Govt & cyberspace

[Dale Thorn]

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.