Declan McCullagh wrote:
I find your "distributed democracy" interesting, except that it would allow scant time for deliberation. Think of it this way: don't you think the majority of Americans would have voted to pass the CDA? Or worse? Or restrictions on domestic crypto? Or worse? Democracy generally means majoritarian rule. The Bill of Rights is an anti-majoritarian document. It protects the rights of political or religious minorities. I fear that electronic "click here to vote" democracy would undermine the Bill of Rights even more.
You spoke a key phrase when you said "scant time". When I was in the Perot camp, I saw some direct "democracy" in action, and it was pitiful how the little folks could be herded into voting this way and that. OTOH, this subject deserves more in-depth analysis, and a good starting point could be the California referendums (Prop. 209, etc.), followed on by Supreme Court decisions saying OK, not OK, and so on. That system provides a good mix of people having input and proper Constitutional judicial review. One of the good factors is the pamphlets the state sends out to voters prior to the election, with a decent analysis of the issues from opposing points of view. Not perfect to be sure, but a good start.
Dale Thorn writes: I wish for once and for all someone would delineate this "democracy" thing from a true, distributed democracy, where every individual is required to participate equally, and no narrow interests can co-opt the vote the way they do in the kind of "democracy" Declan mentions.