Edemocracy (properly structured) should replace Representative Democracy everywhere.
Debate Rounds (3)
The Democratic Systems were created when there was no way each and every one of us could participate in Parliaments because of limitations of Time and Place. Thats why we give rights to One Party Group or the Other Party Group to rule us for a certain period say 4 years in US.
But with the advent of technology the Place and Time Limitation is already extinct. We are participating in discussions on wide range of subjects, we are voting regularly in web polls, we initiate new issues to be debated, so what a Parliament is doing, we citizens are doing WITHOUT THE BIG COST THAT OF Parliaments.As the limitations are gone, now we can start a Citizens initiated Bill, we can debate on the bill online and vote on the bill and make it a law. The entire process is immediate rather than the existing long PROCESSES INVOLVED IN SENATE/ HOUSES.
Andy Williamson one of the pioneers in the field of digital democracy says ,"Bring Democracy back to the public, not only through their browsers but increasingly through their smartphones." So, expert says the technology is available right now. Ref.1
We so far believe one or the other Person will have all the capabilities to Guide our Nations. It is nothing but fascination or hero worship. In the current complex situation like recession, growing poor and rich divide, health, superannuation problems, unemployment, Political secrecies in the name of classified documents, the threats to freedom of everything, etc. it is no more possible for a single person or a small group to understand what is required for a country. What we thought yesterday to be perfect system is shaking today and cries for change! How can we expect One President whoever it may be to address these issues with the expertise guidance of few people sitting with him.
All the above situations arise because of the time and space limitation in representative system which aims only at compromise with two sides taking two view points and merge at a common acceptable end which ends dispute for the time being and produces results which are acceptable but not desirable. But after some time the compromised issues crop up in different forms again for more and more rounds of discussions and resolutions.
"Representative democracies Ref:4
Our edemocracy could use synthesis as method of seeking long-term, mutually-beneficial solutions to problems. It seeks solutions which, unlike the proposals of conflicting sides, achieve the general aims of both/all sides of a conflict. Such solutions are more beneficial to all parties and thus more enduring. There is no downside to synthesis except the difficulty in producing it. In our Edemocracy we would try to eliminate even this "difficulty in producing the Synthesis" to make it faster.
The TIME is NOW FOR people to take over the system electronically and govern the Country for themselves, rather than just debating on who is Better and end up in recession, war and misery. In Edemocracy some Political structure will be there. Those in the hierarchy will do what people tell them in referendum or polls on each issue on routine basis. The major change is here THEY WILL BE MESSENGERS WHO WILL LEGISLATE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANTED ON ONLINE SYSTEM.
The Edemocracy system I am talking about is somewhat like this:
1. The entire US Senate/House structure will remain the same initially.Parliamentarians can initiate and discuss Bills as it is today.
But the change is in voting.
2. All citizens will be given secured ids and can electronically (SMS,email,online,etc.) a) initiate bill or referenda b) debate on both Citizen as well as Parliamentarian initiated bills -in text,voice,video modes c) Vote on each and every bill and referendum both citizen initiated and Parliamentarian initiated.
3. With due Safeguard to Individual rights,minority and disability rights,international conventions, the majority votes will carry the bill into Rules.
The above is a broad definition This is a start that needs further work. This debate is all about whether Properly structured Edemocracy should replace Rep Democracy but NOT about how to structure Edemocray so we leave that to further discussion in a new debate. PLEASE VOTE 4 "Edemocracy to replace Rep Democracy".
Andy Williamson on Designing new digital public spaces
Direct Edemocracy as contesting purpose of Candidate in NZ MP Elections
Edemocracy World Twitter
1. This is just a updated idea of a direct democracy, our founding fathers were against and created the Electoral College to stop this for several reasons. To have no chance of any tyrant/dictator came to power by having few responsible people who are put into place by the respective party and the average voter. If we voted for president with an Edemocracy system who is to say we would not elect a lying/manipulative who is a great public speaker such as Adolf Hitler?
2. It would be impossible for anything to pass. If every voting adult could raise and vote on issuing, voting would be a daily job where one would be voting on hundreds if not thousands of different issues. To be informed enough to make a valid decision on a vast amount of issues would be impossible for the average American. The chance of compromising would be next to nothing; look at Congress now (with less than 700 people), and the amount of SUBSTANTIAL bills passed. It is low, the chance of getting MILLIONS of people to agree would be impossible.
3. It would leave a lot room for collusion. People would only be voting by what affects them, so we would have groups/regions only taking their needs into account, while not keeping America in mind as a whole. This would lead to many behind the door dealings which couldn't be tracked or proved because anyone could vote for anything.
4. Technology is not at a point currently to do this. The Internet is not secure enough to allow of this magnitude to occur over it, identity/password/account information could be stolen. It would be impossible to identify the person who is voting is actually the person voting. One could easily get their phone, flash drive, papers stolen with their information on it. Many people still do not have access, a want, need, understanding of Internet, text messages, or e-mails. They would have no way of being able to vote, and forcing this whole new system would be against their constitutional right to vote. Taking in Hurricane Sandy for example, if the power, phone, Internet goes out of a large part of a region they would have no way or an extreme difficulty voting, as they have now with the current system. The amount of time/resources for all voters to listen to voice and videos would be overwhelming. A black market for voter information could begin with various groups buying and selling these for their own use or profits.
5. If this is system would be in place there would be no need to initially keep Congress, unless their vote would be more important. This is not possible based on the one man equals one vote.
Like I said earlier this is a very noble idea, but this could not be used at the Federal level. I would agree that it would be possible at the state/local level for various referendums/questions. The idea of Edemocracy has potential, but is not possible in this day and age. The point of the government we have now is to make decisions based on our political position and best interests.
Thank you very much to Con for such a wonderful argument. But all those points have been sorted out in favor of Edemocracy that I can explain now.
1. It is the opposite of giving absolute power to anybody. President & Parliaments will be our messengers doing what we vote for. Only the representative systems are the ones where we leave decision making in the hands of Politicians for 4 years after a dramatic polling day. The founding fathers were afraid of the present representative system (not of direct democracy).In the present system we give the mandate for 4 years to do whatever they think appropriate in their opinion. This is where the problems arise, when there is War like situation, recession like situation, citizens don't have any say except to believe President/Legislators' thinking and ideologies. Who is doing exception handling here -President and legislators- according to their political ideologies! What we see everyday is that out of the square easy solutions are not even given a thought as they are small to the big ego political system. In fact, the Hitler type of President is possible in this very Representative System and not on the Edemocracy model ,where each and every issue will be voted in or out without political philosophies. Switzerland already practices direct democracy (half-direct democracy), in which any citizen may challenge any law at any time. Approximately four times a year, voting occurs over various issues; these include both Referendums, where policies are directly voted on by people, and elections, where the populace votes for officials. Federal, cantonal and municipal issues are polled simultaneously.
2. Common man who is in the thick of every day problems knows the answers to the problems better than legislators. There will be peers for groups who would put things in easy to understand pattern for citizens belong to their peer group so it will be smoother. One of the very issues on which edemocracy comes into the picture is the sheer size of the population and the various issues for them and all the limitations of about 700 people to understand and solve those issues. These 700 odd people are currently bulldozing the issues into two philosophical extremes to temporarily put a compromising stance in the form of a bill. Example the Health Care Issues.: According to a 2008 Commonwealth Fund report, US ranks last in the quality of health care among developed countries. The WHO, in 2000, ranked the US Health Care System as 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 nations ).Still it is costliest system in developing world. Because we are trying to compromise but never tried to use synthesis as method of seeking long-term, mutually-beneficial solutions to problems, this goes on.
3. In the direct democrayof Switzerland people dont collide as Con is fearing. In edemocracy situation, it will be quite faster to initiate a bill by citizens and pass it. We address the problem Con raised by preset tenets and principles and guidelines. It will never be a free for all with un-comprising set of rules which includes individual freedom, property and rights . Any affected person will raise the issue immediately online as opposition. Any proponents of bill tend to undstand the problems of affected person instantly. Proponents would react better than a Political representative who tries to compromise to majority opinion for the sake of Election.
4. The Technology has been tested and all the loopholes have been spotted . It can deliver now. Web-based e-voting system has been used (real, binding votes) since January 2003 in Swiss, as well as in many local governments. Problem areas have been identified including identity, security confidentiality, etc. We are not saying one particular system is right or not. Totally we are capable of taking care of all tech aspects of providing edemocracy, now. In fact the current electronic voting machine and other half-initiatives are worst in all aspects than the full edemocracy we talk about. When a person has a mobile phone it is enough or the system will provide him access, no worries. By Sandy example Con thinks about Once in a 4 year election scenario. In Sandy situation where the "issues vote" will wait for that region to come out of the Hurricane, or even if it is already voted, those people can initiate another poll just to alter a point in the bill immediately online in the next time frame whenever they are able to access internet. As long as people want to cast votes in traditional manner that will continue for 4 year elections.
5. We want to keep it for many years. But the role will undergo drastic change.Here Parliamentarians express their opinion as an advice, before they vote they ask their constituency voters ; if enough constituency voters made a decision then it is binding on the Parliamentarian.
This is not an idea any more.This is where we are moving forward.
ne3o forfeited this round.
I am sorry, for some reason, Con couldn't place his arguments in the second round. I continue with my position nevertheless.
Enough is enough, people had enough of seeing the huge gap between the policies preached and the actual things happening in their real lives.
Flexibility is the watchword in the world today. Why should citizens have rigidity of Party Policies to address national problems. Rather any new problem can be resolved then and there with a fresh thinking by people.
Citizens want their Political and Security Institutions to be error free and scam free. But errors and scams by the Political system are common place in US history.
Why would people still be interested to give away their rights and control to Politicians thereby by indirectly transferring their mandate into the hands of CIA,FBI and Corporate Blocks who could potentially give the keys of the nation to the likes of Monica Lewinsky, Paula Broadwell.
Why would people want to take up another impeachment proceedings for Watergate like scandalsand then to see a president accused pardoned by the next President to safeguard continuity of the system.
The following list of Political sex scandals are just a tip of the iceberg.
Please see the following list of Federal Political Scandal to know and count how many Members of all the 3 branches of the Constitution - Executive. Legislative and Judicial Branch were involved
Even after seeing scams and betrayals in every regime, in every branch and in every period, if Citizens have to leave the establishment to the whims and fancies of representatives without a drastic change, it was just because of
non-availability of any other system at that time. When the technical feasibility is available now to take charge and clean this rotten Political,Executive and judicial systems to make them direct subordinates to Citizens, why would any true American say no to that.
A President can again say one religion is American enemy and engage Military into war and even could emulate Hitler. He could use the entire Government machinery paid by Citizen dollars working to make that media propaganda a success.As in other scams the existing mechanisms could find out only after the event has taken place, then where is the mechanism to stop that before it could happen? Presently all that Citizens have got is to express opinion which would be lost in the crowd of Yes Sayers who were given advertisement and media dollars for that help.
Currently it is uncontrolled system for Citizens run by Politicians in the name of rep. democracy. To change this to a Citizen controllable system we need a full-fledged initiative from people like you.
Don't tell me that nobody gave you an option to set things right at the appropriate time. I am trying to open up out of the square thinking of everybody about their own strength.
People know their problems and easy solutions to those problems. They are the best judges to take a City, region or Country forward. But they are reluctant because the current situation to do that will be very time demanding with no reward at all.
In the model we are talking, for participation as peer group volunteers and bill initiators we would bring in a small monetary reward reflecting their time spent and later on it would be enhanced to adequately reward the successful bill initiators.
The resolution I am placing in front of the elite members of this debate.org will change the way the world politics operate forever. I request those of you who want freedom and continued prosperity for all US Citizens without any chance for past scams to recur, please vote for this resolution.
ne3o forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.