The First E-President 169
Szentigrade writes "Popular Science is running a letter by Daniel Engber of the online Slate Magazine in which he offers the US Presidential nominees advice on using the full potential of the Internet upon their election into office. Some examples discussed in the letter include: a project already being developed that speeds up the patent approval process, a UK site that aims to improve government-citizen interactions, and perhaps most importantly, a call for government information to be 'presented in a standardized and widely used data format, like XML, so that anyone — in or out of government — could use and reconfigure it however they pleased.' Will 2009 be the first year of the E-President?"
it's already happened (Score:5, Insightful)
in previous elections, grassroots fundraising was small time. dean certainly created buzz in 2004, and $, on the internet, but by far, obama has shown that internet fundraising is a tsunami. it dwarfs the old-boy network and other sources of funding
i think a lot of us lament the influence of money in american democracy. but i think this is the first election you would ever have republicans siding with that sentiment
Re:can they use? (Score:4, Insightful)
perhaps one of the greatest benefits of IT is the possibility of establishing a direct democracy on a national scale through online referendums.
gone are the days when logistical obstacles prevented the public from directly participating in the legislative process. there's really no excuse to not involve the public in public policy decisions and create a participatory democracy at the federal level.
a government of the people, by the people, for the people, is not just a catchy phrase from the Gettysburg Address. if we want to continue to call ourselves a democracy, then we need to actually employ a democratic system of government that carries out the will of the people.
Re:can they use? (Score:3, Insightful)
"there's really no excuse to not involve the public in public policy decisions and create a participatory democracy at the federal level."
Are you insane?
Re:can they use? (Score:5, Insightful)
In many ways, it's You Tube that's killed the Republican coalition between fiscal conservatives (libertarians), social conservatives, and the "National Greatness" conservatives (the neo-cons, more or less.)
Obama's campaign helped the Republicans self-destruct by aggressively running a 50-state campaign, not a 50% +1 campaign. This meant that the RNC had to run ads to shore up its base in formerly secure red states. The problem is, the message that rallies the base - using "liberal" as a smear word, attacking patriotism, etc - alienates the middle. An ad attacking the Democrats in North Carolina will be seen by voters in New Hampshire and Minnesota, and they will find it repellent. Meanwhile, Obama does not have to appeal to the far left to mobilize his base, and his base is already extremely well mobilized. He is more or less in a situation where he never has to apologize or be sheepish about any ad with "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message" on it, while a lot of the John McCain ads are frankly embarrassing.
The result is Republican meltdown. Fiscal conservatives already suspect that it may be easier, as in the Clinton era, to get fiscally conservative policy out of a Dem administration than out of the Republicans. It's definitely easier to push fiscal conservatism in the Democratic party than it is to push social liberalism in the Republican one. Now, the tensions between the generally secular neo-cons and the religious social conservatives (many of whom, like Huckabee, are actually comfortable with a government that provides a lot of services) is being reflected in the cracks between McCain's camp and Palin's camp.
I think what YouTube has done is put an asterisk next to Tip O'Neill's old axiom that "all politics are local." That asterisk is "but all communications are global."
Re:It won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
Refusing to legitimise the broken system by taking part *is* doing something. With enough weight behind it, non-participation can cause a lot of change.
Re:Let's not kill Socrates again. (Score:3, Insightful)
While it may be common sense that such a system will not work - it has worked in a number of places.
You did notice the subject of the post you are responding to? ;)
Wikipedia was slated by many to fail, and it did not.
Wikipedia allows people who know something about something to write what they know, to have it corrected by other someones and ultimately to be subject intervention from on high. Direct democracy would involve getting people who know nothing about anything to decide everything. OK, that's hyperbole, but do read on. :)
I'm with Popper here. The strength of democracy does not lie in our ability to elect a government, but to dismiss one. We (you, I and every voter) are singularly unqualified to asses the strength of prospective governments. Firstly we can't believe what the candidates or the press or the smear campaigns etc etc tell us. Secondly we are not qualified in Economics && Law && Domestic Administration && Foreign Affairs && the countless other things governments must deal with. However, when incumbents get it wrong, there is no-one, but no-one, who is better informed than the people who are subject to that government's misrule.
We are, I submit, even less qualified to make a call on day-to-day administrative or legislative processes.
The courts will still be there to overrule unconstitutional legislation and protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority (as they do now) so there will not be that kind of danger.
The courts would be the very first thing to go. And what is this constitution that you speak of? Not the one you've thrown out the door to bring this about?
Re:Let's not kill Socrates again. (Score:3, Insightful)
In Bush's case, the mechanism is the Secret Service, and "the will of the people" is to tar and feather him. nd that's just for starters.
Your statement is inaccurate and should be rephrased as "Every democracy currentlyworth living in" ... we now have the means to devise a future democraciy that would have been unimaginable in times past.
Re:It won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
As has been said before about voting - taking part only legitimises a corrupt system.
And not taking part allows the system to do whatever it wants with impunity. Do you suggest we relinquish what power we do have and suffer the consequences? Human systems will forever be imperfect. Refusal to participate guarantees that power will be in the hands of the most corrupt. I refuse to stand idly by while history unfolds itself without contributing my own efforts, however small they may be.
Not if McCain wins! (Score:4, Insightful)
The last thing that the neo-cons want is for more government-citizen interaction and less secrecy in their more 'sensitive' actions. The less that the citizens know, the better! All this government-citizen interaction just gets in the way of what they believe a government is supposed to do: give away hundreds of billions of dollars to sleazy corrupt hedge-fund managers and mercenary corporations, and to then just disappear when it's completely broke (along with everyone's pensions and 401-K plans).
Would anyone want to be entrusted to have to try and explain anything technical to Sarah Palin? The first DAZ-MO president (dumb-as-shit mommy)! God, I've got hundreds of them trying to drive their space shuttles (huge SUVs) around town, occasionally flipping them over and crashing into poles because they haven't quite mastered the art of feeding the kids, dialing the phone, changing the DVD, and driving a huge truck-sized vehicle in dense highway traffic.
And a Palin presidency? Just tell her that "this is what America wants and needs", make a huge payoff to the people who are really deciding the policies, and walk off with the billion-dollar no-bid contracts. Two months of a Palin presidency and even the staunchest liberals will be begging the military to take over the country. Just don't shoot us, please. Shoot them, instead. You know who we mean.
Jeez.
i should have known (Score:3, Insightful)
my comment would bring out the partisan hacks
Re:It won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
No, not taking part weakens the system to the point that change must happen because the government no longer have the mandate of the people.
It weakens the government and makes some sort of societal reset more likely and widely supported.
Not taking part is a legitimate political action, whereas voting not only gives your mandate to one or other set of sheisters, but continues to prop up and legitimise a broken system.
Re:can they use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Right answer, wrong explanation. if they made it obvious and easily accesible to figure out where all of the money went, it would make it that much harder for any of it to stick to their hands. You really think people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get a 6-figure salary, a comped mansion and an impressive title for a couple of years? You think that such people could actually manage to win?