h a l f b a k e r yStill more entertaining than cricket.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Sometimes, representative democracy sucks. In the past pure democracy (that is everyone represented themselves) has worked well, but it doesn't work in the traditional sense nowadays due to population.
Wikis on the other hand work well with high population, and allow each user to have a voice.
The
idea could be simulated in virtual reality (think Second Life) or perhaps implemented in some strange land.
OpenCongress
http://www.opencongress.org/
Ÿ baked [Spacecoyote, Sep 20 2008]
[link]
|
| |
Details please. For now I am going to have to vote (-) |
|
| |
A team of Framers get together and make a set of pages representing government policy, starting with a Constitution being supreme law. Or they could just copy policy from real governments, or reproduce one countries policies exactly. |
|
| |
Then, the populous is free to modify the policy at their own will. Edited law goes into force as soon as it is published (cops would have it on their cell phones, etc.) |
|
| |
If things get unruly, moderators could be chosen by the populous to keep the policy from getting completely insane. |
|
| |
So, the populous at large acts as the legislative branch, moderators act as the judicial branch, and volunteers act as the executive branch. |
|
| |
That way, everyone has an actual say in everything, so nobody complains about not being represented properly since they are in fact their own representatives. |
|
| |
Seems to me that Wiki works much the same way as a regular democracy. Some relatively small group (aka, elite) gets to do most of the posting/governing, while most everyone else gets to benefit/suffer from it. |
|
| |
Taking your model, things got unruly somewhere about 10,000 BC. Since then, the moderators have locked down all the pages. |
|
| |
Moderators would not be allowed to lock pages. |
|
| |
That would make the job hard, but fair. |
|
| |
To get people interested, perhaps an award system could be put in place. For example: |
|
| |
Lets say the executive branch has been allowed to tax people to subsidize improvement and maintenance of the national infrastructures. |
|
| |
People who contribute regularly and are not a pain in the ass for the moderators (who can be themselves voted out if they are a pain in the ass) get tax cuts according to the public opinion of the value of their contributions to society. |
|
| |
So if you are a criminal organization you just need to keep an editor on staff to make whatever you are about to do legal for the few seconds or minutes it takes place to complete the act? |
|
| |
Let say I want to have someone murdered. I hire two people, a hitman/sniper and a law hacker. Sniper takes aim. Confirms target. Hacker drafts modified law on murder so that it does not apply on alternate Tuesdays between 3:00 and 3:15. Sniper gives nod to indicate he has the target. Hacker hits submit button and confirms that change has taken and nods. Sniper takes perfectly legal shot, killing target. Good citizen notices ridiculous change in law ten seconds after it has been modified and reverts it. but it is five seconds too late for the now deceased target. Sniper and Hacker collect pay. |
|
| |
Did I once invent the www.wikitution.gov? Or am I imagining that? |
|
| |
Unworkable in the extreme but please enjoy a wiki-bun for your sentiments and wish to get things done better [+] |
|
| |
I thought HB ideas didn't need to be workable. |
|
| |
@Galbinus_Caeli:
Yeah I thought of that...I have no idea what the best way would be to handle that possibility. |
|
| |
One answer could be that sections of policy could be locked by popular consensus. It would take popular consensus again to amend these sections. |
|
| |
Perhaps in areas where citizens are allowed to produce propositions, you could develop a wikisition website, so that people could write, rewrite, and modify propositions until they appear popular enough to get the needed signatures. |
|
| |
Starting small, I know, but government resists rapid change for certain reasons, and the reasons are good. |
|
| |
Get enough people to want the change, and they together they can overthrow the government. |
|
| |
But I don't care that much...it would be cooler and safer to see it in theory instead of real life (ie. in virtual reality, or perhaps as a business model). |
|
| |
I think everyone shud not go to work!!!!! AND FREE DOUGHNUTS!!!!!!!"!! |
|
| |
No moore speliing!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 |
|
| |
Government involves making very hard decisions. Having a wiki might tell you what people think, but wouldn't get any of these decisions made - it's little more use in this context than a bulettin board. For example, most people would like really low taxes and fantastic public services. The fact that this is what most people want doesn't mean it's possible. The hard work of hitting the right compromise between tax burden and levels of service provision still needs to be done by someone. |
|
| |
//representative democracy sucks//
That's because it's not representative. When was the last time you got to vote on a specific issue rather than having to choose between two or three distressingly similar party candidates? As hippo says, Wiki-ocracy wouldn't do anything to improve the situation.
I'm with DrCurry one this one. Back to the caves and the person with the largest club gets to be in charge. |
|
| |
The unfortunate truth remains: the vast majority of people are poorly educated, lazy, donut-eating morons. Political progress should be made by restricting voting elligibility rather than giving it to more people. I say bring back slightly mad despots; Emperors and the like. You can really get behind them, despite their quirky psychosisisms. |
|
| |
sp: doughnuts!!!!!!!!!!!!"!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 |
|
| |
70% of Europeans believe in Astrology. 60% of Americans believe believe that planet Earth formed 6,000 year ago.
So much for "wisdom of the masses". |
|
| |
I'm not sure if the judgement of an uneducated majority that chooses to disrespect science (= the truth) is more sound than that of an elite of experts. |
|
| |
science doesn't necessarily = the truth. what it does equal (or should = ) is the search for the truth. |
|
| |
I must bun for no reason other than I was planning on adding this myself a few weeks ago. My decision to not post came because I knew it would be boned into oblivion for lacking important details. |
|
| |
In general, I wish to be ruled only by those more intelligent than me. I could not develop a solution that could accomplish this. |
|
| |
The majority of people belong to a minority group. |
|
| |
You might be in the richest 10% or the poorest 10%, but the other 90% are not going to vote to give you any tax breaks. |
|
| |
I would recommending changing your idea so that the laws do not come into effect for a short time, during which the moderators decide wether or not it conflicts with a set of supreme, immutable laws, and people can modify it. |
|
| |
Fine...but the moderators are still ordinary people who have been elected for the purpose and they still may be kicked out. |
|
| |
I like the idea of wiki law writing, but possibly as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for the current system. Let the bills currently going to congress (or your legislative body of choice) be posted for several months prior to entering the normal legislative process.
Admittedly we would end up with a lot of bills saying "John Smith smells like a skunk" in the fine print, but what can you do? |
|
| |
[ed], I know plenty of people more intelligent than me that would make horrid rulers. I think I'd prefer to be governed by those wiser than myself. |
|
| |
Are you leading a double life in VR!? Eh, doesn't hurt to give it a try. |
|
| |
I'm of the opinion that there must be some germ of benefit here amidst all this roughage. Somehow you'd think governmental structure would benefit from something as useful as wikipedia. |
|
| |