Tuesday
Jul292008
Do we even need politicans?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 at 6:55AM
The representative democracy that seems all the rage these days isn't really necessary with today's technology. Part of the justification for a democratic republic, as opposed to a true democracy, is that up until very recently, the logistical issues with allowing every person to vote on every issue were prohibitive.
by psd
However the internet and cell phones remove these problems and make electronic voting possible, and politicians potentially redundant. Why do we need all the expense and ethical issues that come with electing representatives when we could just vote on bills ourselves?
by thorinside
Security and reliability has definitely been a concern with electronic voting so far. But despite a list of documented problems, electronic voting is becoming more and more popular throughout the world (Brazil does all voting in all elections electronically). If banking, bill payment, and stock trading can be made secure enough for everyday use by average citizens, then there is no reason that the same cannot be done for voting (and it has.. in other countries).
Access issues have to be considered. Grandpa and grandma may not want to learn how to use the internet in order vote on whether or not their health care gets cut off. People with extremely low incomes may have difficulty purchasing the sorts of technology necessary to vote electronically. But both of these problems are relatively minor. Over 70% of the Canadian population has internet access. Those that don't (poor people and old people) can walk to the library or pick up a phone if they don't have a computer. If you can order a pizza, or vote on Canadian Idol, you can vote for tax cuts.
by Garrettc
You also may have problems giving a stronger political voice to the guy in the next cubicle, who farts and thinks more about the WWE than the WWF. But then you'd be forgetting that Ted Stevens, an elected representative, referred to the internet as "a series of tubes" and "not a truck". Yes people are stupid, but politicians are people too. I'd rather have farting WWE guy be one voice in 30 million, than Ted Stevens be one voice in 100. And I can be sure that Exxon Mobil isn't bribing farting WWE guy.
by thepostalservice
The biggest problem is that since 2001, there has been an average of 291 bills introduced, and 34 passed per year. That's a fair bit of legislation to read up on. 24 bills to read a month and almost three bills to pass. And bills are not short. Frequently dozens, occasionally hundreds of pages.
That assumes that all the representatives actually read all the bills. They don't, they don't have the time. Within the party different bills are allocated to different representatives, who in turn probably delegate a fair bit of the grunt work to subordinates and interns. A few people then determine how each bill fits with the party politics, and the then party votes as a whole, despite that individually they probably haven't actually read what they are voting on.
by mstephens7
The general population would probably end up researching and voting on what they have interests in, not every single issue. This could actually improve legislation because in most cases, only those with a good deal of knowledge on a subject would take the time to vote on it. And psychos, psychos would vote alot.
In reality it's probably not possible to get rid of all politicians entirely. Perhaps something more like Canadian Parliament meets Wikipedia. There could be elected officials to introduce bills and moderate the process as the public contributes to and votes on changes to the bills. They would also be necessary for administration and foreign relations.
by kalavinka
A world without elected representatives may be a fantasy (a glorious, glorious fantasy) at this point, but I think that any increase in public participation and control over politics can only improve the system. Technology now makes this possible. Unfortunately we'd have to convince the politicians to vote themselves out of a job, so I guess it won't be happening.
by Tesla314
by psd
However the internet and cell phones remove these problems and make electronic voting possible, and politicians potentially redundant. Why do we need all the expense and ethical issues that come with electing representatives when we could just vote on bills ourselves?
by thorinside
Security and reliability has definitely been a concern with electronic voting so far. But despite a list of documented problems, electronic voting is becoming more and more popular throughout the world (Brazil does all voting in all elections electronically). If banking, bill payment, and stock trading can be made secure enough for everyday use by average citizens, then there is no reason that the same cannot be done for voting (and it has.. in other countries).
Access issues have to be considered. Grandpa and grandma may not want to learn how to use the internet in order vote on whether or not their health care gets cut off. People with extremely low incomes may have difficulty purchasing the sorts of technology necessary to vote electronically. But both of these problems are relatively minor. Over 70% of the Canadian population has internet access. Those that don't (poor people and old people) can walk to the library or pick up a phone if they don't have a computer. If you can order a pizza, or vote on Canadian Idol, you can vote for tax cuts.
by Garrettc
You also may have problems giving a stronger political voice to the guy in the next cubicle, who farts and thinks more about the WWE than the WWF. But then you'd be forgetting that Ted Stevens, an elected representative, referred to the internet as "a series of tubes" and "not a truck". Yes people are stupid, but politicians are people too. I'd rather have farting WWE guy be one voice in 30 million, than Ted Stevens be one voice in 100. And I can be sure that Exxon Mobil isn't bribing farting WWE guy.
by thepostalservice
The biggest problem is that since 2001, there has been an average of 291 bills introduced, and 34 passed per year. That's a fair bit of legislation to read up on. 24 bills to read a month and almost three bills to pass. And bills are not short. Frequently dozens, occasionally hundreds of pages.
That assumes that all the representatives actually read all the bills. They don't, they don't have the time. Within the party different bills are allocated to different representatives, who in turn probably delegate a fair bit of the grunt work to subordinates and interns. A few people then determine how each bill fits with the party politics, and the then party votes as a whole, despite that individually they probably haven't actually read what they are voting on.
by mstephens7
The general population would probably end up researching and voting on what they have interests in, not every single issue. This could actually improve legislation because in most cases, only those with a good deal of knowledge on a subject would take the time to vote on it. And psychos, psychos would vote alot.
In reality it's probably not possible to get rid of all politicians entirely. Perhaps something more like Canadian Parliament meets Wikipedia. There could be elected officials to introduce bills and moderate the process as the public contributes to and votes on changes to the bills. They would also be necessary for administration and foreign relations.
by kalavinka
A world without elected representatives may be a fantasy (a glorious, glorious fantasy) at this point, but I think that any increase in public participation and control over politics can only improve the system. Technology now makes this possible. Unfortunately we'd have to convince the politicians to vote themselves out of a job, so I guess it won't be happening.
by Tesla314
Reader Comments (1)
nice post, i'll have to check out your site more thoroughly later. glad my photo could be of use.