How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
bbc.com
bbc.com
This seems like a good way to find some initiatives through consensus. The main mechanism seems to be giving a "conversational veto" to everyone in the discussion. A "let's move on" button, basically.
I find that very interesting. It would certainly help with concerns that "my legislature does nothing". It might actually be an interesting mechanism for legislatures themselves to deploy internally to set agendas, though it would necessarily weaken the power of the factions that actually set legislative agendas (the majority party, the majority leader, etc.).
On the other hand, giving a strong and hidden minority veto also doesn't seem to help with the issues that actually divide citizens.
- Would not talking about Brexit anymore actually help the U.K.?
- Should the U.S. Congress not pass a budget anymore, to avoid balancing it?
- Maybe all legislatures agree to broadly humane treatment for refugees, but how would they agree on healthy levels and categories of immigration?
- The biggest divisive issue in the U.S might actually be abortion, which generally isn't debated so much as such. It's also clear that not addressing the issue isn't making the underlying problems go away.
- More broadly, would the U.S. have ever done anything significant about civil rights if consensus was required first?
EDIT: Maybe I'm a bit too pessimistic about civil rights... the constitutional amendment process does require two kinds of consensus for ratification. And many amendments did deal with civil rights.
Consider, (53+25) = 78% of the US population believes Abortion should be legal in some or all situations. That’s why a total ban is rarely debated it’s a campaign issue, but making it illegal would quickly cost elections.
Restrictions on the other hand also have popular support (53 + 21) = 74%. Thus rather than a ban one party pushing for more restrictions. This is not a failure to achieve a ban, but rather a middle ground with significant popular support.
So legal with restrictions is a middle ground, but there is a ton of debate and tactical voting within that middle ground.
- Sometimes the controversy is about the process, such as historical efforts for suffrage for women.
- Sometimes 90% vote benefits for themselves at the expense of 10%. Most unbalanced budgets fall in this category.
- Sometimes 10% people preserve benefits for themselves at the expense of everyone else.
Especially concerning about automatically hiding debates without consensus is that it hides things that are important or urgent but haven't reached consensus (yet).
Maybe there are other mechanisms to provide transparency there, but the article did not seem to describe any.
In isolation you can find many examples of this. But, political alliances mean that group may be trading financial support for support of another issue. Farm subsidies and net neutrality could be traded with people voting for both even if they only care for one or the other.
It smells like corruption, but political horse trading does represent people caring more or less about different issues.
Consider three friends going out, one cares a lot about the movie they watch, another cares about what they eat for dinner, and the third really wants to go out to a specific club afterwards. If everyone votes on each activity separately then people may be less happy than a compromise.
Zooming out a bit, a less cynical take (merely observation) is that we seek what we think are the right means for our goals (and these too diverge a lot).
Maybe I want money, maybe you'd rather have love of the people; maybe we just both wanna make this world better, maybe we're mostly in it for ourselves.
The point is, industrious types seek the means to industry, romantic ones seek an emotional path to/of success, technical minds seek the knowledge or practice of their puzzle, etc.; and in the end everything is just as it should/cloud/would have been. There's a reason you asked 100%, got 75 and I let you walk away with it. However I'd want to spin it, it just had not mattered to me as much as it had to you.
Indeed, too much democracy can lead to disaster. We're seeing already that we end up with mob politics, populism, and candidates competing as to who can spend more of the other side's money, pass more laws they hate, etc. I hate it, and this is why the federal government was supposed to be elected mostly indirectly and given a small role to play.
Take for example: "On the other hand, if, as it is now fashionable to maintain, the majority of voters in a democracy are prohibited from doing one thing—ending the democratic elective process itself—then this is no longer democracy, because the majority of voters can no longer rule."
It is still a democracy, because the majority of voters did not the surrender the power to make that decision to anyone, but in fact nobody is able to make that decision at all. There's no non-democratic entity who could decide so in place of the majority, because it is something that simply can't be changed. Every decision made is still made in a democratic process.
Just because you can't decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean you are not a democracy. It's simply another decision nobody can make. It's completely outside the scope of your democratic decision making.
Edit:
Another example would be a company in which all decisions are made in a democratic process. Well why can't its workers decide that murder should be legal? The obvious answer is that it is simply not a decision they can make, but is instead at the discretion of the country they operate in.
> Just because you can't decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean you are not a democracy.
I think this one is pretty obvious and I am not sure of its significance here. You cannot decide to do a lot of things, but that does not mean that you cannot decide to do some other things. Allow me to say this: just because you cannot decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean that you are a democracy (just as it does not mean you are not a democracy). See the problem here?
> Another example would be a company in which all decisions are made in a democratic process. Well why can't its workers decide that murder should be legal? The obvious answer is that it is simply not a decision they can make, but is instead at the discretion of the country they operate in.
This makes no sense within the context. You have mixed the scopes yourself. It is at discretion of the country, yes, and the company most likely is not the majority that makes up the country, is it? Otherwise if there was democracy, and whoever was part of the democratic process are indeed the majority of the country they operate in, then they are either allowed to decide that, or they are not allowed to decide that. If the majority of people cannot decide that, then it is simply not democratic. At first I thought you would talk within the scope of the company, then that would have made more sense in the way that workers are not necessarily part of the democratic process, or their votes can be simply ignored, which may happen in the context of a country, too, in which case I would not call that democratic either.
For anyone who is reading my comment but have not read the article posted above: please do not dismiss the article because of my comments! There is much more to it than what is mentioned in my comments, and the author has articulated his arguments better than I did! I do not accurately reflect the author's views.
You just simply restated what the article's author said and to which I responded at length already. But I'll rephrase from a different angle further below for your benefit.
> This makes no sense within the context. It is at discretion of the country, yes, and the company most likely is not the majority that makes up the country, is it? Otherwise if there was democracy, and whoever was part of the democratic process are indeed the majority of the country they operate in, then they are either allowed to decide that, or they are not allowed to decide that. If the majority of people cannot, then it is simply not democratic.
And on company grounds? What if just worker's of said company decided it's okay to murder each other there?
If you believe that spheres of influence (both physically and in the abstract sense) should have no bearing on what decisions your democracy can make, then you can't ever have a democracy because something will always be out of your influence (unless maybe you're the only country on earth). The decision of whether murder should be legal on company grounds will always be outside of what workers can decide. However if your definition of democracy essentially makes having a democracy impossible, may I suggest you use one that is actually useful.
If you believe that yes, your decisions should be scoped to physical borders and other limitations that arise, then your constitution (or whatever document dictates you can't end democracy), is simply another factor that narrows down what decisions can be made.
Your constitution is very much like your country's border in that sense. It limits the scope of your decisions.
Only some parts (there were more objections besides this), yes, to emphasize the word "wanted" because your comment seemed to have omitted that crucial part and operated under the assumption that people do not want to do that, which misses the point. You said: "because the majority of voters did not the surrender the power to make that decision to anyone", which means that the majority of voters did not want to do that to begin with. If it is democracy (direct democracy, in this case), and they wanted to, they should have been able to.
> And on company grounds? What if just worker's of said company decided it's okay to murder each other there?
No, because the company is within the scope of the country and its legal framework, and "there" is within the borders of a country. If the company (read: group of individuals) is large enough to make up the majority of the country, then they should be able to decide so democratically if there indeed is democracy.
> If you believe that spheres of influence (both physically and in the abstract sense) should have no bearing on what decisions your democracy can make, then there can't ever have a democracy because something will always be out of your influence (unless maybe you're the only country on earth).
I am not sure I understand your point. How is there direct democracy if the majority cannot decide to do X or Y (and here I am not talking about the majority of people wishing the sun to drop out of the sky or anything similar, of course)? You cannot just add exceptions and then call it democratic (or direct democracy), which is what is happening here. Are you sure that this is not a redefinition of democracy?
The majority can't decide that gravity should cease to exist or the sun shouldn't shine within their borders. Some limitations on democracy are natural, others are imposed by those who established it. That doesn't mean it's not a democracy.
You could do the same thought experiment with dictatorships or any form of government really. If a dictator can decide that he'd rather have a democracy, then he can end his own existence (fine?), unless he operates in some constitutional framework that enshrines him as the one and only power within the country. If that's the case, is he still a dictator? Short answer: clearly. Long answer: We can have a long debate about this and essentially come to the conclusion that either whatever definition of democracy/dictatorships you're using needs to be revised, or you need to come up with new names for most political systems on earth, because we need to names for things at the end of the day.
In any case don't use the article author's definition:
> Democracy is a system of majority rule in which each citizen has one vote either in deciding the policies of the government or in electing the rulers, who will in turn decide policy.
According to his definition the majority is allowed to just decide policy. I don't think he realizes there's actually no contradiction if you define it like that, because ending democracy would be a matter of polity and probably politics in general, but not really a matter of just policy.
Edit: Fair warning, I edited quite a bit above roughly 10 minutes after posting.
I don't think anyone is arguing that not being able to impose the voters' will over the laws of nature is any indication of whether a system is democratic. Nor should not being able to vote away natural rights (like the right not to be murdered) have any bearing because they're basically the same thing. Red herring, really.
If someone who is long gone (and no longer has voting rights) imposed limitations on a democratic system then how is it even a democracy? More like a dictatorship ruled over by dead people with the illusion that people have "self rule".
You are always asking for "how" X can still be a democracy, which is a weird question I don't even know how to answer, since I really don't even know what you understand under a democracy.
What do you mean how? Can you throw me a rope and explain this to me then:
> Nor should not being able to vote away natural rights (like the right not to be murdered) have any bearing
If I can't vote to legalize murder, how is it still a democracy?
The second clearly does; government by the dead is incompatible with government by the governed, a point Thomas Jefferson is noted for addressing at some length: https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/tho...
English translation anyone?
I don't know if this particular design will work but I expect to see a lot more attempts now that the idea has entered the public consciousness.
Current social networks are gamified for virality which implicitly rewards the lack of nuance. So statements that are as short, simple, and wrong as possible will spread faster within the supporters while encouraging flaming from the opposition. This is such an inherent property of every social network in existence that I didn't even realize fixing it was an option.
Ever since the shift of storing the user's data not on their devices but in the cloud and ever since rendering ad blockers useless by tailoring not just the ads but the actual content towards the user's behavior and biases, the internet has gone down the drain. And more and more people are fed up with it.
Societies can be "hacked" via social media, that technology is out there and it is being used not only by superpowers like the US or Russia, but also by political actors in smaller countries like Myanmar or Ethiopia. People die. Mobs incited by fake news campaigns on Facebook kill people. Elections get hacked, not by manipulating voting machines but by manipulating people's minds using the same technology advertisers use. That's some scary stuff. Social Media manipulation is the nuclear bomb of the early 21st century, it's that hot new weapon every sleazy political actor wants to get their hands on. And so we are in a new Cold War, actually it's many cold wars. Unlike the one in the 50s-80s these new ones are invisible and don't feel as scary, which makes them... more scary?! Weapons of mass propaganda... we have to take action to render them useless by abonding social networks and cloud services as we know them today. But that can only happen with a better replacement that's harder to manipulate and that has a higher incentive to be used by the masses.
Without an internet connection your smartphones and even your PC becomes either almost completely or at least partially useless. That is not scary because we have to fear network issues or censorship but it's scary because it means so much of the information acquisitioning and processing is out of our control. Modern devices are perfectly capable of handling all the user's data and then some, they have the storage capacity and they have the processing power, the only reason the cloud still exists for end user's is because analyzing everyone's data makes them money.
And you can't even blame developers and companies jumping on this bandwaggon. Everyone else does it, the tools are out there, ready to be used, and that sweet ad money pays the bills or the investor's demand it because they think that sweet ad money will reimburse their investment.
But is it ethical? Hell no!
It seems like nobody is thinking about putting that processing power and that storage capacity that people own in their pockets to use. I welcome the initiatives that do exist, but I feel like that only something massive, something disruptive can change that.