www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> The Rise of dot-communism (2x)
Jeff Gandy on Tue, 9 Nov 1999 04:03:34 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> The Rise of dot-communism (2x)



1 ........ Sat, 06 Nov 1999 20:42:32 -0700
2 ........ Sat, 06 Nov 1999 21:37:51 -0700



> thought of debates with such willing ignorance (the arguments for
> the 'no i'll keep the queen now and vote for the president later' case are
> entirely 100% specious)having the transmission speed of the internet,
> scares me.

I understood that there was an issue with the president not being elected by
the people, but rather by some other governing branch (sorry if I sound
ignorant - don't worry it won't stop me  ;-)  and that there were people who
wanted to wait for a new referendum.

I don't know  -  I read it on the Internet  ;-)

> Will internet-voting make any difference to the intellectual level of this
> type of uninformed debate? NO!

Umm - is that true -  what I said before?  Because if it is then your next
point is mute.  At least to me because I prefer to elect the president myself,
though it is difficult to get good help these days  ;-)

And if it's not true it still proves my point.  Because if I were Australian
you would have changed my vote.  Participation is the lifeblood of democracy.

> Therefore it does not improve democracy. I
> like the antiquated nonsense of the voting booth.

Oh I do too.  I used to enjoy going in and voting and feeling good about it.
Plus I was young and truthfully there were never a lot of young people there.
The young part is wearing off now though, unfortunately.

But I would participate much more if it was an easier process.  But the whole
quality control issue leaves me a bit leery.  My governments record on network
security is somewhat less than stellar.  ;-)

Sincerely,

Jeff  Gandy



>

Mitchell,

We really do not agree.  Actually I received another email from a member of
this list (who did not agree with me either) and somehow I lost that.  I
apologize - I would have replied.

> On the one hand, we find out what many people think by THE expression of
> popular will and who should be included in that.
>
> It is a problem not so much in "gathering public opinion" but the
> absurdity -- given the medium -- of assuming it "popular."

In terms of a poll I agree.  But if you are speaking of actual votes for
candidates, laws etc than you must agree that failing actual numerical mistakes
- it's the will of those who participated.  Right?

>
>
> Second, even if we assume "popular" could be somewhat accurate given the
> medium (let me tell you, I don't), do you not see a greater danger in
> asserting it as popular with such certainty back through such a powerful
> medium.

I do like you actually, we should have a beer.

Ok, I just see things differently regarding the ability of the Net to dictate
certain types of behavior.  For me, the true power of the Net is the pipeline.
The ability to grow and add more and more capacity, and dispense far more
complicated, cool stuff then what we see now.

More input, from more sources, from more countries, flattening out the Western
influence more.  People will be more informed on world issues.  This is
inevitable.

So that's not a bad thing.  Diversity is good.

> I think you have confused filling out a form on the web with easier access
> to determining public policy.

Not even.  It's about what we do here.  And how both you and I choose to be
informed.  The combination of traditional and independent news sources.  All of
which comes through the web now, faster and easier than ever in history.


> First of all, you do know that we live in a
> republic. Second, that republic is governed by people who govern, not the
> masses (whatever you mean by that -- what do you mean by that by the way).

Have you read Lani Guinier's "Lift Every Voice"? she talks about collaborative
voting and some other options for improving the US flavor of democracy.  Great
book.

I understand what you are saying, but we still sign the check.  If you don't
believe me move to Arizona.  We've had to fire two governors in 10 years.  If
you're a complete incompetent, dishonest jerk you won't keep your job forever.
Especially when the guys that vote for you are well-informed, and participating
in the process.  ;-)

> The thought of voting online only scares me (I don't know about Mark) when
> people confuse it with real access,

It's easier.  That's the only draw for now.  Eventually it will be because it
is everywhere.  I see complete integration of broadcast TV seamlessly with Web
access in 5 - 10 years.  As common as the toaster.

So ya see - this is what I think.  They claim that the big push in the
beginning will be participation by college educated white males 18 to 35 years
old.  What you have to remember is to make sure the same bastards who want it
now, work to keep it growing later, when it will stand to benefit other groups
in society.

Hence good legislation.  ;-)

I see what you are saying about dictating public opinion, like someone does the
latest fad in jeans.  But it's hard to do.  I have great confidence in people
and their ability to build and provide for a strong form of government which
operates for the general good of the population.

Sincerely,

Jeff Gandy


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net