In my last post, I discussed reasons why an open source government would be a good thing. Now I will tell you my plan for how an OSG would operate (using the USA in the model). It is essential to understand that this is not a left vs right issue. The idea here is simply to empower the people of any given country, and allow those people to rule their own lives. Using the same methodology we use in open source software development (slightly modified), we can achieve that one simple goal.
First, imagine a website. This is a very large website. Imagine that your account on this website was created when you registered to vote. Now imagine, that on this website, every person in the country who had registered to vote was able to take part in government rather directly. When America first began its life, people were able to view any goings on in congress. People were able to visit the White House and speak with their President. Government wasn't closed off and remote as it now is. Security became too large a concern, and now through the power of the web we could and should restore those abilities to the people.
Now, you log in. Your home page has things you care about on it. Bills and representatives you're following, a live CSPAN stream, voting records of your representatives, Supreme Court decisions, and Presidential veto records. All of this data, available to you, as soon as you log in. Not bad, eh? The real power of the site is that your opinion can be expressed everywhere. On all things except for legislation, you can like/dislike similarly to Facebook. That data can be viewed by people in government real-time so that there is no longer a question as to how the people feel about things. With legislation, things get a little more interesting.
All people have the power to write bills and send them to congress. Few people ever do, but this is something you are allowed to do. Well, let's take that large scale. Imagine that regardless of whether or not you, your senator, or your next-door-neighbor wrote a bill, it was editable by the public for two months (possibly more or less, just a thought). At the end of those two months a comparison algorithm would look at all versions extent and form an outline of a bill, and submit that bill to congress. All legislation would have to be created in this manner, no exceptions. Of course, congress always has the final say, but all bills would be edited and submitted to congress in this manner (and a 66% repeal vote by the people prevents a bill from hitting the floor of congress). Once a bill hit congress, all revisions would be viewable by the public in real-time (similar to how you can see changes being made on a wave). At any point in time, you can like/dislike. Once a bill is voted upon, you get real time vote readings. All passed legislation could be edited and repealed in this same manner. Simply open a bill for edit, and a repeal button is always available to you. If enough people (66% of those active in a given two month span) edit the same bill or select it for veto/repeal, it is submitted to congress. This site would be a real-time, collaborative, live, transparent government-people interface. Always on and always available, it would bring the developers (government) and users (people) closer together than ever before. This site is also your place to vote (though for reasons of fraud prevention you would login while at the voting house).
How many economists would be able to write legislation that would balance the American budget? I dare say they would do better than a poli-sci major. How many farmers would know more about and be able to do more for farmers? Any industry can be looked at in this manner. Having a group of people who know nothing about most industries writing legislation to control those industries makes very little sense. At the same time, any government that thinks that having an outstanding debt in double digit trillions is sustainable... needs some serious help from businessmen, accountants, and economists. This type of government-people interface would allow for such assistance.
Sadly, I highly doubt that any government would ever do this. First, they like things to be done behind closed doors. Second, they do not like people to be aware of legislation until it is passed (and even then they still prefer an ignorant populace). Third, no congress wants the people to be able to edit/halt legislation. It's funny that I can see something like this being more popular in Europe, Latin America, or Oceania than I can the USA. The USA which is supposed to be by, of, and for the people would be the last to include the people in daily government operations. Yet, who knows, maybe...
5 comments:
A noble idea, but you have a somewhat misconstrued understanding of politics.
1. It's poli-sci, not poly-sci, unless you're involved in multiple sciences, or you're in polytics.
2. "The idea here is simply to empower the people of any given country, and allow those people to rule their own lives." This IS an issue of left and right (though left and right is far too simple of a generalization in politics). This is exactly the subject matter that ideologies disagree on: the degree of freedom that people should have in their own lives, versus the amount of intervention the government would have in their lives."
It is the same with what you say about sending in bills, about the trillions of dollars of debt. Those are ideological and political issues that cannot simply be remedied by an economist. An accountant says "spend less money," while an activist says "the government needs to spend more money on issue x." A dove says "spend less money on the military," but a hawk thinks that the security loss would be unjustifiable. These are all deep political issues which can't simply be solved by someone with a degree in commerce. The United States' debt is not as simple as the fact that politicians aren't good with numbers. If you want economists to write legislation, then vote for economists.
3. The problem with this system is that it gives some more voice than others. Democracy is about pleasing the MOST people, not the loudest. That's why each person is only given one vote. Granted, your system wouldn't give these vocal people any hard power, but the system lends itself to "ideological spamming", where someone can make an issue that affects a few people seem like it affects more by the volume of responses it gets on the website.
4. This further disenfranchises persons in poverty. If access to a computer becomes the means of political expression, then I fear many of the people who have the most problems and the most to express will have little ability to do so. (my ideological bias is showing here...)
All in all, your technical idea is very good, and I'm all for the expression of voices, but you NEED to realize that writing legislation is not like writing software, where the best result comes when you get "qualified" people writing it. That's not a democracy, it's a technocracy.
You may be interested in The Venus Project. Its about updating society to modern day understandings and technology.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Do people need more than just voting rights?
Do they also need to be informed and rights to share their views?
Today's technology could give these to them. Do the people want these? If they want, can the government prevent it? If the government will block people from using the technology is it still a democracy?
@j,
I recommend that you read my previous post titled "the Charge for Freedom" which will tell you something about why I wrote this, and why it is a good idea.
I guess, let me rephrase what I was saying. I came off a bit harsh:
I think what you are proposing is a good idea, however, I believe that within the context of my left-leaning bias, and I don't think it's possible to implement it in an ideologically neutral matter. Also, I disagree with your reasons, even if I agree with your conclusion.
But yes, you are quite correct in saying that people need to be more active in democracy.
Post a Comment