Eliminate Political Middlemen
I think an Internet-based voting system should replace some politicians.
I think it's about time that we seriously consider eliminating politicians or at least reducing the roll that our elected officials play. We vote at the polls to show how we feel about certain candidates, then the candidates supposedly vote for their constituents during legislative sessions. Why are we doing this? We already have the infastructure in place to allow for some moderated 'direct voting'.
I don't know how the idea of electronic 'direct voting' over the internet would work on all scales of government, and I will readily concede that it would not be appropriate for all levels of government, and for perhaps every task. If every legislative point was to be voted on by everyone, people would develope isolated educations (only caring and investigating certain, specific areas of government) and trying to keep on top of all points would require monumental amounts of time. These are some reasons why 'direct voting' would not work. Direct voting however, does work on some levels, such as city ordinances and things of that nature - which to me indicates that it's possible. And with the Internet, it's feasible.
But what of security? If we required your social security number and a driver's license or state ID number, I think it would be sufficient (with reasonable security measures in place) to eliminate illegal 'proxy voting'. Voting integrity would be a concern, but I would wager that it would be comparable to our financial system security and integrity. The money required to operate an internet-based voting system would be far less expensive than trying to employ corrupt politicians over a period of time. All software involved would have to be open source, so that secuirty could be routinely checked, and improved with time. I liken this 'direct voting' system to filing your taxes electronically, only much less complicated. You could have vote-integrity checks down to the user level- people could just log back in and verify that their vote tallied was consistant with their cast vote, and could even be changed accordingly. Legislation could even be vetoed after it had been passed, or amended.
There would still be a need for some politicians. I don't think that people would be able to come up with appropriate wording for all legislation passed. Politicians would be the people payed to discern the wording for legislation up for voting 'review'. I think even though it would keep laws wordy, it would reduce ambiguity. There could even be discussion forums setup for each bill for discussion, that way it could be explained or amended before it was passed, if needed.
I wish that I had the capabilities or drive to figure out the intricacies of such a system, but I lack both, I think. I can't help but feel we're being inefficient in how we operate though. Obviously I don't adhere to the 'politicians vote for what they feel is best for their constituents' mindset. I think the power, however dangerous, is best left in the hands of the people.
comments
1
ava
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
An internet-based voting system would certainly be cheaper and more efficient than the current paper/electronic ballot system. My concern would be the security of the voting - there are a lot of very skilled programmers out there, and it doesn't seem like it would be hard for them to manipulate the votes and results. Of course, it isn't hard /now/ for the current ballots to be manipulated, but going from one fuckable system to another doesn't seem like much of an improvement.
Assuming that internet voting were safe, however, what sort of things would it be used for? Electing officials? Voting in city laws? State ones? National ones? Voting on foreign and domestic policy? You said in irc that it wouldn't replace the courts, but it seems like it would certainly replace Congress (not necessarily a bad thing.) Direct internet-voting for the President would also put an end to the Electoral College (also not necessarily a bad thing).
Also, if this were to be used to vote on things like national policy, I think that most people are simply not informed enough to have a good foundation on which to base their vote. When it comes to things like foreign policy or pollution regulations, the political scientists and chemists and so forth know much more about than most of us ever will, and are thus able to make much better decisions about it than if it were left up to a direct vote.