This is the future of democracy, but it will be heavily challenged considering it will put every established and up and coming politician out of work within their immediate fields.
When DemocracyOS sought to work with elected members of parliament to act on behalf of their constituents in Argentina they were unsuccessful because “the challenges that [they] faced they’re not technological, they’re cultural, political parties were never willing to change the way they make their decisions”. Politicians have already made up their minds, voters are just electing a member that aligns closest with their views.
What we need is a system that stands alone and is not reliant on current politicians or at least politicians that is bound to act as dictated by the outcome of a DemocracyOS poll.
Within democracy “healthy and robust public debate should once again be one of its fundamental values” involving “persuading and being persuaded, its about reaching a consensus as much as finding a proper way of channelling our disagreement”. We see this debate on Facebook everyday, but it rarely transform into political decisions.
As I see it, the following aspects need to be implemented for success of this true democracy:
1. A dedicated and well funded corruption watchdog, including well paid law enforcement;
2. Transparency of all government organisations, including military, with public reporting. No more “intel tells us they have weapons of mass destruction”, show us the evidence, if this means putting personnel at risk, pull them out. People are not stupid, if the evidence is as strong as suggested, they will vote for a solution to go in strong. (I’m certainly not opposed to the necessary and democratically empowered use of military force were absolutely required);
3. Transparency and accountability of the media, with well funded nationalisation of all political and business news and an associated research centre to conduct independent investigations and reviews into areas of public concern, e.g. our involvement in conflict and causes of cancer. This nationalised news service would need to rival CNN and Al Jazeera with its coverage and providing continuous news coverage and could potentially sell viewing overseas to spread unbias news. Again completely transparent and with public reporting;
4. Nationalisation of telecommunication services with high speed internet access available to all such that everyone has equal access to political discussion and the ability to influence change. This would include a national Virtual Private Network into the Australian internet so that Australians overseas could continue to participate via a secure connection.
5. A dynamic tax rate set quarterly (or as best determined) that allows government organisations to get the funds for voted action when needed and backed off when not, as opposed to organisations spending money just because they have the budget to do so. As well as a means of estimating tax requirements needed to pay for each voted change; and
6. Protection of investment such that decisions made by voters compensates corporation and personal losses, e.g. changes to tobacco laws compensating established tobacco shops and businesses and provide retraining and employment for specialised workers within the industry or compensating corporation during nationalisation of an industry. Again, costs being taken into consideration when estimating required taxes.
I strongly believe in true democracy as best described by Abraham Lincoln “governance of the people, by the people, for the people”. Representative Democracy does NOT reflect this vision.