SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In 2015 Ada Colau, an activist with no experience in government, became mayor of Barcelona. She called for a democratic revolution, and for the last two years city hall, working with civic-minded coders and cryptographers, has been designing the technological tools to make it happen.
Their efforts have centred on two things. The first is opening up governance through participatory processes and greater transparency. And the second is redefining the smart city to ensure that it serves its citizens, rather than the other way around.
The group started by creating a digital participatory platform, Decidim ("We Decide", in Catalan). Now the public can participate directly in government as they would on social media, by suggesting ideas, debating them, and voting with their thumbs. Decidim taps into the potential of social networks: the information spreading on Twitter, or the relationships on Facebook. All of these apply to politics — and Decidim seeks to channel them, while guaranteeing personal privacy and public transparency in a way these platforms don't.
"We are experimenting with a hybrid of online and offline participatory democracy," says Francesca Bria, Barcelona's Chief Technology and Digital Innovation Officer. "We used Decidim to create the government agenda — over 70 per cent of the proposals come directly from citizens. Over 40,000 citizens proposed these policies. And many more citizens were engaged in offline collective assemblies and consultations."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday May 22 2018, @07:24PM (2 children)
You just described Congress Critters and Senators, as well as politicians all the way down to city councils. When I vote, if I feel that deluded that day, I AM transferring my vote to that politician. Afterwards, that politician regularly votes with other politicians on what becomes law. We do know they represent many votes, and how many votes that they represent with a fair amount of precision.
My lamentation about the process, is that politicians are slimy mother fuckers that will outright and directly lie to my face to get the vote. Afterwards, they NEVER vote in my interest. They vote in the interests of people how have THE MOST MONEY.
Fuck Obama. I almost voted for him, but had issues at work on the day I was to vote. I did so because unlike all politicians before him, he was super fucking slick and said all the right "revolution" buzzwords to rally the youth. So I would've handed Obama my vote, and then he proceeded to immediately break a huge campaign promise. That promise was to bring AT&T executives and NSA agents out in the light to face justice for violating our privacy and engaging in unlawful, unconstitutional, and unconscionable surveillance of American citizens. Not only did he not stop mass surveillance, he increased it!
So who do I give my vote to again? Who isn't going to be instantly tainted and corrupted on the first day of office? If Obama, the slick used car salesman that he is, couldn't fight back against being tainted, who can? He was like the next coming of Jesus to young progressives and liberals that frothed at the mouth to get him elected. I cannot describe his performance relative to the progressives and liberals as anything but utter betrayal.
What I notice about Catalan now, is that they are effectively taking power away from the *real* voting class of citizens, the politicians. That's always a good thing. I'll take mob rule over corporate avarice filled rule any day. At least with mob rule there is a chance for empathy and compassion, a chance for the humanity of people to trump the cynical avarice of the Elites.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday May 22 2018, @08:50PM (1 child)
You overlooked a few major differences which I think would completely change the dynamics of the situation:
- Congress critters are pre-selected by the primary process (and lots of money and power-brokering behind the scenes), while transferable votes would allow *anyone* to amass such power, without any bureaucratic process or third-party approval involved.
- You wouldn't have elections as such - instead you'd have continuous "approval voting", since every one of the people who "voted for" you could revoke their vote at any moment, and give it to someone else that they felt would represent them better. No more "free ride until a few months before the next election", every day would be a competition to represent your base better than any of the many others trying to court them away.
- It would be difficult for representatives to "betray" anyone paying any attention - you would always have the option to cast your vote personally, rather than letting them do so on your behalf.
Party politics would likely be changed dramatically as well - probably weakened I would think, and that's probably a good thing. After all, incumbent Representative R isn't just competing for (possibly gerrymandered) votes against Opponent D every few years - they're also competing against every other R for votes on a daily basis, including all the ones that didn't have enough "popular appeal" (or the right backing) to make it through the primaries.
Not to mention all the smaller parties which would suddenly become viable - when whoever you "vote" for is *guaranteed* to gain the power of your vote, suddenly voting your conscience becomes much more rational - you can't possibly split the vote, because there is no magical election day "finish line" that determines winners and losers - anyone who gets *any* votes gets to wield that slice of power for as long as they can convince their base to follow them.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday May 23 2018, @03:49AM
I had not considered the continual nature of this voting process, nor the 3rd party benefit.
I agree, it does change the dynamics. I'd participate in it, at least for testing purposes. Like maybe a test case for Portland.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.