Pia Mancini: How to upgrade democracy for the Internet era

Pia Mancini: How to upgrade democracy for the Internet era

I have the feeling that we can all agree that we’re moving towards a new model of the state and society. But, we’re absolutely clueless as to what this is or what it should be. It seems like we need to have a conversation about democracy in our day and age. Let’s think about it this way: We are 21st-century citizens, doing our very, very best to interact with 19th century-designed
institutions that are based on an information technology of the 15th century. Let’s have a look at some of the characteristics of this system. First of all, it’s designed for an information technology that’s over 500 years old. And the best possible system that could be designed for it is one where the few make daily decisions in the name of the many. And the many get to vote once every
couple of years. In the second place, the costs of participating in this system are incredibly high. You either have to have a fair
bit of money and influence, or you have to devote your entire life to politics. You have to become a party member and slowly start working up the ranks until maybe, one day, you’ll get
to sit at a table where a decision is being made. And last but not least, the language of the system — it’s incredibly cryptic. It’s done for lawyers, by lawyers, and no one else can understand. So, it’s a system where we can choose our authorities, but we are completely left out on how
those authorities reach their decisions. So, in a day where a new information technology allows us to participate globally
in any conversation, our barriers of information are completely lowered and we can, more than ever before, express our desires and our concerns. Our political system remains the same for the past 200 years and expects us to be contented with being
simply passive recipients of a monologue. So, it’s really not surprising that this kind of system is only able to produce two kinds of results: silence or noise. Silence, in terms of citizens not engaging, simply not wanting to participate. There’s this commonplace
[idea] that I truly, truly dislike, and it’s this idea that we citizens are naturally apathetic. That we shun commitment. But, can you really blame us for not jumping at the opportunity of going to the middle of the city in the middle of a working day to attend, physically, a public hearing that has no impact whatsoever? Conflict is bound to happen between a system that no longer represents, nor has any dialogue capacity, and citizens that are increasingly used to representing themselves. And, then we find noise: Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico
Italy, France, Spain, the United States, they’re all democracies. Their citizens have access to the ballot boxes. But they still feel the need, they need to take to the streets in order
to be heard. To me, it seems like the 18th-century slogan that was the basis for the formation of our modern democracies, “No taxation without representation,” can now be updated to “No representation
without a conversation.” We want our seat at the table. And rightly so. But in order to be part of this conversation, we need to know what we want to do next, because political action is being able to move from agitation to construction. My generation has been incredibly good at using new networks and technologies to organize protests, protests that were able to successfully impose agendas, roll back extremely pernicious legislation, and even overthrow authoritarian governments. And we should be immensely proud of this. But, we also must admit that we haven’t been good at using those same networks and technologies to successfully articulate an alternative
to what we’re seeing and find the consensus and build
the alliances that are needed to make it happen. And so the risk that we face is that we can create these huge power vacuums that will very quickly get filled up by de facto powers, like the military or highly motivated and already organized groups that generally lie on the extremes. But our democracy is neither just a matter of voting once every couple of years. But it’s not either the ability to bring millions
onto the streets. So the question I’d like to raise here, and I do believe it’s the most important
question we need to answer, is this one: If Internet is the new printing press, then what is democracy for the Internet era? What institutions do we want to build for the 21st-century society? I don’t have the answer, just in case. I don’t think anyone does. But I truly believe we can’t afford
to ignore this question anymore. So, I’d like to share our experience and what we’ve learned so far and hopefully contribute two cents to this conversation. Two years ago, with a group of friends
from Argentina, we started thinking, “how can
we get our representatives, our elected representatives, to represent us?” Marshall McLuhan once said that politics is solving today’s problems with yesterday’s tools. So the question that motivated us was, can we try and solve some of today’s problems with the tools that we use every single
day of our lives? Our first approach was to design and develop a piece of software called DemocracyOS. DemocracyOS is an open-source web application that is designed to become a bridge between citizens and their elected representatives to make it easier for us to participate
from our everyday lives. So first of all, you can get informed so every new project that gets introduced in Congress gets immediately translated and explained in plain language on this platform. But we all know that social change is not going to come from just knowing more information, but from doing something with it. So better access to information should lead to a conversation about what we’re going to do next, and DemocracyOS allows for that. Because we believe that democracy is not just a matter of stacking up preferences, one on top of each other, but that our healthy and robust public debate should be, once again, one of its fundamental values. So DemocracyOS is about persuading
and being persuaded. It’s about reaching a consensus as much as finding a proper way of channeling our disagreement. And finally, you can vote how you would like your elected
representative to vote. And if you do not feel comfortable voting on a certain issue, you can always delegate your vote to someone else, allowing for a dynamic and emerging social leadership. It suddenly became very easy for us to simply compare these results with how our representatives were voting in Congress. But, it also became very evident that technology was not going to do the trick. What we needed to do to was to find actors that were able to grab this distributed knowledge in society and use it to make better
and more fair decisions. So we reached out to traditional political parties and we offered them DemocracyOS. We said, “Look, here you have a platform
that you can use to build a two-way conversation with your constituencies.” And yes, we failed. We failed big time. We were sent to play
outside like little kids. Amongst other things, we were called naive. And I must be honest: I think, in hindsight, we were. Because the challenges that we face, they’re not technological, they’re cultural. Political parties were never willing to change the way they make their decisions. So it suddenly became a bit obvious that if we wanted to move forward
with this idea, we needed to do it ourselves. And so we took quite a leap of faith, and in August last year, we founded our own political party, El Partido de la Red, or the Net Party, in the city of
Buenos Aires. And taking an even bigger leap of faith, we ran for elections in October last year with this idea: if we want a seat in Congress, our candidate, our representatives were always going to vote according to what citizens decided on DemocracyOS. Every single project that got introduced in Congress, we were going vote according to what citizens decided
on an online platform. It was our way of hacking the political system. We understood that if we wanted to become part of the conversation, to have a seat at the table, we needed to become valid stakeholders, and the only way of doing it is to play by the
system rules. But we were hacking it in the sense that we were radically changing the way a political party makes its decisions. For the first time, we were making our decisions together with those who we were affecting directly by those decisions. It was a very, very bold move for a two-month-old party in the city of Buenos Aires. But it got attention. We got 22,000 votes, that’s 1.2 percent of the votes, and we came in second for the local options. So, even if that wasn’t enough to win a seat in Congress, it was enough for us to become part of the conversation, to the extent that next month, Congress, as an institution, is launching for the first time in Argentina’s history, a DemocracyOS to discuss, with the citizens, three pieces of legislation: two on urban transportation and one on the use of public space. Of course, our elected representatives are not saying, “Yes, we’re going to vote according to what citizens decide,” but they’re willing to try. They’re willing to open up a new space for citizen engagement and hopefully they’ll be willing to listen as well. Our political system can be transformed, and not by subverting it, by destroying it, but by rewiring it with the tools that Internet affords us now. But a real challenge is to find, to design to create, to empower those connectors that are able to innovate, to transform noise and silence into signal and finally bring our democracies to the 21st century. I’m not saying it’s easy. But in our experience, we actually stand a chance of making it work. And in my heart, it’s most definitely worth trying. Thank you. (Applause)

Danny Hutson

99 thoughts on “Pia Mancini: How to upgrade democracy for the Internet era

  1. 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".

  2. 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).

  3. @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. 

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. I had the idea of implementing a true democracy using technology. Americans are already tired of caring. We would need strong incentives to get anyone to care. Then there's the incumbents that are resistant to backwards power shifts. The day will come, the question is when.

  8. I would advocate general outcomes then hiring the best quality people achieve them and implement some kind of monitoring of their results. General policy decisions would be around what sort of outcomes people want. e.g. Affordable housing, access to healthcare and education, safety net for loss of income. Eradication of poverty in and out of jurisdiction of the state, humanitarian aid and (or lack of) military involvement, and those kind of things that can be parameterized. Technology could be used as a feedback loop to indicate the correct parameters are being sampled and how well they are perceived to be implemented.

  9. 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.

  10. I think the argument that people don't have enough information to make an informed decision is a farce. If you've ever watched CSPAN, you'll know that politics is the art of debate, regardless of your level of knowledge about the subject matter. These people have their positions, many of whom are already lawyers, because they can carry their agenda forward regardless of the validity of their position. Until the "republic" part of "democratic republic" is removed from US politics, we will never see a system that enacts the wants of the people. We will continue to evolve politically at the speed of a US Senate filibuster. I would appreciate if anyone would do some research on what that theoretical speed might be.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. This is a wonderful idea!
    Currently, Reddit is the most useful democracy tool with upvotes and downvotes for important matters.
    For instance, the Reddit E-cigarette subreddit allows people to fight for the right to have this healthier alternative to cigarettes (despite of current government and media misinformation). People share on reddit which politicians they can contact to make change etcetera..

  14. 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.

  15. 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!

  16. There is such system in Russia, people can discuss almost all law propositions… And no law can go into effect without this discussion… The problem is that all public responses are ignored… Authors of the laws just copy-paste the same response to everyone and call it "public discussion has been held"…

  17. hhahahahah :)))) :D::D:D: :PPPP P:D:D:D::D 🙂 ( I wonder whether i should use thereddssaasdott thing :)))) :D::D:D:D: :)))))) dadfgadcascdsbugginadsac dfvaghacmasdaganbaasdfdfgIND. :)(:

  18. Naive and uninformed.  Politicians represent those who put them in office… the wealthy.  If a politician were to go off-script, then they would be thrown out of office.

  19. I think many of us sensed the now not so distant potential corelation between internet and direct democracy in the past as internet started evolving. and as time passes by more and more people are starting to understand how internet can be their voice in the world. I definitely believe alternative independent media are the future of information and that goes hand in hand with this kind of technological approach to representation. "democracy cant exist without informed citizenry" so yeah people need to be informed properly and they need a proper tool to show their decisions. Internet IS the future. we just need to believe it. fake it till we make it. sooner or later the system will need to adjust to what people want. but people need to want it and show that they want it! this app might just be the first step. well done and keep it up! I believe in this idea

  20. 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?

  21. Her argument is flawed because a representative democracy is surely better. Do we really want the public making every decision and deciding policy themselves? Their opinion is fickle and temperamental, I mean after 9/11 approval ratings for Bush rocketed to 91%, a few years later and they're at 29%….what does that show you?

    Voters aren't qualified to decide how, for example, we should deal with IS or Ebola, this is why we have pros in Parliament or Congress who are highly educated who make these decisions themselves.

    I mean think of all the things from no gay marriage and restricting abortion to illegal wars across the globe that the public supported.

    This is a terrible idea

  22. 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.

  23. I saw a political party like this at our recent elections here in Australia, the party is called Senator Online.  https://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.

  24. 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 😉

  25. Im a supporter of the direct democracy party here is Sweden, we only got 1500 votes 🙁 but last time it was 100 🙂

  26. This is a great idea, and it has been tried before on other places with similar results. The problem, like she said, is that the people in power don't want to make decision on base on people's choice, but on their party/personal gain.
    Also, any site or internet platform can be hacked (has the NSA proved), so such an app can also be manipulated by big corporations to favor what they want done or not done.
    I believe this is the way to go, but we need to have a more profound change in the goverment system, and on how we choose the people inside that system, to make it work.

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. The base idea behind this is really cool I think, moving us much closer to the possibility of a true democracy than what is practical today. Try getting stuff like sopa, pipa, or the removal of net neutrality passed when the people are actually in power… good luck ^^

  30. 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.

  31. 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. 

  32. 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!!!

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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.

  38. @YouTube @Google+   Thank you for ruining yet another one of my conversations with your trusted spam filter. Much appreciated!

  39. 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".      

  40.    "If you haven't seen this TED Talk YouTube 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..

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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"


    Pay attention to "views", "likes" and ratings statistics on YouTube 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 🙂

  44. 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.

  45. Interesting concept but do we really want the droves of mindless sheeple  making decisions. People are so easily influenced by the media that I fear the majority vote will be just as bad as that of corrupt politicians. 

  46. 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?

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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

  53. Why isn't this constantly/continually being discussed and examined?
    Is the global authoritarian aristocratic economic elite so entrenched?

  54. 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

  55. I did not listen, I was distracted all the time looking at her eyes and lips. You have to change the speaker for a fat bearded man, or the project will fail.

  56. The World needs a new Savier and it's gotta be dlord Pythagoras! Let there be Light!

  57. 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!

  58. 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *