ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ต.ค. 2014
- Pia Mancini and her colleagues want to upgrade democracy in Argentina and beyond. Through their open-source mobile platform they want to bring citizens inside the legislative process, and run candidates who will listen to what they say.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![คบซ้อน - วงL.กฮ. [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5MtesqJ0I1c/mqdefault.jpg)
"We want our seat at the table"
Absolutely beautifully put Pia Mancini.
Shame this talk only has 7k views so far, it's one of the more important talks that lately came out of TED.
I'm actually quite amazed by the ingenuity to create a party that uses this concept from the start rather than rising to the top and only then trying to apply it.
I applaud you and your team madam!
The German pirate party is using Liquid Feedback, a FOSS software, for this kind of liquid democracy since 2009. It works quite well.
I had this idea for 7 years ago! but i concluded with that it's not realistic. To give every citizen the option to vote for every kind of decision, is not necessary a good idea. Behind every good and effective action, there is knowledge. I don't believe that the majority of people have the capacity or will to make a decision on a subject that they don't have a clue about!
What about war? let say the citizens have to decide if they want to go to war or not. Do you really think that propaganda or emotions will not affect the citizens choice?
and etc...
But, yes! The current system is outdated, and corrupted.
Pellucid Taru Agree to that education is the key to a good future, but through the Internet, you can learn almost everything you wish now days! The problem is still that the general public does not have the time, nor the will to learn. A poor man/women, working hard the whole day - will not have the time, or energy to learn what he/she thinks is unnecessary knowledge.
You can try and teach them that knowledge is power. But they will answer you that no man is powerful when he is powerless in front of a corrupted system.
Lumian this is why the illuminati needs to be removed .... the banking families. As long as they are here there will NEVER be such beneficial change for the people of this planet.
Lumian
A focus on solid education and Mincome experiment style basic living taken care of so people have the ability to do so results in an educated and engaging public.
Sgotya The kinds of you are actually the reason that this kind of voting system will not work! Ignorance and propaganda driven minds!
***** I disagree! if you break up all those 200 pages to smaller part, and ask the public to vote on all those smaller parts, they will still struggle to take the right decision because of the reason i mentioned earlier...
This was excellent to watch and truly inspiring. In spite of the pros and cons we can all see in this project, this is a debate we must be having right now all around the world.
Awesome.
So many good ideas, many I've been wondering about myself.
Thanks for taking on this challenge.
Interesting talk. Direct democracy is very sensitive to populism though..
And what's the alternative to populism? Oppression? Rule by the few?
It's as Churchill said, Democracy is the worst. Except for every other option.
***** Don't be silly
He did not say "Except for every other option" but rather that it's better than all the others that have been actually put into practice. There is a huge distinction. Churchill does not refute that there can and will be better systems. As for populism, with rights come responsibility and some sort of meritocracy should develop, together with an open-source transparent public service broadcasting network that is crowdfunded and intends to inform the masses. Not so much propaganda, unless learning politics, political history, power balances and global profit flows from a reasonably/negligibly subjective angle is propaganda. Check out Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Herman and Chomsky, 1988)
@@Dgfrmxon then alternative to populism is not pretending that most of the problems of "the ordinary people" are caused on purpose by some evil elite, nor that replacing the elite with another elite would solve the problems
Phenomenal idea being put into action there... POW good work Pia (& TED)
I spent the best part of two decades trying to figure out how to use the internet to enable a form of direct democracy within a modern representative party democratic system, where as it stands voters are almost entirely estranged from having an influence on decisions that directly impact them, and I came up with an almost identical system to this, but with a key difference; no party. Each electorate must organize their independant candidate who is committed to voter consultation. No party means no organization that winds up just perpetuating its own power, because power Does corrupt & only the fulltime oversight of entire electorates can control that. In fact I think candidates need to be contractually bound to that consultation, losing their tenure if they do not consult. This way each electorate gravitates in an organic way towards direct democracy: it just takes the example of one or two electorates taking the first step & others will follow. Otherwise, yeah...same same
@Lumian
I think she mentioned during the talk voting for your elected representative. The representative democracy is a way in which we deal with that. Even just assuming this was a way in which citizens could more easily and conveniently access and exercise their right to vote, it would almost certainly garner a significantly higher % of those able to vote, to do so. Which I think would be a good thing.
The ability to communicate and vote from a mobile device is going to happen eventually anyway, certainly given our increasing advancements in technology. I would hate to see this be yet another problem that gets dragged out for a decade or two before it's implemented.
How many people are truly happy with our government in the US?
Given it's track record, how long do you think it's going to take to actually get it caught up with modern technology lol.
It's so crazy...
Something drastic like the introduction of this kind of technology to allow conversation and voting far more easily, especially combined with something like a new modern party, I think they named their's in the video the "net" party or something similar, could be a great game changer for our government and help spell the end of our outdated and fossil-like system of today.
Something like that would hugely facilitate keeping laws/legislation up-to-date with modern technology, and up-to-date with the society that's living under it.
I mean, really imagine if it was a easy as getting on your phone in order to vote on local and national issues. Being able to have a forum (in the more classic variant of the word) for discussing and becoming informed of issues by involving yourself or simply reading the lengthy debate of others.
I'm not sure about being able to delegate your vote to others if you feel uninformed about a particular subject. Though I think that's fine in and of itself, it would probably become overused by lazy people who didn't care, or taken advantage of by money in some manner. Whole other conversation I guess...
But yeah, the sooner something along these lines occurs, the better it will be for all of us.
I saw a political party like this at our recent elections here in Australia, the party is called *Senator Online*. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator_Online
The party's support of bills is completely decided by it's members in online votes just like this. Thus the party itself has no stated policy goals, no message, it's merely the medium.
What's interesting about it is that policy changes don't need to be based around election cycles (eg: 4 years), since people can change how they online-vote at any time. The party is thus able to dynamically react to changing needs of society faster than any other.
Super! I write a blog post about this in Finnish. Seems to be first one of its kind. Strange? I would like to read or hear about the weaknesses of this system. Can it be hacked by people who have lots of money?
Without a doubt, a brilliant, urgent and planetary initiative. Don't stop guys, you do represent us!
DemocracyOS new hub coming out soon! Free & Open Source ---> stay tuned!
Pia Mancini AWESOME! Can't wait
Pia Mancini This is an amazing Ted Talk! I ran for local government in my hometown and hope to run again one day, this tool would be amazing to have in the United States or even in just my native state of North Carolina. Keep up the amazingly awesome work! :)
Hi If I am not wrong you are a co-founder of Open Collective.
Howdy, how is the progress?
Hi, Pia! Just a question: you mentioned in your TedTalk that the slogan when your party ran for congress would be that you would vote according to the votes of the people in DemocracyOS. Will you have voted strictly according to the votes? If so, if there are decisions made by the public that are not really economically viable for the state, which would be prioritized?
Pia Mancini, nice talk and great vision. But, the world is still not ready for the change that you suggest. I really wish if the citizens could participate more than just once during elections in steering the direction of their country. World internet usage is just around 30% and I am sure a big proportion of this pie of internet users probably does not even want to be invovled in politics. Whereas there is another section of population that is not connected via internet but is keen to know what Government does for them and for the country. We, the users of internet are connected with overwhelming number of people with diverse mindsets which gives us an illusion that what we see on online discussion forums is a good representative of the populace. I think we don't need to upgrade democracy but it is the use of internet that has to be modified and adapted for a wider participation. Once we are able to connect a majority of population with internet we can then metamorphosise both internet and democracy for a better governance.
For everyone who is talking about uneducated people voting on issues, I think a key point here is that they won't. There are so many possible things to vote on that its not worth the uneducated and uninterested person's time to have opinions on them all. This is a beautiful idea, and though in its infancy, can prove revolutionary. Other than obviously hackers, another flaw I see is educating the public in an unbiased way. I think instead of a direct democracy, a middle step to be taken is just to use the app as a survey. This could be a very powerful tool to steer or help steer politicians in the right direction.
I think more and more people of our generation start to think this way.. Thanks a lot to spread this idea.
We need now to find the alternative and forces our leaders to accept it. I'm afraid it gonna be trough a difficult revolution.
I enjoy progressive ideas like this. It gives hope to mankind. I truly hope that this concept catches on for the people to have more of a say on decisions that effect our societies. My favorite quote that she referenced. "No taxation without representation".
This ted talk is very interisting like all of the others video about new model of our state and our society. Speak about democracy is very important in our society to protect her and our rights. I believe that the future political system will be different. The main idea of the woman is interesting.
I'm unable to reach Pia Mancini through LinkedIn or Twitter. Any suggestions? Thanks.
Liquid Democracy
Alejandro Altamirano indeed
Fantastic talk. I've been following DemocracyOS for a while, and am fascinated by their approach. For those interested, we have something like this in the U.S. It's called Countable (www.countable.us on the web, or you can download the app on your phone). Incredible tool for staying politically informed and engaged.
Thank you, thank you really so much. You expressed what many I believe would wish deep down.
But how do you prevent people from selling their votes out through this dynamic representation system (which idea I find is great), someone with a lot of cash could get a lot of weight corruption could hack into this to
There will always be a way to abuse something, this gives people the option of voting again. If it was combined with Universal Basic Income, it would remove the necessity of people having to take bribes to exist. If Politian's had transparent bank accounts that could only be held in the country they operate in in combination with lobbying made illegal again, it wouldn't be hard to stop.
It is now 8 years since this talk. This is not the only idea for revitalising democracy, and it does follow the general thinking of many suggestions. The idea that The People is more connected and much more knowledgeable than in earlier times is technically a correct assessment, but there is still too much naivité going on. Having studied political science and having had ample time to reflect, I present my two cents here.
The idea of having some kind of representatives who may put a lot of effort into following the daily politics is probably not a bad one, but there are a few things very few seem to understand. Our elected representatives have a responsibility, at least in theory. That is not the case for unelected influencers. As Pia mentions, we use a form of government rooted in the 18th century, using technology from the 15th century. I would add that politics is a function in society rooted in ideas from the last 2000 years, with strife, conflict and demagoguery as main tools. I think we need to do a total makeover, not just a change of hairstyle. Mudslinging PMs is getting old. In an increasingly more complex and complicated world, we need to focus more on what unites us than what differs. We don't have time to argue about small things. We need to get the big questions and principles for government right.
Democracy is one of many forms of governance, albeit the one form that is most open and accepting of ideas compared to all the rest on a sliding totalitarian scale. We actually feel so secure that democracy is the best form, that we invite other ideologies not based on the liberal thoughts of a free society and a free people into the "democratic discussion" without seeing that this might impose problems. We mistake "politics" for "democracy". This is a problem in a day and age where migration and the inability of our old institutions to deliver trust and expected outcomes, is mixing all sorts of ideas and worldviews, from all corners of time and space. As one of the most renowned thinkers of the last century, Karl Popper, mentioned: "an open society must be very intolerant against intolerant ideologies", and I believe we are at a turning-point in history. If nothing is done, it would surprise me if democracy will survive at all.
There are some very specific limits to democracy, but few seem to remember this. Historically, there were philosophers who were convinced that no government would ever make un-democratic decisions, as they themselves would be hurt by them, as we are all equal under the same law. According to the basic tenets of democracy, that is true, but there were also philosophers who warned about this and added that the party system would lead to tyranny. Democracy stops working when non-democratic interests infest the bureaucracy, as more and more people are growing aware of today. There are both extreme leftists and right-wingers that muddle the waters, adding for example communist, marxist etc on the one hand and libertarian, fascist, islamist etc on the other into the discussion. The problem being that we still use "democracy" as a catch-all phrase for "politics". We now see how totalitarian tendencies permeate the western world, threatening to take our rights and possessions away, making us "happy" or trying to make us conform to foreign religious ideas.
I believe The People have a tremendously important role to play, but not in the conventional way of discussing and debating in order to make any decisions. I believe we have to do it the other way around. The People should discuss in heterogenous groups, to hear and discuss all sorts of topics and opinions, without the aim of having to agree. Each and every one should still be free to express their opinion on different topics, be they democratic or totalitarian. For every topic discussed, everyone should have the option of expressing and changing their opinion, but with clear limits for democracy, each and everyone would also be able to see if their opinions challenge democracy or not. Using secured online platforms, everyones opinions may be treated as a statistical data points to show the spread of ideas. This way, excellence and wisdom would have a greater chance of being heard as well. However, this must not be a substitute for voting. (The Swiss have tried this route and given up after ten years of research, because it is still impossible to construct a system secure enough for that.) The freedom of expression and freedom of thought means that any opinion must be possible to express in such a system, BUT... And here is my main pet peeve: the limits to democracy must be clearly and succinctly communicated and upheld.
Elected officials have at least three very important tasks that any free citizen does not. They must: do their best to uphold the governance according to the constitution and the idea of the open society; make the hard and huge decisions that takes wisdom and experience to understand and implement; and they need to focus more on building trust in society than to make politics into a shouting match. The input from the electorate would work as a constant poll, with the exception that it is the people themselves who choose what opinions to express rather than merely having a few choices in case they are asked to participate in a political survey. It would be kind of a indirect democracy with oversight to uphold high standards and quality regarding the democratic basic tenets.
If this cannot be solved as an online platform, there are ways to use the age old analogue technology of actually meeting other people and talking to them, and then cooperating in order to aggregate the statistics by hand. In case push comes to shove.
i like the idea of asking the people what their opinion and giving the the resources to answer back, heck i love it but its all about what the questions are. by that i mean are you asking them for every single choice to be made or for certain ones.
my opinion is that we should 'crowd source' the answer when it decides what way the country is going to go in such as...
war
science
education
socialist reforms
building a stable economy
etc....
You only vote on the stuff you want to vote. For other topics, you let someone else vote for you. You can make your lawyer friend vote on what you trust him to vote in your interest on, and your economics friend on economics, while voting on other stuff yourself, for example.
That’s the idea of Liquid Democracy.
The problem I find with the application is it lacks the metrics and analytics that show short, medium, and long term impacts of the decision voters vote on. It is easier to make decisions when people have the information and more importantly a standard of measure from which they can base their decisions. It is early days for the open source platform, but until impact of decisions is introduced, it is merely an electronic popularity contest of what sounds best (with very little logic backing the decisions voters make, which with the absence of information tend to be purely emotional).
Pellucid Taru
change for the sake of change without determining that it would be a better methodology is bad.
awesome idea! : )
Vaya, cuanto siento no saber inglés.
Alguien podría subtitularlo? yo se lo agradecería .
This is the most intelligent thing I've ever heard; let's do it.
Um, its called a referendum, and we already do it, but the data suggests that this 'direct democracy' is not the best. We end up gutting the state. California is a great example of this.
So we cut costs by voting online? Is that what you are suggesting. If so that scares me. Secret ballots have too many advantages to give them up so easily.
I'm quite familiar with Bitcoin. But what does your quote have to do with referendum, voting and the above comments? Why speak in code? Tell me what you are suggesting.
Ella no es linda (hermosas) , Es atractiva. Aprendan la diferencia. Y realmente sorprendente lo que dice, totalmente de acuerdo y sobre todo captaron la admiración de alguien más porque hacer lo que hicieron pffff una revolución! Amigos mis felicitaciones y bendiciones!
One issue that I foresee with this mobile platform being used in democratic governments, is the possibility that their systems can be hacked and influenced by outside sources other than the constituents. They would have to heavily restrict access to voting for it to be consistently 1:1, and not n>1:1
Democracy 2.0 is long overdue.
bravo!
When she speaks, I get wings :)
Democracy isn't working, but it does not fail either.
love, and understand the first part of this talk, but i can't help to think even further.
we need a system where we can vote as much or as little as we want, and that values competence.
We need a system that is open for and competes for the best solutions to problems.
The system needs to recognize the difference between debate and election, but unite them. And the system needs to be fundamentally electronic, but functionally practical.
This may well be the next giant idea to change the world. If implemented, I think it would be as transforming to daily life as the internet was/is.
"If you haven't seen this TED Talk TH-cam video about the democracy upgrade that’s currently taking place online, and you have 13:28 of time to invest in learning more and participating in our democracy, please watch this video asap... then you're strongly encourage to watch it again... Then share it with everyone_one_you_know!" ..dw..
I absolutely believe in an ever-evolving governance system that is accessible and flexible, but making it so that everyone affects congressional votes in this direct manner I don't think is the right step. Most people are fed their information about domestic and foreign policy through an array of biased media sources - that alone is a problem in understanding legislation and it's effects. We elect professionals with years of education and a firm understanding of the legal system so they can make these decisions for us. If we don't like the decisions they make - we elect someone else.
There certainly needs to be reform with regards to access, information and capital used in many democratic campaigning systems etc. But we still need leadership.
How can you take Salma Hayek seriously about such important discussions on; government, democracy, and socio-economic policy. No seriously I love you Salma!... And you speak some truths ;)
Well i'm pumped for modern Democracy
These ideas are not new. What is new is that they are not just theorizing about the subject, but actually doing something. These are the revolutionaries of our time.
Kim Dotcom has an interesting version of this for New Zealand with the "Internet Party": internet.org.nz/
democracy means a group of people with shared interests.there is no coercion in that.The reason our government was SPECIFICALLY designed to prevent democracy is the reason karl marx gave" democracy is the road to socialism"(wealth disribution) "In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors(the rich people who also made up government) would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate(congress), therefore, ought to be this body(the rich); and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."james madison 4th president
I know this is kind of off-topic, but:
*Damn, she's pretty!*
+martin seelig I know this would be top comment, before scrolling down to comments. :D
martin seelig indeed
1 million thumbs up
Wow.. Beautiful woman, great accent and great mind and ideas.. Complete package.. Thumbs up!
The problem with this particular platform is that people often don't know what the country needs to progress. Legislations said in plain language doesn't make them completely understandable and see-through, besides everyhing has implications and consequences which have to be understood when making a legislative decision. Furthermore, even if there are representatives the majority (which is usually pretty stupid in its decision-making) will always squash the vote. And what is more important that puts the entire system in danger of losing credibility and chaos is a real issue. If a representative decides against a decision made by the public that will cause an uproar, if you let the public make all the decisions that will cause chaos and an unstable policy. Yes, change does need to happen. And maybe this platform was always just a stepping stone but still it must be said that if there is a way to do it, this is not it.
"The problem with this particular platform is that people often don't know what the country needs to progress. Legislation said in plain language doesn't make them completely understandable and see-through, besides everything has implications and consequences which have to be understood when making a legislative decision."
My thoughts exactly. I absolutely believe in an ever-evolving governance system that is accessible and flexible, but making it so that everyone affects congressional votes in this direct manner I don't think is the right step. Most people are fed their information about domestic and foreign policy through an array of biased media sources - that alone is a problem in understanding legislation and it's effects. We elect professionals with years of education and a firm understanding of the legal system so they can make these decisions for us. If we don't like the decisions they make - we elect someone else.
There certainly needs to be reform with regards to access, information and capital used in many democratic campaigning systems etc. But we still need leadership.
I have been saying This for years!! I Call it True Democracy!! Every person needs a voice, The chance to vote at every decision. but The elite Will fight This With every fiber in Them. I believe that those who Care Will vote. More representative of the peoples wishes. The citizens wage is another idea, Cut away The Costs of bureaucraty of pensions and welfare and handicap allowances. Enough to live for not more, then you could earn extra working if you want. More parttime jobs, more jobs, more spending, more equality. This is also not what The elite Want. They Want The poor to stay poor!!!
One vote one voice. Never should it be one vote their choice.
Pia has the start of a great system here.
I've read everyone's comments and honestly see why would each of us have their reasons in their head, even pompous git's :)
Reality is so fucked up, that hardly any other system with the exception of few, would be worse off than what we already have.
Few of you raised the point that people in general poorly educated and requires deep and holistic understanding in order to make effective decisions.
I agree, but right now, people who has more power to leverage our system are very close minded and often simply dumb when it comes to reason, relationship, economy and many other areas.
They are due to many different circumstances in their lives ended up in the position of power. We see many examples of idiots in power.
My point is... It is incredibly arrogant and intellectualy dishonest to claim that few people who at the time of making decision do not possess adequate knowledge, smarter and more intuitively correct than millions upon millions of citizens.
You also have "not decided" option, not just "yes" or "no"
P.S
Pay attention to "views", "likes" and ratings statistics on TH-cam or other means of sharing information.
Do you not find it funny, that more often than not, great and fair ideas have substantialy more likes and smart people around ?
Our subconscious part of mind has more affect on us than you think.
Let evolution and nature take its course :)
What we have today is not democracy, in athens there was corruption in politics but it was different
today a politician lies, gets ellected and then he does almost what he wants with power. In ancient athens corrupted politicians had to misslead the public to vote for what he wanted, people had the last word even if sometimes they took wrong decisions
I have an other question about this idea.. what about elders and people with not enough money for internet? Hacking and such
"As long as great amounts of money are needed to get into public office, the people that supply the money will be in charge. The people that supply the money will get laws passed to benefit them, and they will get our tax dollars. That is not fair, moral, or a true democracy. It is a corrupt system.
The media: Our reporters in the media are basically well intentioned people, but they do not report the complete truth when it comes to politics. Anyone that tries to loses their job or loses access to the candidates, so they help keep the secrets. They have no choice but to keep the money secrets to stay in the game. Again, the system indirectly forces people to be corrupt to be in the game." "Reform Political System" From the Insights section at truthcontest,com
Brilliant, crowdsourcing politics! Although, racism might tend te be somewhat of a big issue, I fear.
Make education free for everyone, make social hierarchy based on understanding and knowledge, people allowed to vote have to pass an exam on a general understanding of the reality, make a common goal for civilization, a global mission statement for civilization, make the governments main project to promote the growth of knowledge and understanding within every society, people want to learn, they just need to be shown all information open sourced and promoted as civilizations most important goal
We do not have a democracy. We have a republic. Learn the difference between the two. What we need is a better idea on what a community means.
Over the last few centuries not much as changed, just the standard of living has improved.
6:06
Simple. Decisions are split up by fields (economy, education, defense, law and so on). Everyone gets one base vote in each field. Everyone can participate in online discussions on current decisions and people can give you credit for good ideas. If you get enough credit, your vote counts twice, thrice, and so on, within the respective fields, up to a certain cap.
Let this system run for a year. In the very beginning, you have basic direct democracy. Quickly though, experts and people who are seriously commited will bubble up in their respective fields, because they naturally have the best ideas, get the most credit, and therefore their opinions have more weight, as they should have.
You have direct democracy, but with a strong reward system for expertise and participation. It is completely organic, highly flexible, highly accessible, non-discriminatory and it is basically immune to corruption (a point on which I elaborate when asked).
There you go, democracy fixed. Next.
Democracy is not a band-aid that will solve all the world's problems.
Sorry but letting everyone read a simple statement and letting them chose is not a good idea. There is many factors involved in every decition like budget, concequences etc. that regular people will not care about or understand.
Try making a poll on "should taxes to be lowered by 5%?" and see what the people will answer...
This idea needs to come to the U.S. and fast.
*****
good luck with that you foul foul thing. projection is such a terrible thing to waste.
can we combine democracy and blockchain
There's too much focus on "democracy". In fact, to the point that it has become a distraction. Most people do know what democracy entails, nor will they ever find out. They can't even tell the difference between a democracy and an ochlocracy. What people _reallly_ want - but fail to articulate - is a fair society. Whether this society is democratic in nature (imho an illusion), or a "benevolent" autocracy (something supporters of populists seem to want) is irrelevant. The people are tired of having to work more hours for less wage and security so that a small percentage of ultra wealthy can be become even more wealthy. The people want to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Gorgeous Idea. Utilizing technology to facilitate political discourse sounds like great plan. Unfortunately, it sounds like Mancini's approach to introducing this concept into the Argentinean political environment was rather naive. In fact, retrospectively looking at her experience , it seems down right ignorant to take the assumption that anyone within the political parties would want flip the practice on its head. Especially those parties that have secured substantial influence with the "old" techniques of doing things. Obviously, this perspective insists then that meaningful developments like democracy OS must be developed outside of the awareness any power holding regime of the moment. Therefore, to continue the progress with democracy OS you could either 1) opensource the software and see what people do with it themselves or 2) you could attempt to produce your own mock government and apply the product as you would like(kind of like a product in a laboratory), and of course test it publicly until it becomes evidently ridiculous not to implement the idea. Overall, I think it's great Idea. The only reason why such an idea should fail is through improper implementation. Let's not forget, there is reason why we call politics "dirty".
What a beautiful woman.
I could listen to her all day, yaknowatimsayin'
TH-cam Google+ Thank you for ruining yet another one of my conversations with your trusted spam filter. Much appreciated!
If we maintain that political parties should represent citizens, then we are still stuck in centuries old traditions that divide citizens into ideological camps. A cyber political party should have no ideological label, but advocate that a community of citizens should be making political decisions based on the pros or cons of legislation that will affect their lives. TrueDemocracyNow.org
We should have Open Democracy,let people vote directly on bills and policies and be their own representatives,instead of voting for a representative that doesn't actually represent you.
Beautiful ideas, but good luck on peacefully implementing them in the reality of corporate capitalism.
Cure4Living Huge corrupt system, not "small group".
One major problem with this system is gut feelings.
That comment didn't age that well.
I remember Socrates said "pure democracy SUCKS!"" He was right.
Why isn't this constantly/continually being discussed and examined?
Is the global authoritarian aristocratic economic elite so entrenched?
Its new and shiny and sounds like the future but so was communism in the late 1800's. Their are admittedly things in this era that make it unique but we are still dealing with humans at the end of the day. This presentation is not all bad but someone here could do well to re-read a few chapters from Democracy in America. We need a future that builds on the past not one that replaces it.
democracy this, democracy that. shese hot. P.S. a digitized government is a good vision, but software is prone to hacking. thats an issue that would need to be sorted out before implementation, if it were ever to occur.
Do you use online banking?
Software can very well be made and used in a secure way. The problem is that the majority of users do not know how to do that, and/or don’t want to go through the hassle of doing so.
How many passwords do you use? How do you remember or save them?
Encrypted in a secured database? Written on paper? The same password for every service, where one malicious thus knows the password to every other?
Do you use a private+public key pair for authentication? Maybe a hardware-TAN generator?
Sure, you have to take precautions. That’s a given. But it’s not like that would not be possible.
The German pirate party is using Liquid Feedback (a similar system) since 2009.
Possible with blockchains maybe
The World needs a new Savier and it's gotta be dlord Pythagoras! Let there be Light!
A republic works best when the people are involved. Learn your true American history. We haven't had a true republic for a long while. Truth.
This woman is highly attractive.
Although their intention is kind of similar to my thoughts, e.g. to find
a replacement for the management of a society, I think these guys have
put the goal too low as they still rely on voting aka losing personal
power. I have the need to find a real Kamikaze party that empowers
people and make politicians irrelevant/unnecessary
Our parties all want power, so even if we could do it all online, and really have the majority vote via poll, we won't, as our elected parties will choose not to.
I got a torch.
How have we not implemented something like this already? Just saying if you’re an American wouldn’t you want a real democracy? The only reason we have a republic today is because true democracy was impossible for a society of that size. We have the tools. Isn’t it about time we take our freedom back?
How about "no taxation"? PERIOD. We have a world wide anarchic communication system called the internet. Let's move beyond democracy to the next level. Say no to net neutrality. Keep government out of the internet.
Actually you want to say "yes" to net neutrality. Otherwise you;ll have private corporations controlling what you have access to. And taxation is necessary as a shared pool of money from which we can build roads, buildings, bridges, hospitals, schools, pay teachers, pay medics, pay nurses, public transportation etc.
Spliter
Nope. You say no to net neutrality because you don't want the FCC controlling the internet. Private corporations are much easier controlled than the government, it's just people forget how to control them. You control a private company by choosing to give it money or not. You have no choice with a government. You give government money or it will kill or jail you.
All those things you list can be, and are, done privately.
JaySee5
You're kidding, right? All FCC has to do is simply not allow corporations to discriminate the data they sent through the wires PERIOD. It's like if you were arguing that electricity companies should be allowed to charge extra if you use electricity to feed a SONY TV rather than a samsung one. The entire idea of lack of net neutrality is ridiculous. The FCC enforcing net neutrality does not mean government starts controlling internet. It means that companies can't charge you more because you want to watch neflix instead of Fox news.
So far the american internet has been neutral. Companies like verizon want to STOP net neutrality and start charging you extra depending on which websites you visit.
Seriously, go read up on what you're talking about because right now you're on the side against the citizens and against free speech.
Spliter
LOL! How naive... When has any government program limited itself? ISPs have the right to do business in whatever way they please. If they want to throttle certain services, that's their right. It's your right to not do business with that ISP. It's your right to pick an ISP that serves the internet how you like it. If you don't have a choice of ISPs, move to a bigger city that has multiple providers. You get more selection of ISPs as well as help the environment with a smaller carbon footprint.
SAsgarters
Actually, it's not naive at all. It's naive to trust in a government that continues to grow and take away rights.
You can see my method work everyday as business go out of business. What stops bad business from going out of business? GOVERNMENT.
Do tell how a business kills or jails you. I'd love to hear your idiotic reasoning. Apparently you don't know the cliche that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You don't keep businesses in check with government. Government power leads to corrupt businesses buying all the excessive power granted to the government. You see it everyday. Corrupt businessmen buy corrupt politicians and bureaucrats. Your great idea is to give government more power giving more incentive for corrupt businesses to bribe them for their powers. If you want a clean government and fair business, you take away government power to get rid of the incentive to bribe the government and level the playing field with free competition.
roberto mancini
"it's cultural"
*clap clap clap*
The majority of people cannot wrap their minds around the counter-intuitive truths of economics. If the government has the power to enact economic laws (like subsidies, price controls, tariffs) I think it's a terrible idea trust the people with much democratic decision making power. People's base intuitions lead to bad economic policy.
We should be pushing for more governmental limitations, not more democratic participation. In practice, what do you think there is to be gained from more participation? Encouraging uninformed people to participate would lead to awful results.
Let's take away their votes too, since they're too stupid. /sac
In the current way we do politics people's choices feel pretty meaningless. It's all a big act to make people believe they have a choice while they choose from a very limited pool. It really feels like people are just choosing the next BBB winner, and it feels completely disconnect from choosing policies, and "real change".
Participation will in the long run create more informed people, which will be able to collectively create good decisions, even if not optimal.
The thing about optimal solutions is that it is optimal for certain actors players.
If "the real people" don't start to make real pressure in politics (all the time), policies in their interest will always get to the in second place, as opposed to the politician/lobbyist which in the current system get more priority.
I also feel like you sub-estimate the capacity of choosing people smarter than oneself to represent you (which is an option in the app as mentioned in the video).
Demand nothing and you will get nothing.
Are you saying the current political economical system is great?
Central banks are throwing out money at ridiculously low prices to try to increase economics, while mainly banks and corporations profit from this.
Maybe we *should* come back to an economical system that everyone can understand, rather than banks getting or losing millions just by betting on the timed value of anything, even resources, oil, food and water.
What kind of economics is this, when the few rich people determine the food prices while they do not have any physical goods?
Kissaki I personally believe that we need a new economic system so that the people know what exactly is going on. Information is key to this game, and if you know nothing, you achieve nothing.
We need something that is simple, and can be used by the mass public so that the people know what is happening politically, many people in this country vote against their best interests, and are very misinformed (looking at you Bible Belt!)
We currently have a corrupt system plighted with gerrymandering, as well as political misconception. We are forced to pick from the best of the worst of people who are either too radical or not radical enough. Morons who fear-monger using shock words like socialism (not the kind used by soviets mind you) and communism (With very little idea to it's true definition). And they always say "Oh the founding fathers wanted this for our country" Who cares what the founding fathers wanted, are they alive now? Did they know about our political situation now?
Knowledge is a basic right in my opinion, it leads to all the good stuff, and if we keep feeding into unintelligent ways, we will be forced sooner or later to look at ourselves. The reaction we will make at that point is likely to be more violence.
Economists urge counter-cyclical spending when a recession hits. That is the "counter-intuitive truth" you are talking about. No need to be vague.
The US government (all levels combined) failed to do this in 2008.
While we did engage in stimulus spending on the federal level, we laid people off on the local and state level because funds dried up. The stimulus was only getting government spending to tread water, and only barely at that. Obviously, the combined effect was to only add to the tumult. This exasperated the severity and duration of the recession beyond what we would have with no fiscal policy.
So in essence, the status quo has already failed us at the one thing you use as an argument for the status quo. I think it's time we stop making excuses for a congress with something like an 11% approval rating.
So, if there is a project that says "Let's remove taxes" and people in the app vote "Whooo-hooo, yeah!" the guy in the Congress seat would have to say "yes" to that?
And, what about people that dont want nor have internet connection, or smart phones, is this app thinking of who?
Do you really tried to win elections? Have you ever "militaste" in your neighbourhood or something like? At least to have an evolution in your own political thinking I mean.
No, I am basing my assumptions in pretty good designed research of human behavior. I know you can google for yourself. Go ahead, and be amazed! Cheers!
This generation of digital opportunists will lead political offices in some decades more, I wouldn’t impressed if she run for president in 2040-2060 on her country, the problem is most of these “opportunists” won’t care about Open Source and stuff like that, they will only want to improve political/economic systems with private digital resources and most people will live pretty much in private environments, than public institutions
Ceasetizens 3:02
Wow....she is quite pretty. Plus, I'm attracted to intelligence. And that accent....
Yeah.... o___o
This wouldnt work, its no different than a census. Only difference is, therir way can be hacked more and over tampered with. Whats worst it can be hacked by other countries, which would cause a down fall within systems
Blast! the language of laws in democracy today is extremely simple for me to understand. I am only 21 years old, and I have no weakness in reading legal forms of days of old. The democracy that has become more of a republic is wrong, but a truer democracy (people vote on their own laws) would help revive democratic effectiveness. In the united states, California has the best democracy of the modern day.
If you want to change democracy, you need laws to enforce democracy. Starting by imposing every single internet user to like this video and read Pia Mancini's work. lol
People like this completely fail to realize that the way to have a greater and more personal stake in your government is brilliantly in the constitution since the beginning. Limiting the federal government (which s distant and does not even know your entire community exists and a vast majority of them do not even represent you) the the enumerated powers in the constitution and returning the power locally to the states and the individuals. ONLY ARROGANCE MAKES PEOPLE WANT TO TELL THE ENTRE REST OF THE WORLD WHAT TO DO. Also people need to take control over their own lives. Stop relying on government to try to solve all of your problems caused by your own personal decisions. Your choices are nobody's else's business nor responsibility. Be a freaking adult like everyone else in the world.
I'd like to be friends with her
The problem is not technological, It's educational. People are stupid, That's the problem.
Zoharargov Politicians are not particularly clever just agenda driven- often from privileged backgrounds - and agenda is usually career - fill own pockets - rarely good of the people/nation. There have been politicians who have truly been servants of the people - but they are a tiny minority.
She is beautiful. That is all.
Yea... I'd like to play democracy with her... wait, what
You took my words.
This is crazy talk. Conservatism isn't broke. Don't fix it.
Kwistenbiebel200 you didn't get the sarcasm of "Sat ire" :D
;)
Conservatism isn't in charge, progressivism is >.>
Voting for Big Money or Big Money helps no one.
TED "Ideas worth spreading" has been anything but lately :-/
Says the person with a car in their profile photo. Yawn....
I still enjoy this photo quite a bit actually (glares intensely)
Once again French discussing yet another revolution .
This is simply begging the master for more freedom, or trying to put a nicer master on the throne. But she doesn't explain why the throne is justified. How can democracy give the govt the authority to rule/tax/coerce? How can a representative have the right to tax, when the ones being represented don't?
What?
If the one on the throne does as all votes tell him to, is it still a throne?
The tax is to be able to realize projects decided on by those that pay the tax, by vote.
Kissaki
If the one on the throne has the consent of the others, then no it's not a throne. You give a poor definition for taxation. That definition could apply to a company executing a project for a client. You need to define your words appropriately. Taxation is, by definition, non-consensual. If it's consensual, then it's called a donation or a fee for service.
Why "a throne" ? In democracy, we should vote for ideas, not individuals. Ideas would be kings.
Lets introduce AI to politics.
zzzZZZZzzz
wake me up when she gets to the point.
Still advocating violence...