Buried in my latest delirious rant were multiple *pragmatic* descriptions of Electronic Democracy, and to my great chagrin all have been virtually completely ignored, save one thoughtful soul responding to me in email, who I've exhorted to post to the list. Where is the picking apart of the pieces? I expected the highly suggestive details to be pounced on like scrumptious food for further thought or (more likely) carrion for vultures, but instead get the standard vague marshmallow-philosophical Libertarian and Anarchic Promotional Literature. I'm really quite amazed at all the deathly pessimism and antipathy herein toward genuinely improving our governmental system. It seems that many believe that the natural state of `their' government is oppression, and that the goal is only to minimize it. The perverted Majority is fundamentally and invariably Untrustworthy, Capricious, and Painfully Stupid. It is always stated in terms of Us and They. But *we* *are* our government. How can it not be more obvious? What does it say about our character if we are resigned to deprivation? As I've already stated, the future will hold many developments that will gradually shift opinion, and give working models that won't be subject to immediate ridicule and vague philosophical ramblings about Inherent Evil. It seems everyone here is interested in debating the issue in terms of how they see government, how it has functioned in the past, *irrespective* of any novel mechanisms presented (which I took great pains to put on the table, to specifically address virtually all objections, with the same dramatic effect of shouting at a chasm). I've written about this in the past, and will write about it in the future, but for now I'm going to focus on a comment by N. Szabo <szabo@netcom.com>, to elaborate on an earlier item everyone conveniently ignores: [electronic democracy (electrocracy? electracy?)]

* A basic problem with E.D. is that nobody has an incentive to vote correctly. People's political opinions can be as stupid and wrong as can be and it won't have any negative impact on their own lives, or at least none that is disproportionate or easily recognized to be a result decisions based on that opinion. Other people might have great opinions, which if implemented would solve world hunger, clean up the environment, grow the economy, etc. etc. but there is no special benefit to these people for having done their altruistic homework and arrived at effective solutions to these problems.

Here are some ideas that my lone anonymous respondent picked up on, but that I've been taking as obvious and given, perhaps because I've thought about it for a long time, and overestimated the imagination of the reader (quite unexpected in this crowd). To make this more specific and tangible, consider a system where people can choose to vote non-anonymously (choosing to vote anonymously is of course always permitted). Now suppose that a `vote' is not something static but rather a pledge of support for a proposal that can vary over time. That is, one can revoke or increase support of a proposal over its entire lifetime, not at an instantaneous blip in a curtained booth. Further, imagine that people can propose different categories for bills such as National, Local, Environmental, Law Enforcement, Infrastructure Maintenance, National Information Infrastructure, Unemployed Programmers, etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam. When a bill is created the creator suggests the category. Categories are created and deleted by anyone. Others can propose the same bill in a different category if they think it merits it. People can refuse to vote on bills or against them based on the classification. Now imagine that everone has Status or Credit associated with their votes in any category. Under certain circumstances, with a certain amount of global support or combination of support based on tabulation of votes and the status (weight) associated with each, a bill becomes Law. The requirements for a bill to become National Law are themselves subject to modification but of course eventually stabilize (a bill to modify the current voting system itself can be introduced under the system). However, a whole set of different characteristics can be associated with bills that become Laws in each category (again subject to modification), and many less `formal' laws can be passed with less constriction in smaller spheres. When a new category is proposed under the system itself, the presenter also indicates that `status formula' associated with it. The status or `credit' is such that it can be impacted in various ways. If one consistently voted for bills in a category who declined in support, one's status in that realm would be diminished by intrinsic mechanisms (remember, a `vote' is dynamic and can change over time based on the owner's `maintenance'). Note that this can be done even with an anonymous voting record by an automated but concealed system. Also, there might be a way that people can trade their status to others whom they admire or respect in that category, based on past experience or their non-anonymous voting record. The status of people might become closely associated with not just their proposals of bills but their successful *real* implementation of them. Under this system, the status becomes very much like a currency system! The `status' itself of people may be advertised or hidden for further effect. (``How much is he worth, anyway?'') In fact, it is not really the case that this system sounds like today's currency, it is the case that our monetary system is actually a very small microcosm of this future Electronic Democracy. Look at all the synonyms associated with money: Power. Status. Influence. Money is the economy's built-in `voting mechanism'. It is an abstraction that, when implemented, causes a competition for improvement and superiority, an *incentive* for *evolution* and *success*. Similarly, under the new system sensible classifications, status formulas, and bills will prosper and persist, while nonsensical, inferior, and obsolete ones will die out. These ideas are all very cypherpunkesque in their allusions to digital cash, reputations, social upheaval, `anarchy' in the sense of a government so unobtrusive and natural it is virtually invisible yet omnipresent (sort of like God, eh? ah, well, a good role model.) I call on patriotic and guerilla cypherpunks to implement this system, to be a model for the world! all the critical features of technology are already in place -- methods of providing universal communication called `email', guaranteeing accurate voting via authenication called PGP, a widespead `proposal dissemination and discussion system' called Usenet, a library for past proposals and bills and resolutions called FTP. I guarantee that by *far* this will be the most important of all cypherpunk projects, if in the amazing odds it were actually adopted by one (considering the recent formidably frosty reception, currently all that is left of my attempt at a burgeoning snowball is a Dissolving Drip in Hell). In fact, the sheer dischordant cacophony on this group might be ameliorated through such a system. Imagine that we as a group (the most disorderly and uncooperative group ever to be called one) could vote and stabilize Cypherpunk Resolutions. (Nah -- some things are just fundamentally impossible.)