent me in parliament, and don't actually have much of a say in major decisions that are made. For example the last Scottish referendum was nearly 10 years ago!
What if you took the model for direct domocracy and employed some of the qualities of web 2.0 to it? I'm not suggesting that politics should go digital, just that it needs to catch up with 21st century living.
Please note: when I say "web 2.0" I categorically DO NOT mean any of the cliched graphic styles associated with this phrase, eg gradients, reflections, "beta" stars etc, and have no interest in talking about these or even taking the piss out of them. Just so you know.
If you applied the attributes of web 2.0 (eg community-driven, to politics, what would you end up with?
I love the idea of an open-source, participatory, user-friendly and accessible form of government that put things back in the hands of communities and let everyone have a say in things, if they wanted to.
Speaking as a UK citizen, I find our notion of "democracy" to be slightly flawed and out-dated, in that all I'm entitiled to is a vote once every x years to choose someone to represent me in parliament, and don't actually have much of a say in major decisions that are made. For example the last Scottish referendum was nearly 10 years ago!
What if you took the model for direct domocracy and employed some of the qualities of web 2.0 to it? I'm not suggesting that politics should go digital, just that it needs to catch up with 21st century living.
Please note: when I say "web 2.0" I categorically DO NOT mean any of the cliched graphic styles associated with this phrase, eg gradients, reflections, "beta" stars etc, and have no interest in talking about these or even taking the piss out of them. Just so you know.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
For that reason alone I'd avoid any kind of community driven government. I do think that there are fatal flaws in government (just look at the Bush administration). But if we took an important question and asked everyone their opinion, we'd end up with a hijacked discussion about rap music mac vs pc or something. We need a change, but I think the required change might just be a set of better leaders nominated and elected by us.
/2c
I know what you're saying Mark, perhaps the scope of people's inputs would need to be limited to particularly important decisions... and there are a lot of stupid people to contend with as well. On the flip side, there are a lot of intelligent people who might have good input.
mini, don't tempt fate!
* I choose to not vote for any of the candidates.
That way we *really* get a proper choice. If that box gets more votes than each of the candidates, then the election has to start over with new candidates.
You're right and the swiss voting record carries a serious anti-immigration bias as well. I think one of the main feats of modern representational democracy is that the many follies of public opinion are eliminated through a slow bureaucratic policy process.
However, community-driven politics is an interesting idea, but I would argue that it would be better to apply it to a restructured party system rather than to a direct democracy-system. We retain Schumpeter's ideas of politicians with full autonomy as entrepreneurial agents in politics who compete for the electorate, but enable easier entry for parties into the political arena with a community-driven party-framework where the electorate can commit his or her support for a given party for a given amount of time. The idea is to have a continually changing support indicator rather than regular elections. For instance, this would, in principle, remove the election bias for economic policy and make it easier for new actors to enter into politics. Of course, this is easier to envision in parliamentary systems than in presidential, but the principle would still be reasonable although a proportional electoral system is a necessary requirement for the legislature.
*edit* btw this is my first post on this board, hi all
"Democracy is four wolves and a lamb voting on lunch!
Stop spending on lavish overseas trips, chauffeur-driven gas-guzzling limousines, buying multi-million dollar pieces of art that just sit there to be looked at, paying for huge advertising campaigns telling us how good they are...
Thats a line in a song by Megadeth, but true.
Yes years ago they paid millions for a Jackson Pollock painting called Blue Poles...
I was painting my dad's house at the time, I could have donated my drop-sheet and saved them the money!