
How the Telecom Lobby is Killing Municipal Broadband (2011) - jseliger
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2011/11/telecom-lobby-killing-municipal-broadband/420/
======
analyst74
I think as society becomes more and more specialized, where even educated
people will fail to understand issues in a different field (ask a mechanical
engineer the importance of Internet security), democracy in its original form
is becoming outdated.

What we need, is some form of technocracy-democracy, where only people able to
comprehend the problem at hand are allowed to vote.

From an engineering perspective, a more elegant solution might be to allow
governments to fail like companies, so that the most suitable form of
governance can emerge more quickly, and without bloodshed.

~~~
mullingitover
> What we need, is some form of technocracy-democracy, where only people able
> to comprehend the problem at hand are allowed to vote.

That sounds like one of those ideas that looks good on paper, but then human
nature sets in and the 'only people able to comprehend the problem' become
corrupt and we end up with a dystopia. I like the idea of dictatorship by
benign technocrats too, but when they become corrupt we end up with a plain
old dictatorship.

~~~
TheCapn
I always took things in the opposite manner in that "if you don't understand
it, don't vote on it". A lot of the issues that are discussed and voted on are
things that any person of sound mind can understand _if they take the time to
sit down and do a bit of research_. You don't need a degree to understand the
importance or pros/cons of internet censorship but what we saw from the ACTA
debate is the people in charge are not only ignorant to the facts but
completely unwilling to educate themselves.

I feel it is much more damaging to have people weighing in on topics they have
no clue about than it is for them to abstain. If a topic is brought forward
for discussion where only 20% of the powers-that-be understand it it needs to
researched further before any pen is put to paper making decisions permanent.

~~~
obviouslygreen
One problem with this is that whether you understand it or not, it will impact
you. Simply not weighing in does not address the problem at all, it allows the
problem to continue.

I would say this is simply unavoidable, but it could be mitigated if such
proposals were written (or at least summarized) with an eye to fostering
universal understanding of the proposed legislation. Failing that effectively
excludes people who _should_ have a say from doing so.

If you are incapable, for whatever reason, of understanding something, then
that's one thing. Being incapable of understanding it because of the way it's
phrased or the manner in which it's presented is vastly more common (the
existence of the term "legalese" should be a strong indicator of this) and a
far more serious problem, as it does actively exclude people who should and
probably could express an informed opinion if being informed were more
feasible.

~~~
analyst74
If you don't understand an issue, how do you make a good decision that
represent YOUR interest? Or worse, you are mis-informed through media
manipulation to vote against your own interest?

Requiring at least x% of people to understand an issue before the vote is
legit would be a logical choice.

~~~
Steko
"If you don't understand an issue, how do you make a good decision that
represent YOUR interest? "

You follow the advice of someone you trust who has similar interests to you.
Don't overthink it.

"Requiring at least x% of people to understand an issue before the vote is
legit would be a logical choice."

No, it's a silly nondemocratic choice that can only end with the foxes running
the henhouse. Who really understands this 2000 page telcom bill other than the
Comcast lawyers that wrote it? Oh well I guess only they can vote. That's an
absurd extreme but it's illustrative of the problems you're asking to
introduce.

The solution to low information voters is not disenfranchisement on a large
scale but instead to go back to the core of republicanism: vote for some
person or party to represent you and who's job it is to be informed about the
issues. In it's purest form the voter at large only ever makes that one choice
although he can change that vote more frequently.

