- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Tam Hunt: Wiki-Government As an Antidote to Corruption
I was curious how Google Maps knows the traffic conditions that it tracks with green and red map overlays. How could I find out?
Of course I Googled it and learned that a primary source of data for Google’s maps are smartphone owners using Google Maps. These smartphones send anonymous location information to Google, and Google uses this anonymous information, which will generally include plentiful data from smartphone users who are moving on roads, to create its database.
How cool is that? The term for this kind of information gathering is “crowdsourcing.” Rather than having specialized or dedicated devices or people calculating traffic or whatever phenomenon is being scrutinized, crowdsourcing allows crowds to deliver the answer(s).
Another term for crowdsourcing is “wiki.” Wikipedia, wikileaks, wikispaces, wikinomics, wiki everything. If we look up wiki on Wikipedia, we learn that there are hundreds of uses for “wiki” now, a word that originally came from Hawaiian and means “really fast.”
Crowdsourcing and wikis are not a new concept, even though they are often discussed as though they are. Markets are also a form of crowdsourcing, specifically for setting prices of goods and services. Free market supporters look to crowds (markets) — not the government — to figure out the appropriate price.
But what about crowdsourcing government more generally? What about some kind of wiki-government?
This could take many different forms and is spreading as an idea.
It’s no secret that the United States has some pretty obviously anti-democratic features built in to our system. For example, the Senate itself is a deviation from strict democracy. Unicameral (one chamber) systems are more democratic because they allow the will of the people to be achieved without two chambers watering down the wishes of the electorate. The Senate was, in fact, created as a “cooling saucer” for the “passions of the people” in the House. The Senate, with only 100 senators, vs. 435 Congress members, also provides more power to small states and thus a disproportionate voice to citizens of small states.
Another well-known distortion of democracy is our Electoral College system for electing presidents. It’s a winner-take-all system that requires each state to choose one candidate for president. It would be more democratic to allow individual votes to count in the actual election, rather than only in how each state’s Electoral College representatives cast their vote.
A far more serious problem arises in our system, and almost all others, in the form of lobbying and corruption. Jack Abramoff, an uber-lobbyist until his spectacular fall from grace in 2006, describes very well in his recent book and interviews how our system is fundamentally corrupt.
Abramoff claimed in a recent 60 Minutes interview that he effectively “owned” about 100 of the 535 elected representatives of Congress. How? Abramoff had a deep bag of tricks, but it seems that his most effective trick was simply to offer elected officials and staffers lucrative jobs when they left public service.
Abramoff was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy in 2007 and served 3½ years in jail. He has written a tell-all book, Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption from America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist, and is making many public appearances to try to educate the public about what he did and how the system remains essentially unchanged even though Congress made a show of “fixing” the problems revealed by the Abramoff scandal.
In the same 60 Minutes interview, Abramoff offered many surprising insights into how Washington works:
Abramoff: I think people are under the impression that the corruption only involves somebody handing over a check and getting a favor. And that’s not the case. The corruption, the bribery, call it [that], because ultimately that’s what it is. That’s what the whole system is.
Stahl: The whole system’s bribery?
Abramoff: In my view. I’m talking about giving a gift to somebody who makes a decision on behalf of the public. At the end of the day, that’s really what bribery is. But it is done everyday, and it is still being done. The truth is there were very few members who I could even name or could think of who didn’t at some level participate in that.
When asked if Washington had fixed any of the problems that allowed Abramoff to be so successful in his lobbying, Abramoff replied: “Could you do the same thing [today] that I did? Yeah. No, the system hasn’t been cleaned up at all.”
We are now at a point in the development of various software packages, access to the Web and online security that we can start to seriously consider wiki-government fixes to these problems. Online voting, in particular, has the potential to dramatically improve our democracy by expanding the potential for direct democracy in many exciting ways. Through an expansion of direct democracy we devolve power back to the people and thus dilute the influence of elected and unelected officials — as well as the lobbyists who try to influence them. By spreading power far more thinly, through expanding voting rights for the people, corruption may be made far more difficult.
One timely effort to improve our democracy with new online tools is Americans Elect, “a nonpartisan nonprofit whose only mission is to let the American people directly nominate their choice for president.” Americans Elect is running a professional operation to create a viable third-party candidate for the 2012 presidential race. Its website allows any registered voter to vote on who the Americans Elect candidate will be, and the actual candidate will be elected purely by online votes.
This is a good start if it succeeds because we are sorely in need of a viable third party. Two-party systems are often little different than one-party systems because in either system viable candidates must belong to one of the established parties. There are obvious differences between Democrats and Republicans, but the scope of debate on many key issues, such as foreign policy or the basis of our domestic economic policies, is very narrow.
Online Voting
Online voting could and should, however, be taken much further. It is the first key ingredient of wiki-government. The second key ingredient in wiki-government is allowing online voting in regular elections.
I first began following and writing about wiki-government about a decade ago (I used to call it “effortocracy”; other terms used now include “e-democracy,” “electronic direct democracy” (EDD), “cyber democracy,” “collaborative governance” and many others). Since then, the idea has grown significantly, particularly outside of the United States.
Online voting has been surprisingly slow to catch on in the United States, primarily because of perceived security risks. Many still feel that a paper trail, from using paper ballots, is the surest way to protect against voter fraud. A very public failure resulted when the District of Columbia tried a pilot program allowing overseas military members to vote online. With little advance notice, a team from the University of Michigan hacked the system and changed literally every vote cast.
But hacking is a risk in every online endeavor, and innovative solutions are possible for any problem. With commerce increasingly moving online, to the tune of many hundreds of billions of dollars, I have no doubt that security issues with online voting can be overcome. Every voting method has security risks, so the fact that online voting presents new risks should not be a deal killer.
A number of companies now offer secure online voting systems, including free sites such as BallotBin.com and paid sites such as Balloteer.com, SimplyVoting.com, VoteNet.com and EveryoneCounts.com.
Despite the risks, wiki-government is catching on fast in places other than the United States. More than 80 communities in Canada allow some form of online voting. In Estonia, national elections permit online voting — and have since 2007. Fully 25 percent of votes are cast online. If an entire nation can do it, why can’t communities in the United States and around the world start to do so?
Expanded Voting Rights
The third key ingredient in wiki-government is an expanded voting system that allows voters who want to vote on additional issues the ability to do so. Why can’t electronic direct democracy be allowed for all types of decisions, far beyond traditional voting practices? Could wiki-government eventually allow a reduced reliance on elected and unelected government officials?
The traditional rationale for having elected representatives is that it takes full-time professionals to make important decisions on behalf of the electorate. But this rationale clearly fails today in the face of increasingly educated and passionate voters, armed with computers and the Internet. Would anyone today seriously argue that our elected officials inherently know better on any issue than the aggregate of voters themselves?
Over time, cities, counties, states and even the federal government could allow voters to decide issues that would normally be decided only by elected officials, or by government bureaucrats. There will very likely always be a role for professionals in government, but online voting and enhanced direct democracy go very far in limiting the need for full-time government employees.
For example, a multifamily housing project that would normally be voted on by a city planning commission could be voted on by those voters who expend the extra effort to weigh in on this type of project. These votes, aggregated, could represent an additional “seat” on the commission. Similarly, city councils or county boards, or even state and national legislatures, could have “seats” comprised of aggregated votes.
Wiki-government would allow those with the interest and time to become truly involved in policy and politics, with no privileged background or wealth required. All that would be required is a computer with a good Internet connection, which is increasingly free in many parts of the country.
We live in exciting times!
Wiki-government represents a forward-thinking system that would go a long way toward eventually fixing some inherent problems in our democracy. While enhancing direct democracy is generally perceived as a left-wing issue, those who support free markets as the appropriate means for guiding economic activity should, if consistent, also support the “voting market” that wiki-government will create.
Why isn’t a person’s online vote as good as her dollar?
— Tam Hunt is a frequent Noozhawk contributor and Santa Barbara-based philosopher, lawyer and biologist. Click here for his blog, Thought, Spirit, Politik.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 11.23.11 @ 09:23 AM
Yes! The people will eventually take back govt. We will eventually evict the money from the halls of Congress and we will eventually overthrow the plutocracy.
The internet has changed everything about our lives and humanity and it will change the way we govern too. It will take another few generations though - so that the greedy, ignorant and selfish among us (people like AN50, Wireless, Overtaxed, Dan petry and Lou Segal *) die out - but it will happen. Its inevitable.
* People like them will fight this transition because they will want to make as much money off the process as possible all while trying to control you… Remember that greed is at the heart of every conservatives motives. They may talk about open markets and less govt. but the folks on the right are the first to limit what you can do, say, think and act upon in your own life.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.23.11 @ 03:08 PM
Nice write Tam, but a little naïve. As someguy demonstrates quite often, most people are not smart enough to make important decisions. The reason we have a republic rather than a democracy is that we trust smarter people to do their job and make smart decisions. You place way too much importance on everyone having a voice, whereas our founding fathers decided they would limit voting rights to those with a vested interest in the republic and at least some education. The fact that many in the democrat party have no vested interest in the republic, don’t pay any taxes and then vote to raid the treasury is evidence enough that having everyone vote is not such a good idea.
As for the senate, it was set up to preserve states rights. Every state has equal representation no matter how many people live there. That gives a state like Montana a chance against the wishes of a New York for example. Would you suggest we further water down the rights of states to the all powerful Federal government?
I am still on the fence over the Electoral College, not because I particularly like it but again we extend too much voting privilege to idiots, so it’s my way of limiting that, although we still elect morons to the highest office.
I understand where you are coming from though and appreciate the desire for more clarity and transparency in government. As Abramoff is now divulging the amount of corruption, lying and cheating that goes on is obscene. I just don’t know that the “crowd” is all that much more knowledgeable, honest or selfless. Our government for all its worth is nothing more than a mirror of the character of its people.
You are an educated and I believe honest man and though we are very far apart politically and may even disagree on matters of engineering you would probably make smarter decisions than most people I believe. The crowd however is not that smart, as evidenced by the lack of coherence in the OWS message and how very dysfunctional as a society we are right down to the local level. Our founding fathers understood the limitations of democracy and even though we are better educated and have way better tools and way faster communications these days those limitation are still there and even more so because of technology.
As the saying goes, be careful what you ask for, you might get it. Democracy sounds good but it is one step away from mob rule and the mob is not very bright.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.24.11 @ 09:38 AM
See AN50 proves that the far right and their intense myopia fueled by their incessant greed will never allow the will of the people to prevail. In the same way that they insist that their god is the only god, that their way is the only way, their insecurity overwhelms what little sense of reason that resides in their tiny minds.
No worries. they, like most poorly evolved species will eventually die out. Too bad we cant hurry them along… or maybe move them all to Utah in the mean time.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.26.11 @ 09:47 AM
Winston Churchill once said “if you want to despair for democracy, spend 10 minutes talking to the average voter”. This sentiment is often justified by the quality (not) and thoughtfulness (not) of the postings in various electronic media.
The US is NOT a democracy and was never intended to be so; it is a Constitutional Republic. If you don’t like your representatives, get out and vote. Voter turnout in recent elections (40% or so) demonstrates a great apathy among voters. Crowdsourcing government is a TERRIBLE idea.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.26.11 @ 01:39 PM
I think Tam forgot that we are a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Our founders purposely created a govt that gave people constitutional protections from the will of the majority. We have 3 branches of govt, all serving as checks and balances on each other. The reason for this is because Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton wanted to limit the power and scope of govt. It has served us very well for over 200 years and should not be overhauled now to create a direct Democracy.
We have seen countless examples of so-called democracies throughout history which were manipulated by demagogues and turned into dictatorships. People may have forgotten that Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. Today, we can look at Chavez and many others to see what can happen to democratic govts.
Yes, our system of govt is messy, inefficient and perplexing at times, but that is exactly what our founding fathers intended. I have always thought the govt that does the least is the most beneficial for the people.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.26.11 @ 02:22 PM
AN50, John Locke, Lou, the Founding Fathers did not intend for lobbyists to corrupt Congress through the myriad means we see today and throughout our history. Nor did the founders intend for our democracy to be static.
Now, if you simply dislike the idea of democracy, then we can part ways and agree to disagree. And you’ll be in a small minority of Americans who distrust the idea of government for the people, by the people and of the people.
But if your objections are less radical than this, surely you would agree that democracies can and should evolve. This is my point with the idea of wiki-government: we are now at the point where we can take the next quantum leap toward better government.
And the better government I suggest is actually less government (at least less elected officials as part of government and over time less unelected officials also), made possible through more direct democracy and devolution of power to the governed. This is where right and left should meet because lefties are generally true democrats (small do) and rights are often simply anti-government. This is the perfect middle ground solution. Which is unsurprising coming from me because I am a left libertarian (a mix of traditional right and left views).
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.27.11 @ 09:22 AM
California is a great example of the dysfunction of direct democracy; the state is a mess by virtually any measure. No, I do not like the idea of direct democracy (see earlier comment from Winston Churchill) - too many people are incapable of rational thought and debate, again as demonstrated by postings in electronic media. Limitation of lobbying and the elimination of collective bargaining by public employees would go a long way toward improving our system.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.27.11 @ 03:37 PM
I may be wrong, but this wiki-govt (direct democracy) would require a constitutional amendment. I can’t think of a worse idea than overhauling our constitution to allow people, who couldn’t even tell you how many states there are, to make laws by voting on the internet while watching Jersey Shore and the Kadashian-related nonsense on TV.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.27.11 @ 05:06 PM
John Locke, it seems to me that the cure for today’s societal problems is more democracy, not less democracy - including the problems we face with direct democracy in California.
I agree most people are not always particularly rational. But what is rationality itself? There is no objective rationality. And keep in mind that it’s all relative in terms of problems we face. California is in fact the most successful and populous state in the most successful and powerful country in the world. So even though we face many problems, some stemming from direct democracy, whatever we’ve done historically to get to our current pinnacle was effective in many ways.
California pioneered many aspects of direct democracy and I think we should return to that role and pioneer electronic direct democracy - what I have labeled here wiki-government.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.28.11 @ 10:03 AM
California WAS the most successful state in the most successful country in the world. However, in recent years, our Legislature has pushed a mountain of debt down the road, said debt heavily contributed to by public employee unions’ demands met by the politicians they own (thus my point re collective bargaining by public employees) and by a form of direct democracy that demands spending without matching revenue (thus my despair over the ability of the average voter). “The people” of CA have shown a tremendous lack of responsibility in their voting patterns. As a result, people have been leaving California on a net basis for other states since 2000. Companies build their factories elsewhere in the US because of an incredibly hostile business environment in CA, fueled again by the ignorance of those who do not realize that government programs and jobs can only exist where private enterprise provides jobs and therefore tax revenue.
So yes, we will disagree on direct democracy as a successful government mode - BTW you do seem to ignore the fact that this country is NOT and never was a democracy, direct nor not - it is a constitutional republic. Big difference.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.28.11 @ 02:36 PM
See, the right will not ever let go of their control. Its essential to their dogma - fear.
Make no mistake this is the future. It may not happen in our lifetime but the future will be ruled by technology and will create a true democracy. It will happen but it wont be under the guise of the US Constitution as an amendment - it will happen as a revolution except it will not be a bloody one it will be peaceful and will happen organically.
Oh well, no surprise that the Republicans among us are incapable of creating and envisioning something completely new… that’s why they are conservative! They cannot fathom change beyond the ever expanding distention of their fat pastie white bellies…
Keep up the good work, your thinking beyond the two party cluster we currently have and looking down the road a few decades.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.28.11 @ 05:36 PM
Gee, someguyinsb, here I thought we were having a debate about systems of government and there you go again on one of your anti-right diatribes. Somehow your logic eludes me - if the Constitution is not modified, how do we, God forbid, get to a Wikidemocracy without a violent revolution?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.28.11 @ 06:31 PM
someguyinsb (aka good prevails? aka intheknow? aka DonMcDermott?): You have just demonstrated why a direct democracy will not work. You have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of any kind of discussion other than hurling invective, sarcasm, and slime at those who hold beliefs different from yours. That indicates that you are incapable of serious debate, thus incapable of understanding serious debate, thus incapable of an informed vote. Voting requires an educated, informed electorate. The design of a constitutional republic helps insulate serious decision-making from those incapable of or unwilling to understanding/debating the issues - a direct democracy voids that protection. Read the quote above from Winston Churchill. This discussion was and is not about Right or Left (until you tried to make it so). It is about the relative merits of direct democracy vs constitutional republic.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.29.11 @ 10:19 AM
Lou, no constitutional amendment would be required for wiki-government. Some jurisdictions, as I wrote, have already tried online voting in the US. I’m simply advocating for an expansion of the existing trend.
John Locke, as I mentioned before, if you are an opponent of democracy we can simply agree to disagree and part ways. I find it curious that someone who goes by “John Locke” online is an anti-democrat.
If your claim is not that radical, let’s clarify that democracy lies on a spectrum. Constitutional republics are a type of democracy, a subset, in which voters elect representatives to carry out the business of government. Various states have experimented with more direct forms of democracy, including California. I’m advocating for bringing cities, counties, states and the federal government further toward full democracy by allowing online voting and eventually perhaps allowing a reduction or elimination in elected officials, who are corruptible and perhaps unnecessary in a world that crowdsources government.
As for California, we do indeed have ongoing financial problems and other problems but we are still the 8th largest economy in the world and still a hotbed of innovation and job creation. Don’t forget we began the renewable energy industry here, we began the online industry here, we began the social networking industry here, and many others. Don’t forget that we are home to many of the most influential companies today, including Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. The new global economy is being forged here and I’m suggesting that we should also get more serious about forging a new form of democratic government here.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.29.11 @ 10:30 AM
John, Stick to your armchair analysis and sputtering of your favorite corporate warlord’s talking points. I am none of those people and you’re still wrong.
One does not have a “discussion” on a comment board. Perhaps your utter ignorance to the way the web functions is the basis for your utter naivete as to the way the new world will function. Good thing you’ll be dead in a few years.
The US has seen its dominance in the world wane during your lifetime, during your rule… ever wonder why that is? Could it have to do with the fact that you’re just plain wrong about almost everything?
Of course that would require self awareness and culpability… traits which you completely lack based on your arrogance and complete disregard for the future.
Get back to managing your Social Security and Medicare… you leech on the hard working citizen you…
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.29.11 @ 11:52 AM
Your idea has merit in an ideal world. Tam we are so far away from that ideal world that what you propose is about as dangerous as any that have come along. No I don’t want you and other intellectuals to stop putting your ideas out there. Just temper that with a good dose of reality. Some day Tam, some day, just not today.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Tam Hunt: In Defense of Philosophy
The bottom line is that the boundaries between philosophy and science are rather arbitrary and, arguably, even illusory
Tam Hunt: Spirituality in the Information Age
A search for the divine turns up some surprising personal discoveries along the journey
Tam Hunt: Significant Solutions for High Gas Prices Are Right Before Us
At a time of severe pain at the pump at home, a ban of U.S. gasoline exports could have a dramatic effect
Tam Hunt: A Move Toward Energy Literacy Critical to America’s — and World’s — Future
To successfully wean ourselves off fossil fuels we must first educate ourselves about energy
Tam Hunt: On Time and Free Will
Was Einstein wrong about the nature of time and determinism?
Weather: Fair 59.0º
Search Noozhawk »
