An International Voting System

Discussion in 'Internet and Technology' started by truthingtotruth, Jan 24, 2019.

  1. mysiteguy

    mysiteguy Devotee

    2,705
    887
    +1,991
    Whenever someone says "equitable", "fair", "level the playing field", "parity", "redistribute" - it always means taking from those who have more. Frankly, you come across a bit like Karl Marx and his concept of global communism, though you try to color it nicely. There is no such thing as any sort of "parity" without forcefully taking from others. Higher taxation is force, because refusal to pay taxes in every country in the world is ultimately enforced at end of a sword.

    Have you ever seen a field being leveled? They use a grading machine to level down the high spots. Ultimately, every time someone with supposed good motives that have tried to "level", they do it this way --- they level down.

    Margaret Thatcher illustrated it very well:


    People who think the world is so horrible seem to ignore that we have less poverty in the world with each passing decade. Sure, the rich get richer, but that's a function of a growing global market - if I can sell a product to 4 billion people rather than 400 million, I'm going to make 10x more not because I am 10x unethical - but because I brought 10x more value to the overall market. Yes, there are those who are unethical, but this exists in every system.

    Economic pies are not a fixed size. Someone being richer doesn't mean someone else becomes poorer.

    I don't believe you're crazy, I believe your ideas ignore (or are naive) that cultures and countries want their independence, and they don't want to give up a large portion of their sovereignty.

    I, for one, do not want "parity". If I work hard and smarter, and make better choices with my money, I shouldn't have to give any of it to my neighbor. It should be voluntary.

    Your concept:

    I have a nice house with nice things.
    My neighbors' homes aren't as nice. They vote to take my nice things for themselves. I vote no. But they have more votes so they take it.

    or

    My neighbor can't afford nice food, and I can. He thinks its not fair so he shows up at my house with a gun and steals mine.

    Your ideas are classic tyranny of the majority.
     
  2. truthingtotruth

    truthingtotruth Aspirant

    109
    33
    +22
    mysiteguy, I must not have been forceful enough with my language to have it clear to all that I do not like the idea of taking anything from anyone, when that taking is the rewards the individual gained through smartness and/or hard work.

    I will quote what I thought made my mind clear on the matter:

    I will be more careful in future with how I express myself.
     
  3. Anton Chigurh

    Anton Chigurh Ultimate Badass

    1,264
    237
    +848
    When you're engaging in overly verbose, weasel-worded pseudo-intellectual petitio principii, and talking in random circles as a way to deflect intelligent questions, and making sure the posting is so verbose that few will wade through it, you can then further deflect and say it means whatever you want. Doesn't mean folks won't start recognizing it for what it is, but you can do it.

    It's humorous though, I'll give you that.
     
  4. truthingtotruth

    truthingtotruth Aspirant

    109
    33
    +22
    Nev_Dull, the answer to why would have to first fall into the economic sphere and for that it seems we should consider why it has worked for the EU.

    But to go for a more general approach to answer your question I think we should start with some information about all economic unions:

    Economic union

    Although a definition is probably not really necessary we should still cover all bases and here is a bit from that Wikipedia page:

    There are five existing economic unions listed and there are eleven listed under proposed.

    There are two other areas that also need studying:

    Supranational union

    Intergovernmentalism

    So the basics of the 'Why?' is that very easy to understand idea - - - money. And it seems to have a lot of appeal, as is evidenced by 5 in existence and 11 others being given serious enough consideration that they make the list.
     
  5. truthingtotruth

    truthingtotruth Aspirant

    109
    33
    +22
    Okay, now I would like to ask that we maybe try to shift away from the good or bad points of a single governing entity of some sort on this Earth and get into the technical areas of just how it might be possible to use the Net to do a voting on a massive scale, like the entire planet's population.

    Don't get me wrong, please. The questions about the why and the how and all that of the actual governing entity that I and some others are proposing are very, very good questions and have to be answered, BUT I don't think the folks that are running the show here really like such sorts of topics to be discussed here. They want folks to stick to technical stuff, for the most part. Maybe questions about whether your girlfriend/boyfriend was right or wrong in something done and topics about holiday parties and such are okay (not sure, though) but political stuff we ought to sort of slide away from, I think.

    But the technical aspects of a voting system of such a huge magnitude, that I think we can safely discuss.

    And, yes, I understand that it is a dream and is way many years away, but it is one of many matters that needs studying and I really can't think of a better place to ask about an international voting system than this place where we have site admin/manager folks from all over the place and that have many years experience working with/on the Net. And a whole bunch of you folks have code in your blood by now, and that is necessary, too.

    If a couple of guys that made bicycles could build a machine that shocked the seagulls when it lifted off the Earth, then this is the right place to think about building an international voting machine/Net. Yes? Maybe? No?
     
  6. Nev_Dull

    Nev_Dull Anachronism

    1,810
    717
    +884
    I haven't noticed TAZ being against political discussions, providing they don't devolve into emotional rants. So there's no reason you can't discuss the viability of a single world government along side this "technical" discussion.

    As to that, why on earth (or any other planet) would you propose using the public internet as the platform for a voting system? That makes no sense. Why not propose a dedicated network for voting? Certainly it could encompass some of the same infrastructure as the public intranet, but it would have to be separate and secure to avoid tampering. And who's doing all this voting? What are they voting on?

    You are again putting the cart miles ahead of the horse. Before you can begin to talk about the mechanics of ballots and voting, you need to lay out your proposal for the electoral process -- how it works, how regions are represented, etc., etc., etc.
     
  7. truthingtotruth

    truthingtotruth Aspirant

    109
    33
    +22
    The viability question is obviously a seriously important question that is being addressed (I believe some think it has been addressed) and will continue to be worked on.

    But I am going to first go back to another group and see what sort of ideas they have for me here after I introduce this discussion to them.

    There have been a couple of issues that have thus far prevented me from bringing this discussion to their attention.

    As for your idea, Nev_Dull, of a dedicated infrastructure, the expense of that is a matter for consideration.

    What of the idea of some sort of semi-dedicated structure within the Internet on which we presently exist?

    The reason I keep thinking of the idea of using the existing Internet is because of the vast areas of the planet that simply do not have the necessary basics to be building another system alongside this Net. Areas that are served by vehicles in orbit and are part of this Net that we presently exist upon.
     
  8. Nev_Dull

    Nev_Dull Anachronism

    1,810
    717
    +884
    Once again, I'm confused by your posts. You keep asking for suggestions and ideas on how this voting system will work, when you've already decided the internet is the only answer. So, now is the time to present your case.

    Explain how your voting system will work using the internet, keeping in mind that at present about 55% of the world population has access to the internet. Then maybe we can have a useful discussion.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  9. phatcows

    phatcows Enthusiast

    193
    93
    +97
    I read that statistic on wiki yesterday. It (wiki) also projects that about 81% will have access by 2017 but even if that stat was met (unlikely), it's still a fifth of the world without access to the 'net.
     
  10. truthingtotruth

    truthingtotruth Aspirant

    109
    33
    +22
    Nev_Dull, I have a feeling I should feel flattered in some way, because for some reason you seem to think I have many answers to some very difficult questions; but I don't. This is not a situation that I can really find that anyone has asked for help with in a place like right here.

    I'm thinking that we have a whole bunch of folks that spend a whole mess of their time working on this Internet and so it seems like a really good place to ask if this idea of using the Net in some way for a global voting system has any merit at all.

    I came to this idea of using the Net because it seems that having a system all over the world where I have to have people physically going into a voting booth would be seriously expensive and very difficult to monitor.

    I appreciate that you seem to think I have more answers than I have, but please view me as being more than a little stupid and in serious need of some help with ideas.

    Now if you feel this is an absolutely unworkable idea, fine. You may very well be correct. But the idea of a world kind of government has some really intelligent folks behind it and there are so many things that need to be worked out and one would obviously be how the voting can be done.

    I'm just exploring. I do not yet know where the path is. I'm asking for help to find the path.
     
  11. truthingtotruth

    truthingtotruth Aspirant

    109
    33
    +22
    phatcows, I have slowly been beginning to wonder if this world voting project could be used as an excuse/reason to get the rest of the world's human folks close enough to a Net access point that we could soon be able to state that everyone can use the Net.

    Security could also be a something that could be added to the project - - - access for everyone and security for everyone.

    The security aspect of far flung Net access points came up at Google when they recently (well, maybe late 2017/early 2018) changed the Gmail product to be connected by default. As I type this the specifics don't easily come to mind, but I remember I had a whole bunch of folks crawling all over me at Google because I was clearly making the case that the new default they started using put some folks at a disadvantage in the security area of things and then I started getting nailed with not enough of Google's billion customers would be at such a disadvantage for the company to change their style, and that is a nasty way of doing business. You know, the idea that only one million out of one billion would be at risk and so you go back in your hole Michael and shut up.

    Unfortunately, from a business making money point of view I have to state I understand that, but it is still nasty for those one million customers. And they are customers, not users.
     
  12. phatcows

    phatcows Enthusiast

    193
    93
    +97
    Who would foot the bill for the infrastructure to do that? Be it cabling to satellites.
    Ideally, the most fair would be that every country in the world contributes equally, but not all countries can do that. So how is that mitigated to be fair?
    Then there are education costs. It's one thing to give someone access to the 'net, it's another to actually use it constructively.
     
  13. Anton Chigurh

    Anton Chigurh Ultimate Badass

    1,264
    237
    +848
    Continued petitio principii after the moving of the goalposts away from the one-world government stuff, simply because it's completely indefensible not because of any TAZ mandate. Same technique, different focus. Even after we let it have the last word and it went away for awhile.
     
  14. Anton Chigurh

    Anton Chigurh Ultimate Badass

    1,264
    237
    +848
    Ideally, as the OP already advocated for, the richer countries. It's all about global redistribution of wealth any way you look at it.
     
  15. phatcows

    phatcows Enthusiast

    193
    93
    +97
    Right, well then I agree with you Anton ChigurhAnton Chigurh
    I'll show myself out.
     
  16. Nev_Dull

    Nev_Dull Anachronism

    1,810
    717
    +884
    I'm not giving you unwarranted credit. You opened this thread by saying you've spent some 20 years researching this idea. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) you'd formulated some germ of a plan in that time. I've seen "analysis paralysis" before, but this has to be a record.

    I don't understand why you've become so fixated on using the internet as the means of this voting system. You mention cost, but any new voting system will come with a price tag. Envisioning a such a transformative idea as a world government, then suggesting using a budget voting system to make it work is ludicrous.

    Are you trying to propose that every household will cast their vote directly to central ballot server for tallying? Or did you have something else in mind? This goes back to my original questions about who is voting and how you see the electoral process working. Without that system determined, you cannot begin to discuss the physical voting system.

    I expect in these years you've looked at existing electoral models (every country that holds elections has one). We now also have the multi-national EU model to look at. You must have some inkling of a model that you feel could suit this world government.
     
  17. truthingtotruth

    truthingtotruth Aspirant

    109
    33
    +22
    Thank you for your questions, Nev_Dull; and possible concerns as to whether I have been doing my research in a diligent sort of way. Very likely my research methods need improving.

    That reference to how long I have been giving this whole business my attention, when time permitted, causes me to reflect upon my studies about the Constitutional Convention that started on May 25th of 1787, and ended on September 17th of the same year, but that was 11 years after the intitial announcement for independence and with some really dedicated individuals working and thinking about a government for the colonies. Certainly you'd agree that those early United States goverment builders were some very smart humans. And here we are considering the entire planet and that is billions of people. Somebody doing an on-again / off-again research project can certainly take 20 years and still have so many questions. And then there is the need to do exactly what I am doing here, ask for help.

    An example of one aspect of research on voting is this lawyer fella recently offered to me that possibly a range voting system could be placed on the table instead of the weighted voting system. I have always been only in favor of a vote for each and every human over a certain age, and I am still not sure if that criminal clause we see as so common should be included on the international stage.

    The range of problems is huge, Nev_Dull, and so that bit about the number of years just one human has been at this is interesting.

    As for the cost factor, yep - - - a mighty expensive business. Maybe very, very expensive would be a better way to put it. But how expensive?

    This idea of a single governing entity for our Earth, Nev_Dull, has been advocated by a whole bunch of humans over many thousands of years, but I think the advocates in just about the past three or four hundred years had/have a better understanding of the scale of such a project and so those some thousands of years ago that are famous for being such smart humans might not have advocated the idea if they were fully aware of how big the planet is; and now it is also the number of people that is an issue. Especially an issue, as you point out, when we think of the expense.

    But that hasn't stopped some really smart folks from advocating this world government idea very frequently over the last couple of hundred years. It seems there are folks that think the idea has merit. I do.
     
  18. zappaDPJ

    zappaDPJ Administrator

    6,524
    1,342
    +4,934
    There's very little doubt in my mind that the Internet will become eventually become the vehicle of choice for voting at a local level. There's really no reason why it shouldn't when the majority of the population is connected and it has many benefits.

    I'm also sure the same will happen at a world level when everyone has everything they desire or the ability to obtain it at no one else's expense... :cautious:o_O:confused: Or to put it another way, the desire to accumulate wealth prohibits the success of any worldwide organisation.
     
  19. Anton Chigurh

    Anton Chigurh Ultimate Badass

    1,264
    237
    +848
    Supposed to be what the Singularity will bring about, according to Kurtzweil.
    Orrrr, the desire to not have your wealth or earnings taken and redistributed? That's literally what existed, before the American Revolution.
     
  20. zappaDPJ

    zappaDPJ Administrator

    6,524
    1,342
    +4,934
    Definitely but to take it a stage further in my utopia there is no currency to redistribute, just a desire to better yourself for the benefit of everyone.

    I've know of Kurtweil but I've not read his books. Perhaps I should :)
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.