From: Edward Elhauge <ee@lever.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 93 17:48:48 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: On The Inherent Evil of Electronic Democracy
In-Reply-To: <9308120846.AA06905@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <m0oR9Yy-0001ZcC@lever.lever.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In message <9308120846.AA06905@longs.lance.colostate.edu>, "L. Detweiler" writes:
>3) consider that dampening mechanisms can be built in to a `responsive
>democracy' system. To paint a picture of `direct democracy' as people
>voting instantly on CNN is an ignorant insult.  Conservative,
>deliberative, stable structures, with the formality of court
>proceedings and similar protocol, can be developed. What is a court but
>an elaborate mechanism to uncover truth, resolve conflict, and pass
>judgement, through presentations of evidence, opinion, and voting by a
>nation's citizens? Held to the utmost ideal of impartiality and
>fairness? Impacting every plane of human interaction?

An alternative to courts would be the using the concept of free association so
that if a decision you couldn't agree with was made in a group you
participated in, you could withdraw from the group and join another whose
decisions were more to your liking. Certainly there would be some actions like
dumping toxic wastes that are of society wide concern, but many other
questions such as how much money to spend (taxes) on roads and infrastructure
could be handled on a group commitment basis. Computers could be used to
implement the voting and keep track of accounting procedures that would
otherwise be impractical. Such as, how many people voted (bought shares in) the
space shuttle project and the corresponding benefits; access to the
information, status reports, etc.

>4) I believe `representative democracy' is essentially a mask for the
>idea of saying `some people should have more influence than others in
>voting and influencing social conventions, because they are leaders,
>they know more about the subject, they are more affected by it, they
>are recognized experts, they have everyone's best interest in mind'
>etc. Now, consider that this `influence' could be *formalized* into a
>system such that people `own' it and trade it and grant it to others
>like a *currency system*, and that voting systems automatically weight
>votes in different areas based on it.

I agree totally about the elitist assumptions of representative democracy. I
would prefer a combination of direct voting and an issue by issue proxy
system. For instance I have no problem giving Barbara Boxer my proxy on
health care, but am totally unwilling to give her my proxy on gun control.
This proxy system would also eliminate the winner take all system that
disenfranchises minorities. For instance blacks who are 10% of the population
in a district often get no representation; then there are gerry mandered
districts where a black is guaranteed to win. But you might have a
conservative black businessman representing a district where 30% of the blacks
are more radical. The winner take all system is just a way of diluting and
ignoring non-mainstream ideas and groups.

PS. I wish the From: or Reply-To: header came from the cypherpunk list. I had
meant to reply to this post to the group but accidently sent it to L.
Detweiler instead, only.
--
       Edward Elhauge -- ee@lever.com -- Lever Industries, San Francisco
"The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is
not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class
substituting itself for the bourgeoisie. It is only realized by the workers
themselves being master over production." -- Anton Pannekoek