Direct democracy - the only true democracy?

[sprinkles]

Well, in most countries they take your fingerprint before issuing you an ID, so if they want to misuse that data it is already easily achievable. Nothing new there.

Yes, they're starting to do that now, and it is stupid. I won't deny that.

Same can be said for regular parliamentary or presidential election. If they say Obama has won, you will believe them because they said it. The same way they are preparing the field by falsifying the poll results, etc.

I don't believe anything. I only accept that this is what they claim.

You missed the point..Let me put it this way, more attention is being payed to money transfer than there is to a single vote. If people "trust" the encryption system to deal with their transactions (and people are very very sensitive about their assets) then surely a voter would trust his vote to something as similar.

A lot of voters don't so it's not "surely" Edit: and I'd rather have my assets messed with than my vote if I had to pick one. Not my fault if other people have strange priorities. Votes rank just under "life and death importance" to me.

There are ways in which a system can be created that would enable referendums to be cheap, easily manageable and most of all transparent. In 21st century there are no good excuses to prevent citizens from expressing their opinion as the real democracy should enable them to do.

Just because you can make a system doesn't mean it's any good. If all you want is for people to be blissful then that can happen under any system.

Rule of the people has no alternative and there are no subtypes of democracy. Either it is democracy or it isn't. Either way, it is time to start calling things by their real name.

Well you're right there, what most people call democracy isn't really.

Edit: also I don't really feel secure at all with online transactions. I hate doing them. Just a few days ago I and a bunch of other people got credited with a $14 subscription package for a game and it scared the shit out of me. Luckily it did not take money, it just added subscription time to us but still the fact that this happens is scary to me. Votes in that scenario? I shit you not I'd rather trust people to count mine by hand.

 

[Barnabas]

Well, if you can transfer money online I don't see how it wouldn't be possible to vote online as well. Biometrics, pin codes, etc. It is easier for a local voting place to misuse their authority while counting voices than it is to hack a system which calculates every click of a citizen. A system that could be controlled by an infinite number of interested groups. All nice and transparent.

You realize we live in a world where almost every major government is doing mass internet surveillance and placing back doors into security features for their own convenience.

 

[Hector]

You realize we live in a world where almost every major government is doing mass internet surveillance and placing back doors into security features for their own convenience.

As well as we live in a world where we are constantly bombarded with subliminal messages, marketing tricks, propaganda, etc. Ultimately, if they want to compromise the results, they will do it either way, but even they can't mask their electronic signature entirely which offers at least a way of controlling their actions.

 

[sprinkles]

As well as we live in a world where we are constantly bombarded with subliminal messages, marketing tricks, propaganda, etc. Ultimately, if they want to compromise the results, they will do it either way, but even they can't mask their electronic signature entirely which offers at least a way of controlling their actions.

1. There's no such thing as an 'electronic signature', not in the way you're saying. That pertains to addresses and tags but they don't need to use those things. You can't just magically trace what people do in a system, the system has to be DESIGNED with tools which let you do that. Or in other words the system has to be voluntarily reporting identities and intrusions. If it's not designed to have signatures, you don't get any.

2. Control their actions? How do you plan to do that exactly?

Moreover, most people are not security minded and have no idea how unsafe they actually are at any given moment. Just because they obliviously trust a system means nothing, and fixing votes is a WAY bigger deal than getting money.

Average security these days is like typical locks on normal homes - almost useless against a determined intruder. Most standard locks are incredibly easy to pick or defeat, and most people don't know anything about more secure locks such as Abloy Protec locks.

 

[Hector]

You can't just magically trace what people do in a system, the system has to be DESIGNED with tools which let you do that. Or in other words the system has to be voluntarily reporting identities and intrusions. If it's not designed to have signatures, you don't get any.

Tell that to the NSA or the Iranians who hacked UAV and landed it safely, or the FSB that hacked secured connection between the US embassy in Ukraine and the Pentagon, etc. There are auditing tools which are utilized to find a weakness and prevent third party from exploiting it. However, not all weaknesses are always found and there is backdoor to every fortress..

Moreover, most people are not security minded and have no idea how unsafe they actually are at any given moment. Just because they obliviously trust a system means nothing, and fixing votes is a WAY bigger deal than getting money.

Too much paranoia makes you an ideal citizen. Alienation from the society and taking care of your own business is exactly what they want. Like those people watching a girl getting raped and doing absolutely nothing about it. Individualism is promoted only so you that you wouldn't assist others. Problem is, sooner or later you will need help (as much as your ego refuses to believe so), but there will be no one left to provide it for you. Think about it.

Average security these days is like typical locks on normal homes - almost useless against a determined intruder.

As is an attempt to hide the electronic voting results.

 

[sprinkles]

Tell that to the NSA or the Iranians who hacked UAV and landed it safely, or the FSB that hacked secured connection between the US embassy in Ukraine and the Pentagon, etc. There are auditing tools which are utilized to find a weakness and prevent third party from exploiting it. However, not all weaknesses are always found and there is backdoor to every fortress..

That actually supports my argument. They hacked systems that were designed to be secure, and hence leave traces. I'm talking about a system which is designed from the start to be tampered with.

Too much paranoia makes you an ideal citizen. Alienation from the society and taking care of your own business is exactly what they want. Like those people watching a girl getting raped and doing absolutely nothing about it. Individualism is promoted only so you that you wouldn't assist others. Problem is, sooner or later you will need help (as much as your ego refuses to believe so), but there will be no one left to provide it for you. Think about it.

That has nothing to do with anything. You are taking a huge and illogical leap to go from talks about electronic security to individualism and alienation from society.

As is an attempt to hide the electronic voting results.

There's nothing to hide when they are building the system.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=12378]Hector[/MENTION]

Also without designed context, data might as well be just blobs of electricity flying around. It might as well be lightning. There's no 'signature' to tell one bit of electricity from another one unless you design the device to create one. You must make your own security voluntarily when creating a system, and this includes any and all electronic signatures.

For example. You got a remote control UAV? If you don't scramble the signal then it is easily found with a scanner, just like those universal remotes which can operate almost any TV. The electrons don't care. They are dumb. You have to force them to care. And you have to force them to predict intruders. If the system doesn't anticipate attack routes and either block or log them, then you end up with holes which are free game and you can't even catch the intruder.

 

[Hector]

That actually supports my argument. They hacked systems that were designed to be secure, and hence leave traces. I'm talking about a system which is designed from the start to be tampered with.

How can't you understand..?

The point is, every system has a flaw, current one consisted of paper ballots included. However, if we let the sheer possibility of something going wrong to hinder us from practicing democracy in it's purest form, then we would never participate in the current voting system either.

That has nothing to do with anything. You are taking a huge and illogical leap to go from talks about electronic security to individualism and alienation from society.

It has everything to do with everything. If you are afraid you become sceptic and suspicious about everyone's intents. You withdraw to your inner world considering everyone as a potential foe hence observing the world around you exclusively as a way to provide you with life of placidity and ignorance. You plunge yourself in the conformism and doubt thus alienating yourself from the society. That happens when you start to think about "how unsafe we actually are".

There's nothing to hide when they are building the system.

One which we are already participating in with every living day of our lives. Should we therefore seize to exist?

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=12378]Hector[/MENTION]
You're the one not understanding me. And now you're strawmanning me and misrepresenting my arguments and intent.

I could take a page from your book and say why not just trust everything the government does and not worry about security at all. I mean why bother? If being afraid is so damaging then let's just trust everybody completely and throw away all security. Heck let us throw away voting too, you can trust people to do the right thing can't you? Why do they need your input?

If you don't want me to run with your argument to absurd extremes then I'd appreciate it if you didn't do so with mine.

 

[Hector]

[MENTION=12378]You're the one not understanding me. And now you're strawmanning me and misrepresenting my arguments and intent.

Not at all. Read below.

The hard part is that a human still has to either look at every proposal, or put limits such as having referendums where you need so many signatures to have it considered.

You were talking about the limitations of the referendum whereas I have proved that there are none. In other words, the arguments that you tried to use were easily applicable to our everyday lives hence not relevant to the conclusion that you strove to impose.

Please read my previous post without letting your ego clouding your judgement.

 

[sprinkles]

Not at all. Read below.



You were talking about the limitations of the referendum whereas I have proved that there are none. In other words, the arguments that you tried to use were easily applicable to our everyday lives hence not relevant to the conclusion that you strove to impose.

Please read my previous post without letting your ego clouding your judgement.

That was a different argument which I thought we had closed by now. We've been talking about security for the past several posts which doesn't at all relate to what you just quoted from me. So you're misrepresenting me not once but twice now.

 

[Lark]

Cantonal system of Switzerland is the only true manifestation of the will of the people?

Well I think that a true democracy has to stand upon self-governing individuals exhibiting personal responsibility, that takes a lot of different shapes in different contexts.

I like the cantonal system but some ideas associated with being "more democratic", like decentralisation can be a reactionary move, creating layers of expensive political classes and disabling or obstructing certain kinds of political action.

For instance making the mandates for change such that the necessary majorities or interest and activism, ie mobilisation, will be impossible in a single instance and even more impossible to sustain over the medium and longer term. Thatcher did it during the eighties by "democratising" the unions by passing laws that strike action required higher votes in favour of the action by union members than politicians were able to achieve come election time on the ballot.

In the Swiss cantonal system the effect I'm talking about would make it difficult to mobilise sufficient support for free market radicals to push through privatisation legislation, in another context the same decentralisation would prevent fans of regulation or nationalisation from pushing through the opposite sort of legislation.

 

[Hector]

That was a different argument which I thought we had closed by now. We've been talking about security for the past several posts which doesn't at all relate to what you just quoted from me. So you're misrepresenting me not once but twice now.

Not at all, you said that the electronic voting system can easily be jeopardized, since we both agreed that without it the referendum would be a logistic nightmare. Your argument was that we shoudln't have referendums regardless, since "they" would build the system which would render it useless. Go through all the posts, read them carefully and you will understand..

 

[Hector]

Well I think that a true democracy has to stand upon self-governing individuals exhibiting personal responsibility, that takes a lot of different shapes in different contexts.

I like the cantonal system but some ideas associated with being "more democratic", like decentralisation can be a reactionary move, creating layers of expensive political classes and disabling or obstructing certain kinds of political action.

For instance making the mandates for change such that the necessary majorities or interest and activism, ie mobilisation, will be impossible in a single instance and even more impossible to sustain over the medium and longer term. Thatcher did it during the eighties by "democratising" the unions by passing laws that strike action required higher votes in favour of the action by union members than politicians were able to achieve come election time on the ballot.

In the Swiss cantonal system the effect I'm talking about would make it difficult to mobilise sufficient support for free market radicals to push through privatisation legislation, in another context the same decentralisation would prevent fans of regulation or nationalisation from pushing through the opposite sort of legislation.

Not at all. Swiss made it abundantly clear that they won't tolerate mosques in their country. Perhaps some would call it sauvinistic, but their soldiers won't get stabbed in the broad daylight by disgruntled religious fanatics. Majority, contrary to popular belief, does know what is best for them. If privatisation and GMO benefits a selected few then it is only natural for the people to opt against it. We can't let selfish interests to be in a way of well being of the entire nation. Privatization of water brought 300% higher bills for the same tap water that people used to drink before. We can either have a country or a corporation, but the Reagan/Thatcher doctrine is unsustainable. Wealth of the country is measured by the quality of life of its poorest citizens e.g. Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, etc.

 

[muir]

Well I think that a true democracy has to stand upon self-governing individuals exhibiting personal responsibility, that takes a lot of different shapes in different contexts.

I like the cantonal system but some ideas associated with being "more democratic", like decentralisation can be a reactionary move, creating layers of expensive political classes and disabling or obstructing certain kinds of political action.

For instance making the mandates for change such that the necessary majorities or interest and activism, ie mobilisation, will be impossible in a single instance and even more impossible to sustain over the medium and longer term. Thatcher did it during the eighties by "democratising" the unions by passing laws that strike action required higher votes in favour of the action by union members than politicians were able to achieve come election time on the ballot.

In the Swiss cantonal system the effect I'm talking about would make it difficult to mobilise sufficient support for free market radicals to push through privatisation legislation, in another context the same decentralisation would prevent fans of regulation or nationalisation from pushing through the opposite sort of legislation.

The alteration in the trade unions is not the same because that is occuring in a different context

It is occuring in the context of a wider and very undemocratic system where some of the workers can be bought off to prevent union strike action

So it is not the same as decentralising the whole system

I find your comparison to be disingenuous

 

[sprinkles]

Not at all, you said that the electronic voting system can easily be jeopardized, since we both agreed that without it the referendum would be a logistic nightmare. Your argument was that we shoudln't have referendums regardless, since "they" would build the system which would render it useless. Go through all the posts, read them carefully and you will understand..

First of all I never said we shouldn't do anything.

Second of all I saw you agree with me on nothing.

Third, you're combining two different reasons why I think it doesn't work to shift the argument onto me rather than what I'm saying. You're focusing on me and making it personal.

 

[muir]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

Would you like to offer a solution to your concerns over internet security in regards to allowing the people a voice and the ability to prevent the corporations killing them through poisoning their world in many ways?

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

Would you like to offer a solution to your concerns over internet security in regards to allowing the people a voice and the ability to prevent the corporations killing them through poisoning their world in many ways?

It depends on where you live and what is in place there. For example I don't think you could just switch China to direct democracy just by installing internet voting.

As Hector said earlier things don't revolve around the US. The world isn't the US. The world also isn't Switzerland either. There isn't one solution which fits all unless you're getting into some NWO stuff.

 

[muir]

It depends on where you live and what is in place there. For example I don't think you could just switch China to direct democracy just by installing internet voting.

As Hector said earlier things don't revolve around the US. The world isn't the US. The world also isn't Switzerland either. There isn't one solution which fits all unless you're getting into some NWO stuff.

Erm not sure i agree with that

The US is what upholds the power of the globalist clique. It exerts influence through countless ways for example through its military and through its power in the UN security council and through its control of the world reserve currency (the dollar), not to mention its cultural clout through for example pop music, hollywood and TV programmes etc

If the US switched to more direct democracy believe me it would send a tidal wave of change across the planet

I mean the whole world got worked up over the referendum in scotland a country of a measly 5 million people because of the political implications of independence (breaking away from the city of london corporation banksters)

Everyone is waiting for someone to grow a pair and resist the NWO; if the US did it then the revolution would be on...big time!

But someone has to light the spark (iceland and hungary have done a good job in resisting banker occupation but we need a heavy hitter to do it)

 

[sprinkles]

Erm not sure i agree with that

The US is what upholds the power of the globalist clique. It exerts influence through countless ways for example through its military and through its power in the UN security council and through its control of the world reserve currency (the dollar), not to mention its cultural clout through for example pop music, hollywood and TV programmes etc

If the US switched to more direct democracy believe me it would send a tidal wave of change across the planet

There's a big problem with that. Several actually. Let's ignore whether there is logistical problems or not for now.

1. A lot of people don't want it. Either because they're afraid of it, or they just plain prefer a representative republic. We'd have to tear down the system they prefer and that is definitely not democracy.

2. People here are lazy and they don't like change. A lot of people aren't paranoid. They simply don't care.

3. Our government wants to keep us in check. You think they're going to just hand over the keys to the citizens? That's just asking for indictment.

4. They're already corrupt. I see no reason our government would switch to a new system without leaving a way to keep their hands in it. They are too used to running the country and direct democracy would greatly diminish their political careers.

5. Even if by some miracle they did it and did it honestly, they'd switch to even more hard lobbying and campaigning. Especially since they're no longer incumbent which would exempt them from a lot of the rules about political lobbying and donations. They'd be able to use their free speech like citizens. Citizens which happen to have a lot of money.