Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Based Political "Meta-Party" For Massachusetts

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the thought-you-said-mega-party dept.

Government 227

sophiachou writes "The Free Government Party, a non-profit, open source political 'meta-party' focused on providing citizens with more direct control of Congress through online polling and user-drafted bills, seems to be looking for a candidate to endorse for US Representative of Massachusetts' 8th Congressional District. If you're from the Boston area, you might have seen this already on Craigslist. The chosen candidate will be bound by contract to vote in Congress only as do his or her constituents online. However, they don't seem to be going for direct democracy. To make voting convenient, you can select advisers to cast your votes for you, unless you do so yourself. Supposedly, interviews for the candidate position are already underway. Anyone from MA's 8th Congressional District on Slashdot already apply?"

cancel ×

227 comments

ISRAEL, WE BLESS THEE (-1, Troll)

wi1lyhill (1323763) | about 6 years ago | (#24148203)

Today, while driving through town, I wound up behind a minivan that had a big sticker on the back. The sticker had an Israeli flag in the middle of it, and under it the quotation from the book of Genesis that reads âoeI will bless those who bless thee.â

I would like to take this time to list my own reasons for thanking and blessing Israel, our lone ally in the Middle East, for everything she has done for us, since I am quite sure most Americans are unaware of just what kind of friend she has been to us.

For extorting from me and my fellow Americans $4,000,000,000.00 a year for the last 4 decades, we bless thee.

For taking our most sophisticated weapons technology and stealing it for yourself without paying the American patent holders, we bless thee.

For taking that high-tech military technology and selling it to our enemies, such as the Russians and Chinese, thus further endangering us, we bless thee.

For using that weaponry in a sustained attack against a United States ship, the USS Liberty, in an attempt to sink her, thus preventing US servicemen from revealing to the rest of the world information concerning the war crimes they witnessed you commit against Egyptian soldiers in the Sinai Desert during the Six Day War, as well as for the purposes of dragging the US into yet another one of your murderous adventures, we bless thee.

For killing 35 and wounding 170 American sailors aboard the USS Liberty, we bless thee.

For bribing the United States government into covering it up, preventing any justice from being done for the benefit of the families of the lost sailors - as well as the American People, we bless thee.

For sending your agents into Egypt and blowing up American buildings for the purpose of blaming the Arabs in an event known as the Lavon Affair, we bless thee.

For sending your agents into Libya during the Reagan administration, and broadcasting radio messages in Arabic that were designed to sound like âoeterrorist cell planningâ so that the US would initiate military strikes against Khadafi in an event known as Operation Trojan Horse, we bless thee.

For withholding information from us concerning the planned attacks against the US Marine barracks in Lebanon, attacks you knew about through your moles in the Islamic world and about which you deliberately refused to warn us in order to further your interests against the Arabs, we bless thee.

For employing Jonathon Pollard, an American serviceman paid to spy for Israel in order to steal even more of our National Security secrets for your parasitic purposes, we bless thee.

For blackmailing President Clinton through one of your sayanim, Monica Lewinsky, in order to prevent a coherent peace program from being pushed forward between yourself and the Palestinian people whom you have brutalized and murdered for the last 50 years, we bless thee.

For breaking every agreement you have made with your Arab neighbors, stealing their land, displacing, murdering, and treating them like the animals you see them as, we bless thee.

For using your agents within the first Bush administration to involve us in the first Gulf War, causing the deaths of American men and women, and exposing our servicemen to whatever bioweapons were and are responsible which have led to Gulf War Syndrome, we bless thee.

For your role in the September 11 attacks in this country, and for blackmailing and bribing the US government into deporting back to Israel the 100 or more intelligence agents that were arrested after the attacks, we bless thee.

For suppressing the information from the American people of your involvement in the September 11 attacks and sending us in the wrong direction in search of answers, we bless thee.

For using one of your agents in the US Army Weapons Lab to steal anthrax and distribute it into our mail system, terrorizing US citizens and killing several in order to blame the Arabs, we bless thee.

For using your agents in the US Government, namely, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, and the rest into initiating this war in the Middle East so that you could bring to heel all the enemies you have made during the last 50 years, we bless thee.

For using your agents in the media to lie to us on a minute by minute basis about the war, lying to us as to how âoejustâ this cause is, and what the real reasons behind it are, we bless thee.

For using your agents in the Christian Evangelical community, such as Falwell, Graham, Swaggert, Robertson and the rest who praise you as Godâ(TM)s chosen people and further keep Americans in the dark about who you really are what you have done, and what you are truly about, we bless thee.

For bringing idiots like Limbaugh, Liddy, Hannity, Beck, Oâ(TM)Reilly and Savage to the forefront as paid liars who will support you and further lead Americans astray, we bless thee.

For making America your attack dog, and for sending her sons and daughters to fight and die in all your future wars, we bless thee.

For using your influence in the media to hide the real statistics about the war, the dead and wounded on both sides, we bless thee.

For using us in such a way that not only further inflames the Arab world against us, but as well has succeeded in our alienating ourselves against those nations with whom we have been friendly for over a century, we bless thee.

And finally, for using your influence in our media and academia to flood our minds with pornography and lies, as well as inculcating in us a hatred for our history, religion, and culture, for dividing our nation between races and sexes, and for releasing into our society all of your plagues and filth that have left us a rotted out corpse of a once great nation, oh Israel, our friend,

we bless thee.

Re:ISRAEL, WE BLESS THEE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148229)

Twitter alert!

Re:ISRAEL, WE BLESS THEE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148341)

mod parent off topic.

Re:ISRAEL, WE BLESS THEE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148395)

gg

Re:ISRAEL, WE BLESS THEE (2, Insightful)

professional_troll (1178701) | about 6 years ago | (#24148755)

Israel = Social conservative cunts who practice the stupid religion of judaism
Rest of the middle east = Social conservative cunts who practice the stupid religion of Islam
America = Social conservative cunts who practice the stupid religion of christianity

Sounds like a miniature electoral college system. (3, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 6 years ago | (#24148213)

The way we were supposed to choose our president was to know and vote for our electors, who were supposed to be the wisest people we knew. Political parties kind of buggered up the plan.

-jcr

Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148731)

The way we were supposed to choose our president was to know and vote for our electors, who were supposed to be the wisest people we knew. Political parties kind of buggered up the plan.

Correction: Human nature kind of buggered up the plan. The fact that we have a kind of floating aristocracy, divided into a couple of camps depending on which segment of the wealthy and powerful aristocracy they get more support from, is entirely by design. Many of the framers didn't want the common people getting too much control over things for fear that we wouldn't choose to let them run things.
  Thomas Paine was basically run out of town on a rail for being too much against the idea that the "smart people" should make all the decisions for us dumb rubes.

  - (A)

Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148827)

...vote for our electors, who were supposed to be the wisest people we knew.

Sounds a lot like a monarchy: the elite nobility governing the unwashed ignorant masses.

Something that is increasingly forgotten is that the key innovation of the American revolution was to move away from trying to find the most superior person to govern and to instead rely on a system. Instead of having a (supposedly) superior king decide whose head to chop off, they had a system - of laws and judges and lawyers and juries.

The basic realization was that you're not ever going to find some guy who is just so special that he can make all the best decisions for the country. Instead, you need a system of specialists, experts and ordinary citizens working together collectively.

For example, in that view, the president is not supposed to make decisions himself (and certainly not based on his "gut") but, like a judge, he is supposed to preside over the system to insure that the system reaches the correct decisions.

Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste (3, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | about 6 years ago | (#24148927)

Sounds a lot like a monarchy

Nope, it sounds like a committee. The electors were supposed to be performing an occasional, temporary public duty, like serving on a jury.

-jcr

College is old - vote by botnet fits the new way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24149039)

Well, you are so totally out of date. The electoral college was great for the old days when nobody had computers. Nowadays, things like this are controlled by something called a "bot net". This is great because it will extend modernity. Now the candidate will also be controlled by the person with the biggest bot net in Massachusetts who will vote on behalf of the electorate using their own computers. That's what I call an advance.

Re:Sounds like a miniature electoral college syste (1)

synaptic (4599) | about 6 years ago | (#24149087)

There were federalists and anti-federalists from the get go.

Online influence! (4, Interesting)

Darkman, Walkin Dude (707389) | about 6 years ago | (#24149215)

I was just thinking of a solution like this in the wake of the Telecoms debacle. What if some reasonably intelligent, semi organised group was to set up a shadow government of sorts, with its own structure to debate and vote on issues on a public website?

You could set it up like Slashdot, with the explicit goal of influencing government policy and officials to move in a suitable direction.

Such a group could have policies on health, education, technology, science, military, the whole gamut, all debated by people who know what they are talking about, with a moderation system like slashdot. Once the debate was finalised, you could hold a poll for the final direction of that piece of legislation or whatever, and set that as the policy for the year. The debate could perhaps be re-opened by popular demand as situations change.

And then you give it teeth. All members donate a hundred bucks a year to it (also a handy way to ensure that there are not too many duplicate accounts) for lobbying or funding the political group, and representatives are appointed to push the agenda on the hill. Its just the bare bones of an idea, it needs a hell of a lot of fleshing out, but damn me if I wouldn't set it up myself if I had the time.

aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (5, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 years ago | (#24148247)

This is just what I've been waiting for!! I have my vote-bots standing by, ready to tilt the vote when the time comes.

Of course, I won't use them for just ANY occasion, I will save them for something important. Hmmmmm.....the invasion of Canada vote!!!! Prepare thyself, Oh Canada!!

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (5, Insightful)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | about 6 years ago | (#24148453)

Hmmmmm.....the invasion of Canada vote!!!! Prepare thyself, Oh Canada!!

This is what concerns me. On face value the idea sounds like a huge step forward for democracy and people who don't really think things through or aren't particularly educated will vote for it.

I have seen loads of clips - and yes American /.ers, I know how easy it is to selectively edit these things - that show interviews with "average Americans on the street" saying that Buddhists are terrorists who should be nuked when asked what they think of Buddhists. I know that this is not true for all Americans, but I also know a large percentage of Americans know less about the world outside their local area than any other Western country. I have grave fears for these people being able to directly vote on anything that a nuclear armed super power might do.

Sometimes I feel pissed off about the traditional two party thing we have here in Australia too, but there is something to be said for a system with checks and balances, separation of powers, the rule of law and non-elected bureaucrats keeping things orderly. It's frustrating but relatively benign and this idea of letting anyone vote directly on decisions threatens all of these things.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (3, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | about 6 years ago | (#24148745)

There are ways to help work out the kinks before we have people voting to imprison Buddhists for terrorism. The process of voting from home can be asked to read some information regarding the subject matter of the vote before voting. Additionally a double opt-in vote would require that you insert your voter number to place the vote, then reply to the email sent to your registered email address before your vote is counted. This stops bots and gives those voting time to think it through and read about it a bit before just voting.

The key to getting a veracious vote result is education. The harder that you work to educate people on the issues, the more likely they are to vote using an informed opinion.

Yes, there are always those that oppose things out of ignorance or in support of something else, but perhaps if you informed people who Buddhists were before asking them the question they would not be so quick to say they should be nuked.

Education is the key to solving quite a few problems in the world.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148889)

Additionally a double opt-in vote would require that you insert your voter number to place the vote, then reply to the email sent to your registered email address before your vote is counted. This stops bots and gives those voting time to think it through and read about it a bit before just voting.

In addition to your idea, why not put in a (secure) CAPTCHA system (even for registered users) (Please use the ones that use only one from the sets of (1/I/l/i/|) and (0/O/o), and don't over-obfuscate)? It may be a minor inconvenience, but I wouldn't baulk at the idea of having to fill in a CAPTCHA to make sure that I'm properly represented and properly voted on. Sure, captchas can be defeated with social engineering, but in the end it might be easier to convince people to vote your way (or get people who already agree with you to sign up for this system) rather than having a bot answer a CAPTCHA as well as compromise any number of e-mail platforms.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

smoker2 (750216) | about 6 years ago | (#24149493)

... but perhaps if you informed people who Buddhists were before asking them the question they would not be so quick to say they should be nuked.
Education is the key to solving quite a few problems in the world.

But then you are telling them what to think before asking them what they think.
There has to be more independent thought going on, otherwise it's a just a mindshare race.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24149717)

There are ways to help work out the kinks before we have people voting to imprison Buddhists for terrorism. [...] The key to getting a veracious vote result is education. The harder that you work to educate people on the issues, the more likely they are to vote using an informed opinion.

I think the problem with a direct democracy [wikipedia.org] would be that when a ballot held a costly but popular public works program (road improvement, maybe) and also a tax cut, people would vote for both because budget deficit? What's a budget deficit?

If you don't think this is true, look at the government right now: the national debt is massive because politicians have noticed they can cut taxes while increasing spending. It might not make sense for voters to support it, but support it they do.

If voter education is possible, go ahead and educate voters so they stop supporting politicians who spend irresponsibly. When you've done that, and hence demonstrated voter education is possible, I will believe direct democracy is possible.

Until then, I have my doubts.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

meringuoid (568297) | about 6 years ago | (#24149751)

Additionally a double opt-in vote would require that you insert your voter number to place the vote, then reply to the email sent to your registered email address before your vote is counted.

That's called 'confirmed opt-in'. 'Double' implies that you have to opt in twice, but that's not what you're doing: you're providing an email address, and then confirming by the reply that the person who provided your email address was actually you. When a system requires you to enter a username and a password, you don't call it 'double log-in', do you?

'Double opt-in' is spammer-speak, intended to imply that it's an unnecessary extra step and far too much to ask of a legitimate marketer so take me off your list right now I'm not spamming you opted in and you are infringing my right to frea speach.

I don't know how to read, you insensitive clod! (2, Insightful)

stupidflanders (1230894) | about 6 years ago | (#24149889)

Seriously though, I have to wonder if some people will vote for the issue/candidate with the shortest required reading. Or, we might start seeing stuff like this:
SEX! SEX! SEX!, vote yes on proposition 2600, SEX SEX SEX.

I see so many problems with this "direct voting". It's not even funny. Well, it's a little funny. SEX!

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (2, Insightful)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | about 6 years ago | (#24150237)

Its a fine line between education and propagandist indoctrination. Education is not the key, thinking for yourself is the key.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | about 6 years ago | (#24148971)


Well you have to admit, it provides one Hell of an incentive to educate the populace, whereas at present the US government seems to have an interest in keeping people ignorant. If these people have power, it's going to be the first time in a while that people are going to have to really make their cases to the people and that should be a good thing. Let's not panic just yet. This is one candidate. If they find someone and they get elected, this could be a really good thing.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

Titoxd (1116095) | about 6 years ago | (#24149293)

You think that's bad? That's nothing, really.

I know anecdotal evidence is usually worthless, but in this case I have some to share. An ex-uncle of mine (thankfully he is an *ex* uncle due to him being divorced out of the family) swore that Canada was a state of the U.S. I wish I were joking, but I'm not. Not only that, he actually started arguing in public about how Canada must be a state of the U.S., because we send so much stuff there, and actually made fun of us because we were so stupid to believe that Canada was a country. I mean, it is one level of stupidity to think that our neighbors who say "eh" are part of the country, but to actually argue otherwise? Wow, just wow.

That guy was such an idiot, it is still hard to believe. But the scary part? He was a gun-toting police officer. Somebody like that, with the mental acuity of a walnut, is supposed to defend us? Holy cow... imagine if he were in the military instead? I actually worry about the Canadians when I ponder that...

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 6 years ago | (#24149569)

interviews with "average Americans on the street" saying that Buddhists are terrorists

Those are just Americans who keep up with the news out of Sri Lanka. Plenty of Buddhist terrorists out there.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | about 6 years ago | (#24150025)

Er...

You do realise that the Tamils are (in the vast majority) Hindus, don't you?

It's the Sinhalese Buddhists that are the Government in Sri Lanka - surely the goverment aren't terrorists?

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

dbcad7 (771464) | about 6 years ago | (#24149701)

Well there is such a thing as a Buddhist terrorist.. just as there have been Christian terrorists... but I know that is not your point. This same person would probably have answered the same if asked about Muslims.. There are a few ignorant people out there, no doubt about it.

What gets me is some of the mind blowing things said that are not part of government sponsored fear (the terrorism thing for example)... Like the gal who was on the show "Smarter than a fifth grader", who said she thought Europe was a country... it was ha ha very funny and cute.. but really that is more of an example of how self absorbed the people in this country are.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

I cant believe its n (1103137) | about 6 years ago | (#24150081)

Like the gal who was on the show "Smarter than a fifth grader", who said she thought Europe was a country... it was ha ha very funny and cute.. but really that is more of an example of how self absorbed the people in this country are.

Well, she will soon be right. They will just have to find a good reason for ignoring those irish no voters.

Sarkozy, any ideas?

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (4, Funny)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 6 years ago | (#24149973)

Actually, the entire world is like that. I live in China now, and Mr. Zhang on the street doesn't even know what's in the next province, much less overseas. Luckily, they're not allowed to vote, which should cheer you up.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

religious freak (1005821) | about 6 years ago | (#24148499)

I hope someone really does this -- kills two birds with one stone.

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

renegadesx (977007) | about 6 years ago | (#24148701)

We are out of vote-bots sorry, we do however have vote-mutated sea bass

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148815)

Ok.

You're from Canada?

The last election was done quite differently, and you need to know why. Rigging elections is not good. Chads were Florida, but that is no longer, because ballots are all ink now.

They go through a machine that is actually on site. They have the voter put the ballot through themselves, and it really is a guaranteed count. These do not have the internet and are quite secure.

I was watching the news during the Primaries, and I was actually seeing illicit voting machines and tactics to attempt to rig an election.

A bit of a story here. In 2000, the people around the election knew where the rigging was going on, and which ballots were rigged. These were not counted.

Because of these machines, it is nearly impossible to rig an election. Many got to the primaries, and realized that they could not ballot stuff and didn't vote at all. This permanently changed the political tide of the entire nation because people were afraid of the consequences of being caught rigging an election.

- The Fidelis -

Re:aaaaalll-rriiiiggghhtt!!!! (1)

Alibaba10100 (1296289) | about 6 years ago | (#24149651)

two words: Ron Paul

We need a new name for a new basis of government (3, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about 6 years ago | (#24148281)

"Democracy" doesn't seem to sound right in this context -- Is it pure democracy when you have so much legislation to read that you tend to skim bits, and let representatives - proxies, as it were - handle the rest? Answer: Perhaps, I think. Maybe not.

And "Republic" doesn't seem to sound right either, when there is so much potential for this sort of system to take direct action. Is this right? Answer: Also "perhaps".

How about a "Liberacy"? (a) Maybe, but it evokes the wrong sort of popular pianist to appeal to everyone. YMMV. But I think we've blurred the boundaries so far it's really hard to use the original terms for this sort of political party.

But I think it's a great idea, myself.

Re:We need a new name for a new basis of governmen (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148363)

e-mocracy

Re:We need a new name for a new basis of governmen (1)

ShogunTux (1236014) | about 6 years ago | (#24148551)

Don't like it. Makes it sound too much like it's e-commerce, and that's the last thing I want from politicians that I vote for.

Re:We need a new name for a new basis of governmen (1)

AllIGotWasThisNick (1309495) | about 6 years ago | (#24148375)

Liberacy

pianist

it's really hard

Ok, maybe not that last one. From Wikipedia:

known as "Lee" to his friends

Also

it's really hard to use the original terms for this sort of political party

Political parties blur the names of the politics, no?

Re:We need a new name for a new basis of governmen (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148569)

wikiocracy

Re:We need a new name for a new basis of governmen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148879)

Corpocracy is what you are looking for.

Re:We need a new name for a new basis of governmen (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 6 years ago | (#24150011)

Is it pure democracy when you have so much legislation to read that you tend to skim bits, and let representatives - proxies, as it were - handle the rest?

I would say no.

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood."

- James Madison

Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148333)

What if a company tried something like this? The whole concept sounds corrupt.

Re:Legal? (1)

aussie_a (778472) | about 6 years ago | (#24149199)

Is he being offered a job or money in return for signing the contract?

If he isn't, then that isn't corrupt, its democracy. Although I understand why the corporate-owned media works at trying to confuse people.

Direct Democracy is tedious (4, Insightful)

Sparr0 (451780) | about 6 years ago | (#24148349)

Of course they aren't going for direct democracy. That is an organizational nightmare. Direct *Representation* is the model I have always advocated, and that is what they are doing. I should have a vote, and be able to give that vote to anyone that I feel is able to represent my views and interests best.

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (2, Insightful)

green1 (322787) | about 6 years ago | (#24148397)

I should have a vote, and be able to give that vote to anyone that I feel is able to represent my views and interests best.

While I agree with you on principal, how do you prevent votes from being bought and sold as commodities?
It's a noble thought, however I fear too many people would rather a few dollars than freedom, and in time you could find special interest groups owning a large number of votes, so many in fact that they can do anything they want...

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | about 6 years ago | (#24148419)

Perhaps this implementation is not a perfect example of the system I want, but it is a step in the right direction. In my ideal, vote buying would be difficult, as there would be no way to keep an individual from reassigning their vote to another representative.

[not a fan of geographic representation]

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (1)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | about 6 years ago | (#24148477)

... however I fear too many people would rather a few dollars than freedom, and in time you could find special interest groups owning a large number of votes, so many in fact that they can do anything they want...

Well, if you're right and things do go that way, we'll just end up with the system we have now. And that's no good reason not to try something new. :-)

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148515)

I don't think that will be an issue.

Right now, theres a general feeling that one person can't do much about the state of things, people are generally disillusioned with politics in general, we've stopped viewing it as a system of representation like it should be and see it as a system of control we have little influence over.

If we get to the point where individuals really can work to shape policy I think we'll see a lot more people involved, and unwilling to give up their vote, even for money. Why accept cash when you can change the system to better suit you? I know I sure as hell wouldn't, not unless somebody offered me a outrageous sum of money, large enough to set me up for life. And that kind of cash nobody can afford to spend for one vote.

Imagine the power to get the folks in your area together, and form up behind a bill (in my area I do believe we'd be all over the current road repair system and why its failed miserably, get it replaced, and get our roads fixed.)

At the same time, it would completely cripple the ability of rich interest groups to dictate policy, people like the RIAA and disney get away with forcing stupid copyright on us because after they are in office we have no control over our representatives, and big corporations basically bribe them to get what they want. Instead a corporation would exactly as much pull as its board of directors, because thats how many votes they get. Telco immunity would have died a grizzly death before the ink on the bill was dry.

We'd be better off with this I think, if for no other reason than sheer scale.

I can go out to lunch with 5 buddies and end up with 7 desired toppings on the pizza, you think as a population that isn't being payed off by business interests that we could agree on a new law that runs to a few hundred pages?

Hell no, laws would get shorter, laws would get easier to understand, laws would become more narrow, pushing only one point at a time, because in a world where you can ask 6 people what they want on their pizza and get 7 answers back you'll have a hard enough time passing laws one point at time, never mind anything else. Write a law with 100 words in it, and give it up to the people for review, I bet you a fiver that you get back 150 things wrong with it.

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (2, Interesting)

synaptic (4599) | about 6 years ago | (#24148913)

Everywhere is
Freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies
Tell me where is sanity

Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Till there are no
Rich no more

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

Population
Keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding
Still more feeding economy

Life is funny
Skies are sunny
Bees make honey
Who needs money, monopoly

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

Oh yeah

World pollution
There's no solution
Institution
Electrocution
Just black or white
Rich or poor
Them and us
Stop the war

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you

- "I'd Love To Change The World" by Ten Years After, 1967

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (2)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about 6 years ago | (#24148655)

While I agree with you on principal, how do you prevent votes from being bought and sold as commodities?

Oh my, that one nearly cost me a keyboard. You're trying to infer that they aren't now?

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (3, Informative)

Leonard Fedorov (1139357) | about 6 years ago | (#24149431)

Actually he would be trying to imply it. You're the one infering it.

[/pedantry]

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (1)

Wildclaw (15718) | about 6 years ago | (#24148659)

how do you prevent votes from being bought and sold as commodities?

The death penalty?

Ok, that is an exaggeration, especially since I am against the death penalty, but the basic idea is correct. Laws against buying (as well as selling) votes or probing into the voting patterns of any person. There should be pretty hefy penalties as it is a direct attack on society itself.

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (1)

rhakka (224319) | about 6 years ago | (#24150221)

right now, you only have to buy off a portion of the few hundred people in congress.

with direct representation, you would potentially have to buy off thousands of representatives. and, if anyone thought their chosen elector was selling his/her votes, they could reallocate it, for the fastest response to corruption ever seen.

how is this more risky than it is now, with much larger amounts of power concentrated in fewer and easier to target hands. if I wanted to buy votes, now is close to a dream situation, direct representation would be much more of a nightmare.

Re:Direct Democracy is tedious (1)

mcelrath (8027) | about 6 years ago | (#24149471)

Of course they aren't going for direct democracy. That is an organizational nightmare.

Someone should tell that [wikipedia.org] to Switzerland [wikipedia.org] . I live here (American expat) and it seems to work quite well. But it's difficult for me to make a really informed opinion since my French and German are crap. They vote all the time (many times a year), and from an outsider's perspective, it doesn't seem that different in its outcome than a representative democracy. I would also argue it prevents certain abuses -- particularly the kind that can be bought. It's much more difficult to railroad through a proposition that is harmful to most people in a direct democracy. In a representative democracy your targets are defined and you know who to pay off, bribe, blackmail, or otherwise influence to get your unpopular law. It's clear that this is happening routinely in the US, Brittan, and a few other places.

Direct democracy (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 years ago | (#24148369)

I'm not sure I like the idea of this direct democracy, actually. For while our honorable congressmen are very often little worthy of respect, at least they have had to go through the process of convincing a million (or so, depending on the region) people that they have half a clue more than someone else. On the other hand, given the vast amounts of random cluelessness I hear from people in other places, I really don't trust people generally to make a good vote.

Think of what we would have done if we were following the opinions of people just here on slashdot:
  • We would have disbanded our police force.
  • We would have invaded Israel.
  • We would have also invaded Iran.
  • And the headquarters of the RIAA.
  • No one would be able to find work, because we would have made corporations illegal while simultaneously destroying any Unions.
  • Everyone would have their idea of what was wrong, with no one knowing how to fix it.

The whole thing reminds me of a chess game, Kasparov VS the World [wikipedia.org] , in which Kasparov played against anyone who willing to log in to MSN to vote. On one move, 2.5% of the people voted for a move that was completely ILLEGAL. In that particular game, the world did manage to play a good game, but arguably only because a few very good players managed to take charge and guide the hoards through it all. In general the message boards degenerated into a lot of flaming....

Re:Direct democracy (1)

AllIGotWasThisNick (1309495) | about 6 years ago | (#24148409)

On one move, 2.5% of the people voted for a move that was completely ILLEGAL. In that particular game, the world did manage to play a good game, but arguably only because a few very good players managed to take charge and guide the hoards through it all. In general the message boards degenerated into a lot of flaming....

So, you're saying direct representation works? i.e. Opinion leaders function quite effectively in that environment? And furthermore, while most discourse wasn't particularly high quality, you suggest that this was not entirely the case. What is it you don't like about it?

Re:Direct democracy (5, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 6 years ago | (#24148681)

The problem is, the people who were acting as leaders were leaders because they were appointed so by Microsoft. Also, in chess, everyone has the same goal: to win, and it is easy to prove that a bad move is really bad. In life you are going to have nutcases who keep promoting the same bad ideas over and over.

Maybe it would work, but here in California where we have the ability to allow any proposition to appear on the ballot, we have had mixed success. Sometimes rather bad laws manage to pass (anti-gay marriage) whereas other times very reasonable and good laws are voted down (anti-gerrymandering). I'm not convinced that people voting on a law by law basis is a good idea.

Re:Direct democracy (2, Informative)

arstchnca (887141) | about 6 years ago | (#24149749)

I'm not convinced that many people even necessarily know what they're voting for. For example, if Voter X didn't research the items on the ballot beforehand, and went with the "snippets" of information you get with your ballot, he or she may very well vote either way.

Just recently, Prop 98 and 99 were voted on; thankfully 99 received more votes and won. The blurbs that appeared on the ballot are as follows:

98 EMIMENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

followed by about six sentences; the other read,

99 EMINENT DOMAIN. LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

followed by three sentences. I researched the two beforehand, and in no way could the state-provided materials have adequately informed me such that I could make my decision.

Frankly, the USA seems beyond simple political inefficacy. At this point, "politics" is what people think when they hear familiar names like "George Bush," just as they think "movies" upon hearing "Tom Cruise." Popular politics has always struck me as vastly commoditized, mostly by media forces such as television news.

The sad part is that what many of my fellow Americans seem to know about the workings of our government is really limited to Sophomore-year government (or whatever your school called it) class. The bad part is that the older the American is, the more years since Sophomore year.

Re:Direct democracy (1)

dahitokiri (1113461) | about 6 years ago | (#24148413)

I don't think many of us want to disband the police force. I think we just expect them to adhere to the whole "innocent until proven guilty without a reasonable doubt" instead of the quite opposite. Oh, and to not have the police work for corporations. I don't think many people even in the general public would have a problem with either of those points.

Re:Direct democracy (2, Informative)

gsasha (550394) | about 6 years ago | (#24149163)

I currently live in Switzerland, and they have this nice system that any issue important enough to collect a given number of signatures is put up to a referendum.
Works like charm - while this option is used, as I see, relatively rarely, it does keep the politicians from thinking up very stupid things.
And guess what? Swiss are not disbanding their police force, not invading Israel nor Iran and the corporations are oh so legal :)

Re:Direct democracy (1)

mako1138 (837520) | about 6 years ago | (#24149567)

We have a referendum system in California too, but I would say that it's been a mixed bag for us.

A little OT but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24149605)

There is no "RIAA" headquarters!!
 
There is no RIAA - only Sony, EMI etc. It's a front that they have created to deflect the hate elsewhere for the evil deeds that they have committed.

Re:Direct democracy (1)

smoker2 (750216) | about 6 years ago | (#24149653)

Reminds me of a Peter Cook film. The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer [imdb.com] .
Basic plot outline is that by giving everyone a say in how the country is run, he manages to piss them off with having to vote multiple times a day, on boring and unintelligible subjects, until they don't want to do it any more. So he offers to take away the responsibility and becomes a defacto dictator.
Good film.

Politics as Usual (1)

wolf12886 (1206182) | about 6 years ago | (#24148421)

In theory, this could work really well, but realistically speaking, I wonder how many voters would even read the bills before voting on them. Not to mention how short sighted people tend to be when it comes to politics.

So basically, we have a choice between (more) intelligent and informed representatives working towards their own personal, and sometimes detrimental goals. And the well intentioned idiots that generally put more thought into their votes for American idol than their votes in national elections.

**sigh**

Re:Politics as Usual (2, Interesting)

religious freak (1005821) | about 6 years ago | (#24148535)

Perhaps I'm getting jaded as I get older, but the longer I'm around, the more I wonder how on earth democracy works at all... and how it's managed to stay around so long. I'm almost a skeptic, but it truly is the least worst option, at least so far, that we've been able to come up with. (I wouldn't mind being ruled by an all powerful benevolent AI, should one become available).

(To paraphrase Carlin) Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize 50% are DUMBER THAN THAT...

Re:Politics as Usual (1)

dvice_null (981029) | about 6 years ago | (#24149781)

> I wonder how many voters would even read the bills before voting on them.

What about politicians? They (should) read the bills and their whole job is to make the best choices. Yet, how many times have you seen that politicians would have agreed on anything? They don't vote for what is smart. They vote for what they believe is smart. Their vote is based on feelings.

The election is already over . . . (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | about 6 years ago | (#24148425)

The Democratic Party primary can quite reasonably considered to be the end of the line for candidates seeking Federal election from MA. Unless you have a genius plan to disrupt the internal workings of the party, I find it hard to believe you are going to accomplish all that much.

MA was bought and paid for a long time ago.

Re:The election is already over . . . (1)

oneal13rru (1322741) | about 6 years ago | (#24148505)

I'll throw in my $0.02 here. A genius plan to disrupt the internal workings of the democratic party: Run in the primaries one politically inexperienced African-American Male (Who has my vote, please don't kill me for any statements here) against the notably more capable of either going berserk once a month or thinking nuclear winter will cure hot flashes wife of an ex-president who was nearly impeached... and then have two perfect candidates for underdog spend more time stabbing eachother in the back than on playing the unique cards available to their backgrounds... if it weren't for A: G-duh, and B: most of the republicans that were going for election were idiots, they would have had a PERFECT setup for internal disruption...

It looks good (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 6 years ago | (#24148427)

But it just can't happen. Proving constituancy. Ballot stuffing. Out of state voters. Ingoring voters who still haven't gotten into the whole "internet" thing. I wish it could work, but it can't without years of real change.

Re:It looks good (1)

arstchnca (887141) | about 6 years ago | (#24149763)

I don't know. It seems reasonable enough to submit one's SSN to the relevant government office tasked with managing voting at that level, just as it seems reasonable enough to give the IRS your SSN. Although it would be authentication of sensitive information, it would still be, simply, authentication - SSN check (and/or other mechanisms) ought to make it so only registered constituents of a given official influence that official's electronic channels, and his or hers only.

It just seems to me that ensuring proper representation wouldn't be any great feat. I can't help but feel that the draconian process of physical balloting just keeps more people from voting.

I live in this district (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148437)

I can't remember my password, so screw Karma.

The pay for this job in MA is 31k.

Anyone intelligent at all is making 60k+.

Anyone unintelligent is making 40k at Mcdonalds if they actually fucking worked at it.

In other words: the pay doesn't just suck, a teenage dropout can make more.

I live in this district. I'd apply, and mean it, in a second if the job payed -anything- livable. 55k maybe.

For all of you who go "But 31k is fine in hickland" this is less than .01 miles from Boston! The cost of living here is crazy. I don't know anyone who can live on 31k a year, pay rent, own a car, and possibly even -dream- of owning a condo, let alone a house. 31k here means you live with roomates- forever. You do not get to support anyone. Ever. Feeding children? No way, that's just dreams.

The simple fact is, unless you are suicidal, 50+ (and so close to retiring you can afford the pay cut, because you already saved up your retirement fund and the pay is just icing), or so dumb you can't succeed at a damned mcdonalds.

Good people aren't cheap. And Reps are very cheap. Do you even wonder why reps are so easy to buy?

-They aren't paid to care about you, and never will be.-

Discloser: I am 25, and a software engineer.

Re:I live in this district (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148595)

$165200

Re:I live in this district (2, Insightful)

AGMW (594303) | about 6 years ago | (#24149453)

If the object is to elect someone who ALWAYS votes the way they are told then I'm not sure you want anyone even vaguely clever!

You want a dolt, imbecile, automaton - indeed, a Voting Machine which will simply vote the way the System ordains. A voting robot - hey, that'll even save them $31K a year!

To Sum it Up (2, Insightful)

oneal13rru (1322741) | about 6 years ago | (#24148457)

Sounds almost like theyre just taking a select group , leverage whatever pressures and influence they have in a manner to get a puppet elected, and toss in yet another layer of representation to determine what the puppet does... almost like a broken socialist microcosm of a republic. But hey, whatever floats their boats... I just hope their vote server is solid...

obstacle: the two-party system (1)

barnaby-jones (1322157) | about 6 years ago | (#24148467)

It isn't easy to start a political party. I would also like to meet the genius who implements this. I generally have confidence in people, but the dead vote is another issue.

What do slashdotters think about other methods of reform? For example, Olympic range voting (hot-or-not style) would prevent the two-party system from reigning supreme. Then, something like this freegovernment.org movement could take off. (Leaving us with a one-party system)

Re:obstacle: the two-party system (3, Interesting)

Scr3wFace (1200541) | about 6 years ago | (#24148531)

Even if the election fairy manages to get this person in office, the existing system on the hill will surely keep him/her out of any and all comities until they do the bidding of the majority. Without being involved in special comities, it's a sure bet this person will be so isolated come next election they will be eaten alive.

doomed (3, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 6 years ago | (#24148469)

It's doomed. Why? People selfishly look for their representative to represent them best personally, when people instead should have the maturity to look for someone who represents them collectively.

A good representative is not someone who conducts polling every time something comes up. A good representative makes as sound an educated a decision as he or she can, weighing the good of ALL the people they represent against the good of the commonwealth, against the good of the planet...and more importantly, they should not make a career of it.

I don't see the voting populous having that kind of foresight. I'd be a happier if representation was randomly assigned amongst people.

Re:doomed (3, Interesting)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 6 years ago | (#24148769)

People selfishly look for their representative to represent them best personally, when people instead should have the maturity to look for someone who represents them collectively.

I can't remember where I heard this (NPR?) but there were studies done that showed that people vote for who and what that they identify with, not who and what benefits them most or represents them most closely.

Somewhere... (1)

religious freak (1005821) | about 6 years ago | (#24148471)

George Washington is spinning in his grave...

Re:Somewhere... (2, Funny)

h4rm0ny (722443) | about 6 years ago | (#24149023)


I suspect that all the Founding Fathers have been spinning like bobbins on a sewing machine for some time now. A little more angular momentum wont make any difference at this point.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (5, Funny)

Repton (60818) | about 6 years ago | (#24148533)

excellent congressman AA+++++++++ would def vote for again

Re:HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148957)

Yeah!!! He's got a good beat and he's fun to dance to. (For you youngsters, I'm alluding to "American Bandstand.")

Re:HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (4, Funny)

geoff43230 (829540) | about 6 years ago | (#24149325)

This congressman accepts check, cash or PayPal. All bids are final.

alternately :
1. (sort of) vote for new congressperson
2. ?
3. Profit!

American Political Idol (1, Insightful)

rossz (67331) | about 6 years ago | (#24148601)

This is scary. Dealing with our laws, our freedom, and our future in the exact same manner as the best singer is chosen on t.v.

A "pure democracy" has the potential to be even more oppressive than the worst sort of communism or dictatorship.

Re:American Political Idol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24149205)

Sso long as they restrict it to legal voters, it's not going to be a bunch of 14 year old girls choosing sides on a law based on which side has the cutest boys (the sons of the politicians, except for the daddy-issue set among the girls).

Re:American Political Idol (1)

Alibaba10100 (1296289) | about 6 years ago | (#24149597)

If only the public would listen to Simon Cowell style criticism of the proposed laws, that might actually be preferable to the current system.

Something similar to this .... (3, Informative)

xk0der (1003200) | about 6 years ago | (#24148685)

I happen to stumble upon something similar here : http://podvoters.org/ [podvoters.org]

PodVoters looks to me like a much better idea (IMO), because it's an online system for selecting candidates, according to a process that should yield much better candidates, than we get at present. It's not about users directly managing the entire legislative process which is too burdensome for most (any?) citizen.

just my two cents :)

Another noble experiment (2, Interesting)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 6 years ago | (#24148911)

Why not try it and see what happens? What could possibly go wrong? Seriously, this is definitely something worth persuing. Maybe some variation of it in the future will prove better than what we're doing now. I'm sure there were people who didn't believe American democracy would work when our forefathers started this country.

Re:Another noble experiment (2, Interesting)

Alibaba10100 (1296289) | about 6 years ago | (#24149627)

We have some existing data. Online voting is used in referendum voting at many college campuses. I've been impressed with what I've seen. When voting on issues online, college students can be quite moderate. But when you put everyone in the same room and have them vote publicly on issues, the results are not pretty.

Democracy is overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24148925)

Inflamatory but largely true. Democracy got Bush elected for two terms inspite of being unqualified and totally botching his first term. The people don't always know what's best for them. Also Congress got elected by somebody and they are slightly less popular than smallpox. No alternatives? How many people in this country honestly consider a third party candidate? People want "their" team to win but the person representing your team may be a moron and is probably owned by corporate america. There is a saying about getting the government we deserve. Until people can get over this us against them attitude in politics and vote for the best person for the job nothing will change and any of these plans are more smoke and mirrors. Want change? Vote against everyone in office today no matter the party. Wear a t-shirt on voting day with the line "People shouldn't fear their government their government should fear the people". Get 50,000,000 people to do that in November and there will be a shock wave in Washington that won't stop in our lifetimes. When over 90% get relected what do they care what the people want? If they all get voted out then the next batch will know fear and the ones that weren't up for reelection will know fear in two years.

Opponent if pretty awesome... (3, Informative)

Gibbs-Duhem (1058152) | about 6 years ago | (#24148999)

I live in this district, and must say that as much as I love this idea, it would be tough to sway me (as a social libertarian and economic moderate) to vote out Capuano. His voting record is very consistently exactly in line with what I would want.

To whit, the ACLU ranks him at 94% voting the way they advocate and 100% by LBGT advocates (I'm also gay). He's in favor of affirmative action, which I have some minor objections to, but generally think isn't particularly evil. He voted against expanding criminal prosecutions for minors and is rated "soft on crime" (which I approve of, having been harassed by the police and FBI several times despite having committed no crimes). He is generally not in favor of the war on drugs. I don't think he's as savvy on energy and the environment as I'd like, but he probably is better informed that an average group of citizens...

I dunno, I'm not sure I'd trust my neighbors in general to be as sensible as Capuano has been. I've seen my neighbors believe some pretty stupid crap. I'd have to see a very sensible plan before I'd vote to change.

Their plan is doomed. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24149001)

It needs:

A) A rather large amendment to the Constituition

B) A population that actually understands the issues being voted on, including causes, effects, and solutions.

As an American, I believe that B does not exists. We are not rich landowners like ancient Athenians, who had lots of time to ponder these things, and were able to have an efficient direct democracy. Americans, on the whole, are specialized to hell. We don't sleep, we don't take vacations, we just work. We don't have time to think about the government.

Someone tried this in Norway... (3, Interesting)

MenThal (646459) | about 6 years ago | (#24149017)

...but it was started by two comedians, mostly as an elaborate joke I hink. They called it "The Political Party" and almost all the representatives were known Norwegian comedians. http://www.dpp.no/ [www.dpp.no]

Is it constitutional? (2, Interesting)

SlovakWakko (1025878) | about 6 years ago | (#24149049)

Where I come from, any contract binding an elected representative to vote in a certain manner would violate the constitution, and thus be invalid from the start. Once a person is elected into the office, he/she can vote however he/she sees fit, and nobody can influence the vote (except $$$ of course ;). Also, it doesn't matter WHY the person has been elected, whether there was an invalid "contract" in the play - the person becomes a legally elected representative for full 4 years.

Re:Is it constitutional? (1)

smoker2 (750216) | about 6 years ago | (#24149561)

This would be fine, if like in any public corporation, the voters (the shareholders) could IMMEDIATELY voice their displeasure and if necessary, replace the representative when he/she does something against the popular wishes. As things stand, you're stuck with a liar and a traitor until the next election.
If the representative can't show that they have voted (on any matter) in the best interests of their stated goals (at time of election), then they are breaking the contract they made with the electorate. They are there to *represent* the collective wishes of an area (the clue's in the title) not gain votes with false promises, then ignore the people they claim to represent.

Re:Is it constitutional? (1)

smoker2 (750216) | about 6 years ago | (#24149599)

Furthermore, I think that any vote where a representative is subsequently removed from office, should be recast, so as to take account of the true wishes of the nation. Even if it's just one person. If you're going to have elections at all, they have to provide real data, or else it's just pantomime.

Confused (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 6 years ago | (#24149083)

Sounds like they are confusing a representative with a delegate.

You needn't live in the district (2, Informative)

stinerman (812158) | about 6 years ago | (#24149149)

You don't have to live in the district in order to run for Congress in that district, you only have to live in the state.

The folks running the Free Government Party might require a candidate to live in the district, but it isn't a restriction required by the United States or Massachusetts.

Re: (1)

clint999 (1277046) | about 6 years ago | (#24149211)

On one move, 2.5% of the people voted for a move that was completely ILLEGAL. In that particular game, the world did manage to play a good game, but arguably only because a few very good players managed to take charge and guide the hoards through it all. In general the message boards degenerated into a lot of flaming....

why not abolish politicians (1)

aristolochene (997556) | about 6 years ago | (#24149415)

why not go the whole way? Abolish paid for, special-interest driven, corruptable politicians entirely?

Allow anyone to draft legislation, post it on some server (ArXiv style) and allow it a few months to be peer reviewed to discuss merits of new law. Legislation that looks like being worth considering is then written up by professionals into a version worth voting on, then put to a public online vote.

Set a suitable quorom so single interest groups can't force things through. Give every law a 12 month sunset clause, so if it doesn't work in practice it can be dropped unless people activley vote again to keep it on the books.

Government then restircted to basic administrative tasks and oversight into government departments provided by citizens chosen through further popular votes.

Yeah, i can see flaws in this system (especially with budget allocations) - and I'm sure /. will pick them to pieces, but is it any more flawed than the current systems in place in western democracies?

The instant they even mention Natalie Portman (1)

vorlich (972710) | about 6 years ago | (#24149499)

...slashdotted!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...