
Our democracy is broken. Why can't technology fix it? - rbanffy
https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/18/voting-tech-gerrymandering-av-star-vote/
======
cal5k
I object to the premise of this article. Democracy isn’t broken, it’s just
messy. A cursory glance at history should reveal that it has always been
messy.

Thinking back on civics lessons we had in high school, it’s sort of weird that
we teach such a romanticized version of the history of democracy to kids. It’s
a guaranteed recipe for disillusionment - no matter how good your government
is, it can never match up to the idealized versions of historical figures.
They’re not here for us to converse with, else we’d quickly learn they are
just as flawed as anyone else.

~~~
chungy
This article is deeply flawed in everything from the premise to all of the
proposed solutions. Compulsory voting, electronic voting (online or
otherwise), abolishing the electoral college are all fundamentally terrible
ideas that pose direct threats to the integrity of a democracy. Not to mention
that the United States _is not_ a democracy and never has been: it is a
representative republic and that is an extremely important distinction.

It's sorry to say but the article reads like it was written by somebody
without the slightest clue about how elections work.

~~~
pjc50
> Compulsory voting, (...) abolishing the electoral college are all
> fundamentally terrible ideas that pose direct threats to the integrity of a
> democracy

Why? The electoral college is a pretty uniquely American institution, and
Australia seem to manage OK with compulsory voting?

> Not to mention that the United States _is not_ a democracy

Well then how can they be a threat to the integrity of it?

~~~
mentalpiracy
Australia does manage fine with compulsory voting, however, they operate on a
parliamentary system of proportional vote distribution. America might be fine
without the electoral college, but we would need to alter our first-past-the-
post system.

~~~
lambertsimnel
Please note that Australia's use of proportional representation is only in
senatorial and state elections. The elections that determine who gets to form
a federal government (Australian House of Representatives elections) are held
under the non-proportional majority-preferential system (instant-runoff
voting).

The US could abolish the electoral college without replacing the first-past-
the-post system (assuming by that you mean single-winner plurality voting):
[https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-
explanation](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation)

I'd like the US to both abolish the electoral college and adopt a different
voting system for presidential elections. Actually, I consider the voting
system used for the Australian House of Representatives more suitable for
presidential elections than for parliamentary elections.

------
jacquesm
Governance is not a technological problem in and of itself. Technology is a
set of tools that is neutral, it can be used to power democracy and it can be
used to power tyranny and fascism.

Also, many countries that call themselves democracies actually aren't. There
are very few actual democracies, the only country that really manages to cross
the line for me is Switzerland, it is also the only country where the citizens
will associate themselves with the decisions taken by the government in
conversation as in 'we decided that' rather than 'the government decided
that'. That's the first and only time I've come across that phenomenon,
everywhere else the government is seen as a force outside of control of
'ordinary people' even if they nominally have the vote and the power.

------
pjc50
This article is mostly about voting, focusing on technological "solutions" to
voting, many of which make the situation less auditable and trustworthy. But
democracy is not just about voting. It's about the whole system of
participation and expression. Campaigning, canvassing, candidate selection,
pluralism, lobbying, identity, NGOs, federalism/devolution, and media coverage
of all the above.

This is partly why attempts to airdrop democracy into other countries have
gone wrong. You can't just set up ballot boxes and hope the rest of the system
coalesces around them.

Another lesson that might be learned from overseas "democracy promotion" is
that nothing turns a democracy into a failed state quicker than ethnically-
fragmented voting.

~~~
chongli
_Another lesson that might be learned from overseas "democracy promotion" is
that nothing turns a democracy into a failed state quicker than ethnically-
fragmented voting._

This is why the US is so messed up. It's also why democracy falls short of its
promise in general. People don't care about policy on a large scale. People
care about their tribe. Tribes are regional. Red and Blue states have remained
largely the same for decades, if not centuries [1].

Ultimately, democracy is a very low resolution census.

[1] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-
see...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-seed/)

~~~
pjc50
This looks true descriptively, but is it true normatively? That is, does it
have to be this way? I'd say that a large part of nation-building is precisely
the effort to extend people's thinking of "us" to the boundaries of the
country including everyone in it. Where divided communities exist they can be
bridged, but it takes effort. A discussion of this in the context of Northern
Ireland: [https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/04/15/i-voted-for-peace-
and-a...](https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/04/15/i-voted-for-peace-and-all-i-
got-was-this-lousy-culture-war/)

Much of the problems of the US are due to people playing up divisions for
party advantage. There's only so far that can go before there's blood in the
streets.

------
funkythings
How come "democracy is broken", only when people get voted into power, that
you don't like? Well, that's democracy. I believe an every increasing
government is broken, how about we start with that? Democracy doesn't help
anybody, if government is broken.

~~~
drjesusphd
"Democracy is broken" means that the will of the people is largely ignored,
regardless of who they elect. This has been demonstrated to be the case in the
US [1].

What's wrong with government "increasing" as society becomes more specialized
and complicated?

And not everyone thinks that way, so it's not a place to "start" when talking
about democracy.

[1]
[https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)

~~~
gypsyatwork
Individuals feel ignored, even when several million form a group, because
often the groups are still very small relative to the whole. Plus those groups
are very temporary. Meanwhile we have government and corporations that form
long lived groups. This is the natural result of centralization I think. Like
an ant colony. Want more voice? Move to a country with a tiny population. You
gain a much larger voice, but you also give up things.

------
coldtea
Because democracy is not a technology -- it's what a vigilant citizenry does
(and helps ensure).

We have had democracy (and far more extensive -- to those participating in it
at least) before we had electricity.

------
bravura
"My sex-life is broken. Why can't mathematics fix it?"

~~~
mannykannot
The author (or his editor) may have done himself a disservice with this
easily-ridiculed title suggesting that the whole article is predicated on a
false premise, as the article actually goes in some depth into why there is no
technological fix. I almost skipped over it myself.

------
ericst
That's something I never understood from the US (I am not from there). From
those kind of article I kind of get the impression that every election occurs
with different voting district. If that is the case it is extremely confusing.
I understand you might want to do it every now and then, but not every single
time. Is that right?

As far as solving the problem, maybe we should look at how we count votes. The
way it is done know tend to polarize opinions. Maybe something that would
average them like Range Voting [0] would be better. That way trying to win
election is more about being fit for the majority rather than trying isolate a
majority of people. Gerrymandering would become a lot more difficult as people
can vote, to a varying degree, for or against you.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting)

~~~
maxerickson
It's only certain elections that rely on the ever changing districts (largely
state and federal legislators).

The districts only change every 10 years. The motivation is to keep the
variation in population between the districts low.

~~~
ericst
Thank you for you answer. Would doing without districts altogether for federal
legislator be a possibility? And on state level you could model on the
congress with one chamber based on districts' majority and one other on
population?

~~~
maxerickson
It's not a near term practical possibility, it would require a Constitutional
amendment.

For states, they each get to decide how to structure their own government.
Many do have 2 houses. Here the upper house is elected from larger districts
than the lower house, but each member represents 1 district.

------
stelonix
Although I agree online voting should be obvious over the globe in 2018, what
intrigues me more is why we're still using a system where the elected have
zero responsibility with their campaign. Nothing happens if a politicians
promises X and delivers Y or even worse, delivers the opposite of X.

In a civilization that has shown time and time again politicians are most
often in bed with corporations and not with their electorate, why are we not
using smart contracts for that? Why is it we are not using machine learning to
find out when judges apply different sentences for the same crime depending on
whether the accused is black or white, something pretty common in my country?

Since I first understood how deep learning works, I've been puzzled by the
lack of _verification_ we could be doing in order to _mathematically detect_
corruption, injustice, prejudice, racism, hatred. All the tools are there, yet
our laws and elections conveniently ignore those technologies and we're stuck
in a system where we have to trust trust. What is so inherently good with the
current system that we ditch mathematics, our most basic objective language
and keep on using a system based on lies, promises that never come to happen
and lobbying? There's something clearly rotten with the current concept of
"democracy" being used in this planet yet the only tools which can fix it are
ignored.

~~~
jacquesm
Online voting is not a solution to any problem that needs fixing and has a
whole slew of problems all it's own.

\- easier to commit voting fraud

\- no paper trail to audit

\- further dis-enfranchisement of the poor

\- no way to check if votes aren't done under pressure

\- harder to verify votes aren't bought

~~~
graphitezepp
A closely watched ballot box filled with pen and paper votes is more secure
than any online system will ever be.

------
tntn
How can we expect democracy to work well when most Americans (including
college graduates) don't understand enough about American history,
institutions, and civics to pass a basic test? Just follow the party line or
vote for the person who is most attractive.

[http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2011/summary_summary.ht...](http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2011/summary_summary.html)

------
unicornporn
> Technological utopianism (often called techno-utopian-ism or
> technoutopianism) is any ideology based on the premise that advances in
> science and technology could and should bring about a utopia, or at least
> help to fulfill one or another utopian ideal. A techno-utopia is therefore
> an ideal society, in which laws, government, and social conditions are
> solely operating for the benefit and well-being of all its citizens, set in
> the near- or far-future, as advanced science and technology will allow these
> ideal living standards to exist; for example, post-scarcity, transformations
> in human nature, the avoidance or prevention of suffering and even the end
> of death. Technological utopianism is often connected with other discourses
> presenting technologies as agents of social and cultural change, such as
> technological determinism or media imaginaries.[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_utopianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_utopianism)

------
Dowwie
I'd like to know how a 30-day hiatus from media, of any kind, prior to voting
would change an election. If it is wise not to make key decisions during an
emotionally charged situation, why not apply the same to voting?

#voteinpeace

~~~
JasonFruit
An uninformed electorate would likely not be an improvement.

~~~
rbanffy
One could argue that most mass media is not exactly informing the people.

------
DomreiRoam
I've the impression that representative democracy is clearly fragile at the
moment (Cambridge analytica, concentration of media control, money in
politics). I believe it would be very useful to consider adding some sortition
to the mix of our current system.

------
haZard_OS
This article could just as easily be named "Our Technology is Broken. Why
Can't Democracy Fix it?" for all the sense it makes.

------
posterboy
Because its not the technology that's broken.

------
mtgx
Because "technology", as in technology companies, have no profit in doing
that, but they have all the profit incentive in doing the opposite and enable
the surveillance capitalism.

------
grosjona
Only the rich benefit from technological advances.

The poor today would be better off living in small remote communities away
from civilization. It's in the interest of the rich to make sure that the poor
remain addicted to the system even though it works against them.

That's why drugs have become such a problem. With drugs you can keep
extracting value from the poor way past the point of 'would be better off
living in the forest'.

