Toward Reimaging Governance

i also wouldnt let ANY media groups have a say in the process. thats asking for trouble (: imagine if murdoch had direct access to input in your app/house whatever to say what he thinks?

real information with sources, and counter information with sources are what is required.
and a set period for end of voting on issues.

the other key to actually getting a direct democracy, is less time working
we cant just dump direct democracy on people on top of everything else they have to do in thier lives.
the working week, and income systems would need to change to allow people time to evaluate the issues at hand, and consider the position they want to take.

@directadmin

...commentary and recommendations from 3rd-party groups you trust

Emphasis on you trust, meaning each person would see commentary from just those groups, not "ANY media groups." :-)

@directadmin Starting with "small independent direct democracies" is really interesting! I like it because power is much less concentrated at the local levels, unlike federally. Important idea, nice!

@directadmin

my litmus test is always what happens if one guy wants to take over.

Yes this is super important, and I've thought that as well, but sometimes I think, "do we really need to fundamentally change the way society is structured just so the Dick Cheneys of the world can't screw it up?" I'd like to find a way to prevent REALLY bad apples from corrupting a relatively centralized system (better checks and balances?), but if we can't think of a good solution to that, I agree entirely -- a more decentralized system is necessary.

I think I get what you are saying, I just think its an unnecessary incursion of corporate interests into a system run by the people.

it should only be individuals who have access and get to input.
no lobby groups, no media, no corporate entities.
corporations don't care about people only profit.

i also think ultimately, if a bill of rights and constitution exists, that would be the real law.

anything else should only be locally passed and only extend to the agreed borders of that community.
it also should not apply to your own home.

for example, if a community wanted to ban cats, and for some crazy reason it past. they could only ban cats in public areas, it wouldn't apply to your home, and it wouldn't pass out of the community..so your cat would have to be kept in your premises to meet that requirement.

its hard to discuss this kind of thing as it leads to more questions. but I believe in some kind of home is your own country kind of system

so no group could pass laws that took away your constitutional rights or stop you from doing something in your own home.

im not certain where this all gels together yet but they are concepts I'm mulling over..

Agreed, re: media input @directadmin. Evidenced-based data, not editorials, are the best way to approach this. As a teacher, I would say that the way we teach would need to shift dramatically as well. Far more emphasis on the local would be needed, with schools becoming community hubs rather than information silos. And critical thinking NEEDS to be the heart and soul of any curriculum.

Sustainable citizen participation in the legislative process would, as Douglass Rushkoff puts it, require a renaissance rather than a revolution. The way I see it, direct democracy doesn't stand in opposition to representative democracy. It IS democracy. We're just nor there yet.

Has anyone been a little freaked out by what metadata retention (and in the case of the NSA, content invasion) could mean for online direct democracy? Surely omnipresent surveillance would profoundly alter the way people would participate in decision making online. Advocacy around the free web is an absolute necessity for the online direct democracy cause.

@directadmin

it should only be individuals who have access and get to input.

How would you do this without eliminating freedom of the press, political free speech, and other important First Amendment rights? I'm just saying that people should be able to decide what commentary they see on which issues when they use some app to vote.

about the only things I think we would need centralized
is some kind of cloud based open source tax system, (for services)

and some kind of emergency services/security

making sure neither of those are used against the people are really important.

@rathy yes, I ahve been very concerned about metadata, NSA and security, its why I think about building an internet specifically for this purpose.

building it fresh gives us the chance to check every single point of access for weaknesses and exploitation

@rathy What the NSA is doing is HORRIBLE and one of the issues I'm most passionate about. (I'm a programmer and have made (not-user-friendly) encrypted messaging apps so people can take their privacy back online.)

Good point in tying it together with direct democracy; people should be able to vote without fear of political enemies punishing them. The NSA would know everyone who voted for reigning them in!

@elimisteve you arent controlling the media, you are just controlling access to the voting platform

and to be honest a centralized media (which we have now) is no freedom of press.
i think having local media would become more important.

local TV, local reporters, independents groups.
no ownership.

its hard to be sure, but media will need its own thread
its one of the toughest nuts to crack.

@WarisaRacket you raise a great point about time this is a key element in direct democracy. we need to reduce working hours so people have time to actually consider thier decisions, to understand the ramifications.

the only reason i can ever see for modifying current systems and not implement something more drastic is as a transition to move towards a more drastic system, like a training phase.

we all know we work too much now anyway, so a reduction in hours (severely) would be welcome, especially if we want to have more access to democracy.
by providing some of the vitals, local renewable (solar wind etc) forms of energy to homes, as a right, not a cost. reduce the overall costs of running a household. you could have people freed up from working so many hours, businesses could adjust wages down. your suggesting of a basic income also allows this time and protections. doing all the above would be best! basic income and low cost utilities.

im not saying planning a complete change is easy. and especially in pro austerity countries.
but if we are going to the effort of designing something free and fair, lets not play a half game because some people wont like it.
we don't have to win anyone over now, we just have to design something complete.

if what we design is fair, and balanced and works, then i do believe logic will prevail.

i have considered relegation of voting, its something we have to be very clear about. it has the potential to ruin direct democracy completely.

but some people just wont care about some subjects, and that also needs to be considered.

you are not an idiot, you are thinking about all the right things. we need every brain to work on this, so dont ever put anything you type down!!

@directadmin It's a pleasure to meet you and thanks for the response. I deleted my previous post & don't know if I can recover it :( Anyways, it appears that we share many of the same values and are both fans of Jeremy Rifkin =D It's unfortunate that this group isn't more active but regardless, I love the idea and think it has serious potential. I have some experience with Photoshop & video-editing so if we can get a small group of dedicated and creative individuals behind this, I'd have no problem volunteering some of my time for it in the future. I still need to educate myself on the subject but thus far I'm fully on board with you brilliant people. All the best!

here is the post you deleted for reference (:

WarisaRacket mentioned you while discussing "Toward Reimaging Governance"

Hello @directadmin @rathy @elimisteve, thanks for the excellent discussion. Re: your 3 suggestions @directadmin, I love all of them but I simply do not see it happening in pro-Austerity countries. Most adults in the US watch less than 7 minutes of news per day because they are too busy working or otherwise too exhausted from shitty jobs. Platforms like Loomio & DemocracyOS, as amazing and engaging as they are, simply do not fall on the radar of stressed people living in perpetual poverty. Most of these people can’t even afford to take a Monday off to vote, nor do they care enough to want to. In my opinion, two solutions to this issue are:
1) Along with the platform of crowd-sourced governance, introduce a basic income which would give every person the capability to be active participants in the system we wish to create, if they choose to be. In my opinion, we do not want to recreate a system where only those who can afford to can participate. Also, I believe we would make the best case out of all current parties advocating BI in re: to funding it since we’re also advocating freeing up politician’s budgets in addition to their funding methods. What are your thoughts on this economic equality v. political equality issue?
2) Provide a feature on the platform for the time-stricken general public to relegate their votes to other members they trust on various issues (which kind of goes against the “direct-democracy” ethos, but I don’t see another solution without 1).
It is also important to note the populist rhetoric that all parties on the political spectrum are adopting for upcoming elections. We also must adopt all the good/popular ideas from successful populist parties (solidarity funds/Podemos circles, etc) while simultaneously showing how/why our ideas would be superior, if they are to ever gain a foothold in the collective conscience. I may be too idealistic, but I really do believe we live in amazing times. Anyways, that’s just my two cents and I’m an idiot, though I’m sure some much smarter people with lots of free time can figure it out :)

@warisaracket so glad you are keen. I will not stop until direct democracy facilitated by the internet is a reality. I just wish I had programming skills. I have been looking at adapting loomio to suit an idea I have but not getting any where yet. I started a thread here looking for help. I might have to start from scratch and learn to build what I want.

@directadmin. So glad you are still active. Thanks for reposting for Warisa.

I am happy to say I have a wonderful work live(life) balance. I work for myself and probably have more time off than time working, and still have enough money to play with. I am by no means wealthy and have little reserve but can reduce my expenses very low so that I can survive on $150 per week if necessary. I have had this lifestyle for about 15 years.

Just joined, catching up to do but looks significant. Just a couple of thoughts, I wonder if it is worth looking at the idealised global system and working backwards. Present models are piece meal adaptations of a bygone age. I think what we envisage is a world wide app. suited to voting on a single issue with a suitable mixed media information facet. Maybe unique ID, GPS related (10km, 100km and global)? If that is the vision then we need to build that into the early models to unify later.... On with the reading!!! Pete.

Ideally I don't think much will need doing globally. There are very few issues that would require that.

But.. It definitely needs consideration.

@petenicholls I agree with a global approach but I also think the platform needs to zoom to the local level. I think this can be achieved with a tree like structure that carries every significant issue from the roots to the branches and when there are global issues, like the planets climate, these issues will appear on every level.

We need to be careful not to allow too much access locally for issues they don't have a stake in.

Some of the citizens initiated referendum in other parts of the world have shown results where locals have had external popular decision affect them, against the local results.

I'll try to find some more information.

I don't have time to engage much, but, I generally perceive a gross deficit of attention in public discourse to the subject of stakeholders: "Who is really affected by this issue?" Which brings us to the subject of what government ought or ought not to be, at various scales of society: town, state or province, nation, and (yep) world.