Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

blog.hyperarchy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

#31

Post by zeemonkee »

sp332 wrote: post #14
zeemonkee wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I might be turned down for a job or apartment or loan because of my political views ? And because it's frankly nobody else's business how I vote ?

Voting is an inherently public, civic act. It's not a personal matter. Your vote has a direct effect on lots of other people. Why shouldn't you be accountable for that?

OK. So suppose your voting preferences are available online.

Your boss happens to be a friend of the candidate, or a member of a political party. You are told to vote a certain way or lose your job.

You are turned down for a bank loan because your bank manager doesn't like liberals.

You are refused an apartment because the people on your street don't like conservatives.

You fail at an interview because the interviewer only likes people who vote the way she does.

This is so bloody obvious it shouldn't need to be spelled out. Secret ballots are secret so that people can exercise their democratic rights without fear of discrimination, recrimination or intimidation.

Re: Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

#32

Post by CodeMage »

I can't seem to find the option that allows me to delegate. If that's implemented, I haven't been able to test it.

With that in mind, I wonder about how the delegation would work in practice. It sounds like a good idea, but the devil's in the details. For example, if I delegate my vote to someone else on a whole class of issues, but I want to cast my vote on a specific issue in that class, would that work?

Also, it would have to have some good controls for notifications. On the one hand, if I delegate my vote, I would like to stay informed about how that vote is being used. On the other hand, if there's a lot of voting going on and I get a notification every time my vote is used, it might just turn into noise for me. And the quantity might increase drastically if I have a long chain of delegation and people in that chain keep "overriding" the links that are further away.

All in all, it sounds like a great idea, but there's a whole lot of details that remain to be solved. I'm really interested in seeing whether and how they'll address those details.

Re: Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

#33

Post by slowpoke »

mwhite wrote: post #17
beatpanda wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if anyone is still bound by the decisions of the majority.

Just because people are bound by the decisions of the majority doesn't mean it's centralized. They may decide that the cost of sometimes having to abide by group decisions that conflict with their individual preferences is outweighed by the benefit of being part of a group with an optimal decision-making process that (presumably) provides benefits to its members that they would not get if they chose to remain unaffil…

>Just because people are bound by the decisions of the majority doesn't mean it's centralized.

That wasn't the point my grandparent was making. The first and foremost critical flaw of democracy is (and always will be) that the majority can dictate over the minority. That has nothing to do with centralization.

Also, it's not about "personal preferences". It's about minorities effectively being dominated by the majority, without them having any way to fight back. While there might be some basic rights to protect minorities, they are essentially always stripped of the most important and fundamental right in such a society: influence on decisions that concern themselves. That is - factually - a tyranny for everyone who is not part of the majority.

Re: Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

#34

Post by saraid216 »

sp332 wrote: post #23
pnathan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should review the history behind secret voting for a list of reasons why secret votes are considered a good thing.

I've looked around Wikipedia, but the only reason I can find is voter intimidation. Every presidential election in the US until Grover Cleveland in 1884 was by open ballot, so it's not like an open-ballot system is untenable.

I'd consider voter intimidation a sufficient reason. Why is it so easily dismissed, in your opinion?

Re: Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

#35

Post by CodeMage »

sp332 wrote: post #23
pnathan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should review the history behind secret voting for a list of reasons why secret votes are considered a good thing.

I've looked around Wikipedia, but the only reason I can find is voter intimidation. Every presidential election in the US until Grover Cleveland in 1884 was by open ballot, so it's not like an open-ballot system is untenable.

Voting for a representative and voting directly on an issue are two very different things. Sure, the idea behind them is the same, but the level of transparency of your stance is drastically higher in the latter case. In other words, you can always say "Well, yeah, I know John Doe is 'pro-choice', but I didn't vote for him because of that. I voted for him because of his ideas for lowering the unemployment."

On the other hand, if you publicly voted "pro-choice" instead of "pro-life", there's no way you can deny it. So it comes down to plausible deniability. As to why you would want to deny your own choice in the first place, several other commenters have already explained that.

Re: Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

#37

Post by beefman »

The founders didn't design things they way they did because they traveled by horse (and I highly doubt it took a week from Monticello to Philadelphia), they designed things so that only the most capable citizens would be elected to leadership. They say this explicitly in the Federalist Papers (ok, maybe that bit was Hamilton, but still). They rejected direct democracy: by framing the nation as a "republic", with the assumption that only landowners would vote, through the electoral college, through the creation of the Senate, and by vesting remaining powers to the States. The term "democracy" is hard to find in American political discourse prior to the McKinley administration (the start of American imperialism) and didn't really get going until Wilson (entry into WWI). The most populist Presidents (Jackson and Bush II) have notably been among the worst.

Then again, if this tool really scales to 300M people, what's to stop the delegation of votes from leading to the same representative power structures and coalitions (which have more to do with game theory and human psychology than the prevailing mode of transport)?

Re: Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

#38

Post by sp332 »

zeemonkee wrote: post #31
sp332 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting is an inherently public, civic act. It's not a personal matter. Your vote has a direct effect on lots of other people. Why shouldn't you be accountable for that?

OK. So suppose your voting preferences are available online. Your boss happens to be a friend of the candidate, or a member of a political party. You are told to vote a certain way or lose your job. You are turned down for a bank loan because your bank manager doesn't like liberals. You are refused an apartment because the people on your street don't like conservatives. You fail at an interview because the interviewe…

WTF? Maybe the interviewer only hires tall people, or the people on your street don't like your race, or you are turned down for a bank loan because you're a woman. There are lots of stupid prejudices in the world, but people don't go around hiding who they are all the time. It's just not worth it.

Re: Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

#39

Post by jsmcgd »

sp332 wrote: post #23
pnathan wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should review the history behind secret voting for a list of reasons why secret votes are considered a good thing.

I've looked around Wikipedia, but the only reason I can find is voter intimidation. Every presidential election in the US until Grover Cleveland in 1884 was by open ballot, so it's not like an open-ballot system is untenable.

Buying and selling votes is common practice in many parts of the globe. The less secret a vote is the easier it is to trade.

Re: Hyperarchy: Democracy for the Digital Era

#40

Post by zeemonkee »

sp332 wrote: post #38
zeemonkee wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. So suppose your voting preferences are available online. Your boss happens to be a friend of the candidate, or a member of a political party. You are told to vote a certain way or lose your job. You are turned down for a bank loan because your bank manager doesn't like liberals. You are refused an apartment because the people on your street don't like conservatives. You fail at an interview because the interviewe…

WTF? Maybe the interviewer only hires tall people, or the people on your street don't like your race, or you are turned down for a bank loan because you're a woman. There are lots of stupid prejudices in the world, but people don't go around hiding who they are all the time. It's just not worth it.

You really don't want to let go of this idiocy, do you ?

The examples I gave are ways in which the democratic process can be subverted. It's more than just whether you are black or gay. It's the very basis by which a citizen can freely exercise their choice.

If that choice can be interfered with then the whole principle of one person - one vote goes out the window.

If I know my vote will impact my personal future - that I, or my family could be attacked or threatened, or my career ruined, because of the way I vote - even if that is just a potential threat then I will not vote at all, or if forced to will vote safely with the herd.

Post reply on HN