F.A.Q. - Concerns Addressed
Why bother?
Another Direct Democracy Advocacy web site, www.etches.net, pleads the case heroically. Perhaps it can inspire you. Be sure not to miss the flow chart link.
The corruption of politics by big money is outlined by a former lobbyist in this washington post article. Athens Project candidates could not benefit corporations except where the public interest would be served.
Doesn't this favor the wealthy who have access to the internet?
The database we're looking at allows voting by touch tone phone. If a voter has neither phone nor internet, and can't borrow either from a friend or loved one, I'm not sure how much we can do.
Web use does provide advantages in speed. Those able to do so will want to visit their local library that has computer stations for public use, or set up their own computer and dial up account. Netzero service internet service can be obtained free of charge and provides 4 hours per month web access. This should be adequate for voting purposes. Used, web-capable computers can be found for $150 dollars.
If the wealthy have more influence than the disadvantaged in a direct democracy, one could cynically ask whether the less well-off could be less enfranchised than in the current system.
Isn't this going to favor interest groups that rally their membership to their causes?
This seems likely. The difference in the direct democracy system is that the majority wins instead of the groups that send the biggest checks to their representative. I expect that when the numbers do the talking, community involvement in such interest groups will strengthen. When community involvement becomes significant, does it matter if a large group of citizens bands together under a name to express their will rather than contact their representatives individually? In addition, those who choose not to ally themselves with any issue group have the same strength of influence as group members. One person, one vote.
How can you be sure only eligible voters are casting ballots?
State lists of registered voters will allow the Athens Project or its candidates to mail a password to any registered voter who requests an account. Unless someone is willing to risk felony mail tampering charges to gain extra votes, the system should be fairly secure. There will be a responsibility for voters to keep their voter information with the state up to date, but that's a state requirement to vote anyway. Using "DO NOT FORWARD" instructions with the mailings should prevent carpetbagging.
Won't this undermine our current system which is designed to allow our most enlightened individuals to make decisions that are superior to those made by the voters?
Any enlightenment our leaders may have would still come into play as they present the issues to the voters both in the community and on the website where people would vote. They will have the greatest opportunity to channel the debate towards whatever they feel is the best course of action. The voters would then choose to agree or disagree with their representative.
Some might argue that the major form of enlightenment favored by the current system is the fundraising savvy of our elected leaders. They are and become excellent candidates for re-election with grossly diminished time to acquaint themselves with the background of issues that would produce the most enlightened decisions.
Like our electoral college system, the representative could still override the popular sentiment. This could prove very risky to the candidate's career if this option is exercised casually.
Won't voters ignore long term planning in favor of short-term interest? Don't republic representatives have a keener eye for what is in the public's best interest?
This argument suggests that it would be best not to consult regular voters at all. If it's inadvisable to allow voters to run government, how wise is it to invest all their authority in a single decision each Election Day that will affect everything government does for 2,4, or 6 years? In a direct democracy, the stakes will be lower for each vote and those most affected or most interested are the most likely to become involved and vote. The enlightenment we expect of our representatives can flow upward from those closest to the issues within the community.
Are there any candidates running for office under the Athens Project philosophy?
Yes.
Another Direct Democracy Advocacy web site, www.etches.net, pleads the case heroically. Perhaps it can inspire you. Be sure not to miss the flow chart link.
The corruption of politics by big money is outlined by a former lobbyist in this washington post article. Athens Project candidates could not benefit corporations except where the public interest would be served.
Doesn't this favor the wealthy who have access to the internet?
The database we're looking at allows voting by touch tone phone. If a voter has neither phone nor internet, and can't borrow either from a friend or loved one, I'm not sure how much we can do.
Web use does provide advantages in speed. Those able to do so will want to visit their local library that has computer stations for public use, or set up their own computer and dial up account. Netzero service internet service can be obtained free of charge and provides 4 hours per month web access. This should be adequate for voting purposes. Used, web-capable computers can be found for $150 dollars.
If the wealthy have more influence than the disadvantaged in a direct democracy, one could cynically ask whether the less well-off could be less enfranchised than in the current system.
Isn't this going to favor interest groups that rally their membership to their causes?
This seems likely. The difference in the direct democracy system is that the majority wins instead of the groups that send the biggest checks to their representative. I expect that when the numbers do the talking, community involvement in such interest groups will strengthen. When community involvement becomes significant, does it matter if a large group of citizens bands together under a name to express their will rather than contact their representatives individually? In addition, those who choose not to ally themselves with any issue group have the same strength of influence as group members. One person, one vote.
How can you be sure only eligible voters are casting ballots?
State lists of registered voters will allow the Athens Project or its candidates to mail a password to any registered voter who requests an account. Unless someone is willing to risk felony mail tampering charges to gain extra votes, the system should be fairly secure. There will be a responsibility for voters to keep their voter information with the state up to date, but that's a state requirement to vote anyway. Using "DO NOT FORWARD" instructions with the mailings should prevent carpetbagging.
Won't this undermine our current system which is designed to allow our most enlightened individuals to make decisions that are superior to those made by the voters?
Any enlightenment our leaders may have would still come into play as they present the issues to the voters both in the community and on the website where people would vote. They will have the greatest opportunity to channel the debate towards whatever they feel is the best course of action. The voters would then choose to agree or disagree with their representative.
Some might argue that the major form of enlightenment favored by the current system is the fundraising savvy of our elected leaders. They are and become excellent candidates for re-election with grossly diminished time to acquaint themselves with the background of issues that would produce the most enlightened decisions.
Like our electoral college system, the representative could still override the popular sentiment. This could prove very risky to the candidate's career if this option is exercised casually.
Won't voters ignore long term planning in favor of short-term interest? Don't republic representatives have a keener eye for what is in the public's best interest?
This argument suggests that it would be best not to consult regular voters at all. If it's inadvisable to allow voters to run government, how wise is it to invest all their authority in a single decision each Election Day that will affect everything government does for 2,4, or 6 years? In a direct democracy, the stakes will be lower for each vote and those most affected or most interested are the most likely to become involved and vote. The enlightenment we expect of our representatives can flow upward from those closest to the issues within the community.
Are there any candidates running for office under the Athens Project philosophy?
Yes.
posted by The Athens Project @ 2:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home