Toward Reimaging Governance

i also wouldnt let ANY media groups have a say in the process. thats asking for trouble (: imagine if murdoch had direct access to input in your app/house whatever to say what he thinks?

real information with sources, and counter information with sources are what is required.
and a set period for end of voting on issues.

the other key to actually getting a direct democracy, is less time working
we cant just dump direct democracy on people on top of everything else they have to do in thier lives.
the working week, and income systems would need to change to allow people time to evaluate the issues at hand, and consider the position they want to take.

@directadmin

...commentary and recommendations from 3rd-party groups you trust

Emphasis on you trust, meaning each person would see commentary from just those groups, not "ANY media groups." :-)

@directadmin Starting with "small independent direct democracies" is really interesting! I like it because power is much less concentrated at the local levels, unlike federally. Important idea, nice!

@directadmin

my litmus test is always what happens if one guy wants to take over.

Yes this is super important, and I've thought that as well, but sometimes I think, "do we really need to fundamentally change the way society is structured just so the Dick Cheneys of the world can't screw it up?" I'd like to find a way to prevent REALLY bad apples from corrupting a relatively centralized system (better checks and balances?), but if we can't think of a good solution to that, I agree entirely -- a more decentralized system is necessary.

I think I get what you are saying, I just think its an unnecessary incursion of corporate interests into a system run by the people.

it should only be individuals who have access and get to input.
no lobby groups, no media, no corporate entities.
corporations don't care about people only profit.

i also think ultimately, if a bill of rights and constitution exists, that would be the real law.

anything else should only be locally passed and only extend to the agreed borders of that community.
it also should not apply to your own home.

for example, if a community wanted to ban cats, and for some crazy reason it past. they could only ban cats in public areas, it wouldn't apply to your home, and it wouldn't pass out of the community..so your cat would have to be kept in your premises to meet that requirement.

its hard to discuss this kind of thing as it leads to more questions. but I believe in some kind of home is your own country kind of system

so no group could pass laws that took away your constitutional rights or stop you from doing something in your own home.

im not certain where this all gels together yet but they are concepts I'm mulling over..

Agreed, re: media input @directadmin. Evidenced-based data, not editorials, are the best way to approach this. As a teacher, I would say that the way we teach would need to shift dramatically as well. Far more emphasis on the local would be needed, with schools becoming community hubs rather than information silos. And critical thinking NEEDS to be the heart and soul of any curriculum.

Sustainable citizen participation in the legislative process would, as Douglass Rushkoff puts it, require a renaissance rather than a revolution. The way I see it, direct democracy doesn't stand in opposition to representative democracy. It IS democracy. We're just nor there yet.

Has anyone been a little freaked out by what metadata retention (and in the case of the NSA, content invasion) could mean for online direct democracy? Surely omnipresent surveillance would profoundly alter the way people would participate in decision making online. Advocacy around the free web is an absolute necessity for the online direct democracy cause.

@directadmin

it should only be individuals who have access and get to input.

How would you do this without eliminating freedom of the press, political free speech, and other important First Amendment rights? I'm just saying that people should be able to decide what commentary they see on which issues when they use some app to vote.

about the only things I think we would need centralized
is some kind of cloud based open source tax system, (for services)

and some kind of emergency services/security

making sure neither of those are used against the people are really important.

@rathy yes, I ahve been very concerned about metadata, NSA and security, its why I think about building an internet specifically for this purpose.

building it fresh gives us the chance to check every single point of access for weaknesses and exploitation

@rathy What the NSA is doing is HORRIBLE and one of the issues I'm most passionate about. (I'm a programmer and have made (not-user-friendly) encrypted messaging apps so people can take their privacy back online.)

Good point in tying it together with direct democracy; people should be able to vote without fear of political enemies punishing them. The NSA would know everyone who voted for reigning them in!

@elimisteve you arent controlling the media, you are just controlling access to the voting platform

and to be honest a centralized media (which we have now) is no freedom of press.
i think having local media would become more important.

local TV, local reporters, independents groups.
no ownership.

its hard to be sure, but media will need its own thread
its one of the toughest nuts to crack.