Fire Congress: Digg.com model for true democracy
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I sighed at a recent Republican political convention as I watched them take 30 minutes to vote among only 500 people. Each county and district leader first polled the people in their sections, then each county and district leader stood in alpha-numeric order to tell the convention speaker the votes they counted. It was very orderly, but very slow. I could see this process being performed the same way 200 years ago.
As I watched it occurred to me how much faster the vote would be if the delegates moved from the student-union building into one of the university classrooms where everyone could have a clicker and vote. Voting could be done and tabulated in less than ten seconds. Professors used the technology all school year to immediately gauge learning absorption, why couldn’t these politicos use it to quickly make their platform decisions?
That’s when it hit me: America could use the Digg.com system of voting for legislation, and fire Congress. American voters could collectively decide all the spending and laws and statutes and all that stuff that our current House and Senate does. We can digg up or down everything that Congress does now, and what we pass could be sent to the President for signature or veto.
Our American democracy is a representative rather than a true democracy. There’s no shame, it’s just always been logistically easier to democratically elect representatives to go make our laws rather than every voter deciding our laws. The entire country cannot realistically move itself to Washington, D.C. each legislative session.
However, the website Digg.com demonstrates how our representative democracy can be transformed into a true democracy. Technology will finally enable Americans to logistically manage the legislative process. Digg.com calls their process the ‘wisdom of the masses’, so shouldn’t Americans harness this?
Imagine a Digg-like system that is used for voter participation rather than simply reporting news stories. Voters would login using their full legal names, and four passwords could be required to reduce fraud (social security number, mother’s maiden name, birth date, and a voter-selected PIN).
When voters log in, they have the option to review the most pressing issues that could be sent to the President, the option to review agenda items in a middle-status, or the option to review agenda items that have recently been introduced. These options are akin to Digg.com’s current options to read the most popular (most dugg) stories on the main page, read the medium-popular stories, or to review the recently introduced stories and start the promotion process.
Voters could login whenever they feel like it: at lunch, after work, on their laptop during an issue discussion, you name it. Yes, they would also have the right to not login and not vote on any pending legislation and not participate, just like they do now. Voters could also sell their votes if they wanted to. If Congress can do it, why not spread the wealth to individual voters?
I foresee Americans becoming much more involved with our political process with a Digg-like system. Why wouldn’t they? If the system were based on the Digg.com system, it would be incredibly easy to use. The hard part would be in deciding how to vote, and information systems would inevitably develop to aid voters.
The further along legislation is voted up, the more expert reports would be added, the more the OPM and budget accounting groups would add their analysis on the potential effects, and the more voters would be informed. Comments listed in three columns could visually show how many voters were in favor, against, or undecided on various issues. Comments themselves could be dugg up or down by the public in accordance to how helpful or informative the comment is perceived. Media outlets would obviously shift focus from reporting on political name-calling to reporting on what legislation is moving up and what changes could be in store.
Imagine all the money we would save from laying off Congress, not having to go through ever-expensive election cycles, not having to pay congressional pensions or office/staff allowances and virtually eradicating lobbyists.
Perhaps most of all, imagine the effects of no longer distrusting our Congress. Because the legislative process would become more open source, tiny line-items inserted for special interests could be more easily identified by the millions of voters scanning the details. Imagine the effects of the President having direct legislative dialogues with the American public. Imagine the President having to ask all of America to ‘digg’ going to war for his authorization.
This 2006 mid-term election could be our last congressional election ever. All the congressmen and Senators and related staffs could be laid off in time to avoid a congressional 2008 election. State legislatures could be dissolved in favor of this system by 2010.
Democrats should love this idea because of the inclusive nature. Republicans should love this idea because spending and taxes will inevitably be voted down.
This move could become known as the “Second American Revolution”. Geeks like me would call it Revolution 2.0, but whatever.
What’s the next step?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 I was wondering how long it would take for someone to take this idea written in sincerity and make a mockery of it. Thanks for coming through for me and discouraging adult discussion.
Sigh, I did not say anything about the executive or the judicial branches being replaced or even changed. All three function as checks and balances, so all three branches are required.
The judiciary branch is composed of legal experts, so the wisdom of the masses could not function there.
The executive branch is composed of our national cheerleader (uhh, I guess literally with Bush since he was a cheerleader), our prominent statesman, our leader. The president is the person representing us to the world, and the wisdom of the masses would fail here also.
I am merely proposing we change the composition of the legislative branch and the process by which it functions. Congress is made up of some subject experts, but really since any yahoo can get elected (even celebrities), why not replace the yahoos with the wissdom of the masses now that technology enables us?
I know the US is a republic, but it’s also a representative democracy. There’s a bridge between what we’re both talking about, I’ll try to find the answer later. I think I recall it’s actually termed a democratic republic.
Vote:
0 0 Digg.com is run by very idealistic, semi-intelligent people … but they lack one essential character trait - realism.
The American form of the Republic is not perfect … in fact, it becomes more and more corrupt as the days pass, but it’s the best the world has seen up to this point. Sure, our leaders are corrupt. Sure, we’re killing our planet. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn’t the best way to resolve this problem.
The key is to remove leaders proven to be innept and corrupt. To not purchase products from companies that are killing the planet. To live responsibly and mindfully.
But wait, there’s no government involved there, is there? No easy sollution, no easy-fix legislation. It’s not that easy. The government is not to blame for the problems in America - it is her people. If you want to fix this country, you need not look any further than the nearest mirror.
Vote:
0 0 No, Joe, you did not mention the Executive nor the Judicial Branches. You, did, however, ask “What’s the next step?” I answered that question by introducing ridding ourselves of the those two branches as “the next step.”
As I consider “mocking” to be in the eye of the beholder, I’ll not debate that point. I will say, though, that I was having a great deal of fun playing with the notion, and, probably, at your expense.
I don’t see how my post discourages “adult discussion.” Pointing out what I see as flaws is discouraging? Or is pointion out what I see as flaws not adult?
At the risk of yet again coming across as a discouraging juvenile, I’ll point out more flaws.
New York City has roughly 7 to 8 times the population of the entire state of Idaho. In a one person, one vote true democracy, how would Idaho ever gets its federal government level needs met?
Los Angeles county has roughly 8 to 9 times the population of the entire state of Idaho. How quickly do you think a canal taking Idaho water to Low Angeles county would be “voted” into existance?
The Senate portion of Congress is the great equalizer. States with a greater number of people has no more power in the Senate than the state with the least number of people.
As Congress does have the power to regulate the judiciary, that power, I suppose under the United States of Digg.com, would transfer to We the People.
Vote:
0 0 Allright, I’ll grant that you were honestly responding to the question ‘What’s the next step?’ And I probably overreacted, so I apologize.
I appreciate your serious response here.
Your point about smaller states losing clout in the digg system’s 1-person=1-vote is quite valid.
I realize the system would have to be designed for a popular vote on major items (to reflect the role of the House of Representatives), then there would have to be a ’senate’ function that equalizes state power.
How about in the Senate function, the majority rules in each state, which decides a ’senate’ vote for each state? So in the Senate function, 1-person/vote is counted by state, the majority decision for or against by state casts the ’senator’ votes for that state. I’m not sure I’m explaining my idea very well.
In fact, the ‘Senate function’ could serve a great purpose to ensure this is the stuff we really want to send on to the President.
You had a great point, and I think this idea reinforces the equalizer function.
And the Judiciary nominees could be decided in the same manner.
Vote:
0 0 By the way, I hope nobody thinks I’m just playing fanboy for one of my favorite websites, Digg.com.
I came up with this idea in the manner described, and the digg.com method just seems to work well for the concept. It obviously wouldn’t be called America by digg.com or anything. Digg’s engine could be the base for designing this larger model.
Vote:
0 0 Interesting report by Lou Dobbs: “War on the Middle Class”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/17/Dobbs.Oct18/index.html
Quotes like:
“I wish like our members of Congress, I could supposedly work 80 days out of the year, vacation the rest of the year and still get a substantial raise, health benefits and a nice retirement package. If they had to eke out a living like most of us Americans, they might decide to cater to their constituents rather than the lobbyists and big corporations.”
and
“Congress has passed too many laws over the past few years contrary to the interests of the citizens they represent. One has to look no further than the bankruptcy bill, which was all but written by the credit card companies. Decisions like that led Jerry in Georgia to look forward to our elected officials leaving Washington to take another vacation”
and
“There’s been no Congressional action on raising the minimum wage since 1997, and inflation has eroded wages as a result. The minimum wage in the 21st century now stands at its lowest level since 1955, according to the Economic Policy Institute and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.”
and
“I think the Senate pay should be directly related to the average pay of the middle class. If we go down, they go down, too.”
and
“Lou, can you tell me why I should not be outraged to find out that my son and his fellow military personnel are receiving the lowest 2.2 percent pay raise for their efforts in Iraq, and yet the grand ol’ body in Congress passes a hidden expense of $20 million for a 2007 Victory party for the successes in Afghanistan and Iraq? Now that is just an outrage. My son just returned from Iraq and I pray he doesn’t have to go back. He might miss the party.”
Mmmmm, I still like the Digg.com model for a truly representative democracy. I’m going to have to set my DVR for this tonight at 7pm.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
Vote:
The point is that the governmental model used by the United States is not democracy, and never it never claimed to be one. The government of the United States was set up as a Republic.
If you’re gonna fire Legislative Branch, then you might as well fire the Executive and the Judicial Branches as well. The president would be nothing more than an “idea man.” How would he or she be selected? Popular vote?
No more judges or trials. No more juries limited to 12. Everybody gets to vote guilty or innocent.
Then the topper is we all become subject to whomever runs the “United States of Digg.com.” I think it was Stalin to said something to the effect that it is not the voters who have the power, it is he who counts the votes that has the power.