Sg2009wc:direct
From She's Geeky Wiki
Title: Direct Democracy Online
Session: 1-E Bay Area Jan 2009
Convener: Marilyn Davis
Attendees:
- Sara Smollett
- Kirrily Robert
- Desiree Cox
- Tiffany von Emmel
- Lisa Ballard
- Cuptal Marie Mitebell
- Iris Kavanagh
- Kennita Watson
- Sadie Honey
- Jen Silva
- Judith Bush
- Liz Dizon
Notes:
- the US has a weak form of democracy
- contrast with a Quaker meeting
- everyone has equal access/ability to bring things up
- there's discussion
- focus on consensus-building
- disagree: more like unity-seeking, also the clerk has a lot of power
- internet makes direct democracy (more of) a reality
- lots of new websites provide more direct democracy (various ideas boards)
- whitehouse2.org
- ondayone.org
- change.gov
- etc.
- lots of new websites provide more direct democracy (various ideas boards)
- how do you get consensus with such a large group of people?
- can't really, maybe need to localize
- people who are online can be very involved, but how to involve people who aren't online?
- example: American Apparel store on Valencia in the Mission District (SF)
- online democracy voice largely excludes the working class voice
- online democracy may systematically stifle diversity
- if people know there is power online, they will come
- disagree: may not have access, time, or knowledge, may prefer that kind of dialog offline
- need ways to bridge gap between offline/online and share opinions across boundary
- example: American Apparel store on Valencia in the Mission District (SF)
- public discourse, online dialog, and anonymity
- changes the way people expect to interact with and change government
- empowering, increased communication (like printing press, radio, and tv, but more so)
- pro: increased transparency
- votes/comments on issues are out in the open (for issues, not candidate votes)
- everyone can see how many people support each issue
- people can easily comment on/lend support to others' issues
- con: giving up ballot secrecy/anonymity
- fear that action will be taken against individuals by opponents/government for less mainstream views
- need to identify yourself online may keep some from speaking up
- use crypto tech to have a way to express opinions anonymously (while still ensuring no one gets more than 1 vote)
- advantage of indirect democracy: too much information for everyone to be able to study all issues in detail
- information overload, don't have time to study all bills, need to trust others to do it on our behalf
- give trust to experts in each area
- if you let everyone vote for themselves, may optimize for short-term gain
- disagree: this has not been demonstrated
- online voting as improvement over current process
- thought confusions associated with electronic ballots
- can have way online to see that your vote has been counted