
Hollingsworth for US Senate 2014, implementing direct democracy - logn
http://digitaldemocracy.us
======
dkhenry
This is the wrong soution to this problem. The _right_ solution is to
quadrouple the number of senators and house members. This effort shows that
yes via technology we can have more people voting on the important business of
the country , but it doesn't mean we should ignore the benefits of
representative democracy and pretend everyone will know everything about
everything. The right solution is to water down congress, it amazes me that we
have allowed the voice of so many people to be condensed into so few
representatives. My parents had twice as much representation ( in terms of
votes / constitutant ) then I do. My grandparents had almost four times as
much [0]

As a fun by-product you would completely eliminate the effect of large donors
on the government. Lets see the Koch brothers or George Soros donate $1
Million dollars to ~1600 Congressmen every two years.

0\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_app...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment#House_size)

~~~
dsr_
Let me make an alternate proposal. Suppose that we want 600 congresscritters
and the population of voters is 300M. Dividing A into B, we get a simple ratio
of 500K to one. Let's allow them to sign up directly. No reason for it to be
limited geographically. If you like Representative Archie, sign up with him.
When Archie gets 500,000 registrations, he gets a seat. Even better, we'll let
more people sign up -- if Archie is so popular that a million people sign up
for him, then he gets two votes. We'll stop there to prevent too much power
concentration -- more people can sign up for him if they like, but he doesn't
get extra votes.

Once per period, all of Archie's constituents are surveyed to determine if
they still like what he's doing. They can change registration at any time, but
this is the most convenient time to do it.

If Archie drops below 1M at any time, he goes back to one vote. If he drops
below 500K at a survey point, he's no longer a Representative.

~~~
dkhenry
I think we could come together with both Ideas and make a system that works. I
like some aspects of your plan , but I would want to see a few modifications.
Your extending into voting systems as well and I don't necessarily think your
doing it the best way , but i _love_ the idea your putting forth.

Edit:

So i realise why I like aspects of your proposal. Because it has a few of the
principles of the Mixed-Member proportional [0] System mixed into it. I like
MMP I really like it. I think that combined with a radical expansion of the
number of representatives ( I think we should be closer to 100k then 500k,
maybe as low as 50k ) would allow us to do many amazing things as a country.
Also I would toss this wrinkle in. MMP is done at a state level and only state
level political parties are recognized, and they are now official. They must
follow rules to elect their leadership.

0\.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&feature=share...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU&feature=share&list=PLqs5ohhass_TpkWBnZrgA-71yOvdbchdE)

------
wlesieutre
Am I the only one who thinks this is a terrible idea? Normal people don't have
the time to vote on every single issue; we have our own jobs to do. A system
like this just means he'll be voting with the loudest minority for everything
that comes up.

~~~
avar

        > Normal people don't have the time to vote on every single issue
    

It's really easy to have both direct democracy and the convenience of not
having to vote on any given issue. You could grant the use of your vote to
another citizen or a group of citizens. If you don't like how they vote you
could instantly revoke their right to cast your vote on your behalf and go
back to voting on every single issue.

You could also grant use of your vote to different parties depending on the
subject matter, maybe you like Bob to cast votes for you on environmental
issues, but prefer Susan to do it if it has to do with foreign policy. Which
bucket an issue falls into could be handled similarly, a third-party you op-it
to trust to categorize issues before your vote is handed off to other parties
that are voting on your behalf.

Those are just some that come to mind, you could do much better. But the point
is that with modern technology it would be easy for everyone to choose where
they want to side on the direct democracy v.s. representative democracy
spectrum, and they could do so on an issue-by-issue basis.

The problem isn't that it's infeasible, it's just that nobody's tried because
it would take power away from those that are currently holding it.

~~~
davekinkead
> You could grant the use of your vote to another citizen or a group of
> citizens.

This idea is common in a lot of new ideas about representation (eg the German
Pirate Party's Liquid Democracy <http://liquidfeedback.org/>) yet I'd argue it
is also a really bad idea.

One of the key values of any democracy, and direct democracy in particular, is
that it values and promotes human autonomy. Instead of being subject to
arbitrary powers, the 'people' rule themselves - we are only subject to laws
that we ourselves have authored (or delegated to others to author in our
current cases). But allowing everyone to vote on everything violates autonomy.

Most people recognise that autonomy requires having some/equal say in matters
that materially affect them. Yet few realise that giving others a say in
matters that don't affect them undermines the autonomy of those affected. So
while laws apply relatively equally to all those in a jurisdiction, the
distribution of effect is far from equal.

Proxy voting allows those with little skin in the game to drown out those
significantly affected by proposed laws. The fact that people don't have the
time to vote on every issue, and so will only likely vote on matters important
to them, is one of the major strengths of direct democracy.

~~~
avar
That's a very good point, and thanks for the link to liquidfeedback. It's very
interesting, especially how it seems to do almost all of the logic needed in
PostgreSQL.

    
    
        > Proxy voting allows those with little skin in the
        > game to drown out those significantly affected
        > by proposed laws.
    

But that's exactly what you'd get today in a representative democracy. If
there's a fringe issue that 1% of the population really cares about they'll
have to convince their representatives to vote their way on it. Since the
representatives go for the popular vote they'll probably vote with what the
99% wants 100% of the time.

You'll only get minority issues through if the minority cares enough about it
and it doesn't negatively impact everyone else, or if the negative impact from
not giving the minority what they want would be greater than just giving them
what they want.

I think you'd be more likely to reach a consensus like that using proxy voting
than you would be in a direct democracy. With proxy voting any fringe issue
will by default go to some general issues political party of your choice,
which is likely to have a reasonable position on miscellaneous issues like
this.

With direct democracy where 1% really cares about some issue but the 99%
doesn't care either way (so much that they can't be bothered to vote either
way) you might never end up passing it because you have another 1.5%
population of voters that just votes "no" on everything out of general
principle.

------
tptacek
Hollingsworth would be running against Jeff Merkley, considered one of the
more liberal members of the Senate, who won in 2008 by just 3 points.
Essentially, he'd be running as a spoiler for the GOP.

~~~
anigbrowl
An interesting example from the last election, and worth the read despite eh
frothy prose at the outset: <https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-
swindle>

------
cjoh
Direct democracy enables citizens to vote for every service imaginable and
vote to pay no taxes for them.

~~~
davekinkead
Except in the real world.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/9138137/Swiss-
vote-against-taking-more-holiday.html)

But the US government seems to be doing a pretty good job of just that.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-
_Revenues_and_Outlays...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_-
_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png)

~~~
kybernetikos
California might be considered a counter-counter-example:
<http://www.economist.com/node/18586520>

------
ms4720
Well this is just polling, it still is a stupid idea even from just poling
point of view.

To tell the truth I would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

if there is interest I am willing to write up why, but now I need to make
coffee

~~~
huntaub
I'm curious to hear why you dislike the 17th amendment. If you find time, do
come back and write it up.

~~~
ms4720
As was stated by jrs235 it takes the state governments out of the picture at
the federal level. This has lead to a much more powerful and invasive federal
government for internal matters in America.

------
lukifer
I heartily support this idea; however, the problem I see is that the secret
ballot is not enforced, either in the process, or through the threat of legal
enforcement.

If I can reliably observe someone voting, even with their consent, votes can
be influenced through purchase or coercion. And unless new laws get passed to
cover online pseudo-voting, such things wouldn't even be illegal, and I could
roll around poor-income neighborhoods with a bullhorn advertising $10 per
vote.

It's a solvable problem, and maybe I'm overstating the risk, but I think it's
a problem worth paying attention to while pursuing these (worthwhile)
experiments.

~~~
michaelt
Plenty of places let you vote by post, which has this problem. And with people
taking their camera phones into voting booths, arguably manual voting does
too.

------
protomyth
Really defeats the purpose of the Senate. It is bad enough we have direct
election of Senators when the Senate was supposed to be the way the states
kept the federal government in check.

At this point given technology and travel times, I would be more apt to
support an amendment to replace the two Senators with the state's Governor. At
least some fiscal control and concequences for state budgets would be
discussed.

------
ivan_ah
I think this is a brilliant idea! Elect officials should be like secretaries
-- the public decides the course of action (though informal discussion,
debates real-world and online forums) and after the decision is taken the
senator is told what to do.

The key idea is to have a public debate in which all issues can be thoroughly
considered, conflicting interest groups can have their say until an agreement
is reached.

The beauty of the "senators as secretaries" ideas is that we can measure their
performance in much more detail. Did they implement each of the decisions the
people chose? If not, then they get the boot.

Democracy works when the citizens care. We might not care about all things,
but we care about the things that concern us. Discussion and debates + project
development by interested volunteers is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than some stupid
polarizing vote.

------
raintrees
This is precisely the direction I would love to see politics go. Cut out the
middle-people layer!

------
mtgx
Sounds like a great idea. The senators wouldn't be forced to vote based on the
population's "feedback" in all cases, so you'd still have a republic, not a
real "direct democracy", and in the same time they'd get much better and more
accurate information about what their constituents really want, compared to
how they get it now through the "experts" (lobbyists).

------
blendergasket
I see a great opportunity in this for some sort of voting mill mechanical turk
like system for people who aren't political and need money to sell their vote
to some fascist with an agenda.

------
jere
Wow, I had this exact idea few months ago. I figured the founding fathers
would be against it though.

------
sage_joch
If every senator and representative did this, we could abstract away Congress.

------
whit537
Hmmm ... what if there were someone doing this in every state?

