Internetocracy | The Online Magazine

Healthcare, who’s winning?

Healthcare, who’s winning? It’s one of the most contentious issues currently being debated in the arena that is United States politics. There are arguments coming from all sides of the floor regarding More »

640px-US_Customs_and_Border_Protection_officers

The Cost Of Security

The Cost Of Security: In this world of “terrorism” post 9/11 it appears that you can never be too secure. The cost? Most of the time there is a drastic decline in personal More »

Imminent Systemic Failure

Imminent Systemic Failure: Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all the others. This saying by Sir Winston Churchill has always been a sticking point for many who believe More »

512px-Corrupt-Legislation-Vedder-Highsmith

Legislative Loopholes

Legislative Loopholes: Passing a bill into law is a lot of work. It can take weeks if not months before the bill itself is polished enough to go through the House, and even More »

You are free to vote (On these issues)!

You are free to vote (On these issues)! Before you cast your ballot in November, consider what issues you’re being asked to vote on. Generally, campaigns are about a small collection of key More »

Healthcare, who’s winning?

October 02, 2012 Internetocracy

Healthcare, who’s winning? It’s one of the most contentious issues currently being debated in the arena that is United States politics. There are arguments coming from all sides of the floor regarding who wants what and how it will be paid for and what are the implications. The government claims that the people who will ‘win’ from this are the members of the middle class who cannot easily afford health insurance. Opposition to the bill claims that it is just another way to tax the people and it will not bring lasting change to healthcare.

In reality, the real winners are the big insurance companies who will reap all the profits from people buying health insurance while the middle class is forced to pay for it through taxes or by the purchase. How did it get this way? How did it get to the point where the only winner in this legislation is the big healthcare conglomerates? It is because they had money, and in today’s world it is money that can influence any policy more than sound judgement. Votes on health care bills can be bought and there is nothing that ideology, common sense, or even legal action can do about it. Companies have been doing this all over the world with regards to many different aspects of government. They will come in and bribe elected members to vote a certain way on legislation that would benefit them first of all and everyone else secondly. This is a process that cannot be allowed to stand much longer because the needs of the citizens should some before the want s of a corporation.

How can we fix this though? It would appear at first glance that there is no obvious way, but there are alternatives. The citizens can rise up and defy the status quo. Protest in the streets for their turn to have a say in the legislation. Allow the average person to vote on health care and they will ensure that the legislation will best represent them. By using the principles of online voting and the idea that we alone are responsible for legislation, people will be able to more accurately craft a version of Healthcare reform that benefits the people before it benefits the companies.

Once the right for each citizen to represent them self has been acquired people will need to begin the process of crafting the legislation. This will be a long process involving much debate, for without the debate and the compromise it is still just a few select people who control all the power. To start this process off people will need to be able to hold town hall meetings with each other and look at proposals for various aspects of their health care. This could involve spending practices, what will and will not be covered in terms of procedures, and so on. There will be clashing of ideology from the various ‘wings’ of the political spectrum but conflict and debate is good for a healthy democracy. Once the bill has been decided then it can be put to a vote before the entirety of the nation to have its fate decided. If the bill passes then it can continue down the legislative path to becoming a valid reform bill.

It is hard for a positive change to be made when it comes to healthcare because of the sheer demand and the diverse requirements that a bill covering health care must have. There needs to be consideration for diseases and treatments such as cancers and the flu, mental illness and disabilities should also be looked at in any legislation. This is why the public creating the bill as opposed to the insurance companies doing it through the legislators is a more favourable option. The more people looking at the matter, the more likely it is that nothing will be overlooked and the final product will have a greater positive effect on society as a while.

It is all too easy to sit back and let others deal with the problems we have regarding legislation and health care. We grow content with reaping the benefits while doing none of the work, but it appears that that phase of democracy is coming to an end, especially when it involves dealing with healthcare and insurance in general. If we do not stand up and make our voices heard we risk being squeezed for every penny we have by the insurance companies without getting any benefits. We will pay so that the rich can continue to abuse the system, while the middle class gets the leftovers. The grassroots are where the majority of the most meaningful change in recent history has begun, and to enact permanent health reforms that will benefitbeveryone it is the grass roots that will have to rise up again.

The Cost Of Security

October 01, 2012 Internetocracy

The Cost Of Security: In this world of “terrorism” post 9/11 it appears that you can never be too secure. The cost? Most of the time there is a drastic decline in personal freedoms in the name of a secure nation, in other cases it could be that certain activities or information cannot be shared because of the threat that people looking to do harm to the citizens of a nation will gain the information and use it in harmful ways. The biggest overlooked issue however, is the cost of keeping the nation safe. There are exorbitant costs associates with Homeland Security and National Defence from procurement of equipment, to training of the defence forces, to even the basics such as food and gas. This all builds up and the cost of national defence as of late in the United States has gone into the trillions, but is it all necessary?

In a perfect world there would be no need to have a defence force for anything but disaster relief and minor security missions. Unfortunately the world is still developing and there is a need for National Defence, but the costs need not be so large. There are trillions of dollars spent by the government every year on new equipment and the people to man said equipment and it is all documented in the annual budget, but is it common knowledge the billions that the Defence industry spends on lobbying the government to buy their products without an open competition? How much money does Lockheed Martin or General Dynamic pour into various political campaigns to get friendly congressmen or senators? This is a practice that has been going on for decades and is commonly overlooked, at the cost of the people not choosing what they want.

Leaders in the armed forces also play a large role in the choosing of equipment that can lead to loss of money or overspending. By having each leader sit as the Chief of Defence for a set period of time, to be voted upon by the public, leaders in the Military will be more mindful of not only who they serve but how they spend the money they have. Good leaders who are respected by the troops and public alike would have a long and successful career of service while keeping costs low while poor leaders who try and inappropriately influence the people who elected him or her could find themselves soon out of the position the abused and looking for another line of work.

One of the big tenants of the Occupy movement was to ‘stop the wars’ and this was not necessarily because people think that the military is bad. It was a tenant because the United States was the aggressor. The USA went into other nations, in some cases without being wronged and waged war on the peoples at the costs of Trillions of dollars a week. In a direct democracy or internetocracy the general populous would have to vote upon the motion of going to war with another power, or even go so far as to outlaw the declaration of war on a foreign nation unless the country was attacked first. This would cut the spending by the military vastly. This would also help to promote dialogue between nations as a first option instead of threatening to use military might to get what they want. It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, and with wars of aggression stopped the pen could stop writing cheques to military contractors and start writing letters to solve conflict or to help enforce peace.

Another way that citizen rule would reduce the spending on homeland security would be by the voting on the procurement contracts. This would happen when it was decided that the military needs new equipment. Take the example of new tanks for the Army. There would be a call for companies interested to build a certain number of tanks that could fulfill a specific list of requirements. The companies would then compile a general bid and offer to build the tanks at a price total and per tank. Once the bidding is closed then the populous would be able to debate the pros and cons of each contract bid as well as vote on the one that is the best for the nation and the people without the corporations influencing the vote. This would be different from the closed door meetings we seem to have nowadays where the companies all decide on which contracts to bid so that there are not too many competing offers, all while bribing officials to lobby for certain contracts or requirements that are unique to one company. By having an open, transparent, citizen chosen contracting process companies will have to keep prices low and quality high to ensure that they will receive further contracts.

Voting on where to spend the allocated budget for Homeland Security is a big money saver too. For example; in Canada citizens could decide that a lot of the money would best be spent on the DART, Disaster Assistance Response Team, and that not all the funds allocated need to be spent on the military. Some could be transferred or saved for other departments thereby cutting the costs of operating.

While it is inevitable that there will always be a military fighting force in every nation, it does not mean that it must be used to fight wars of aggression, or that trillions of dollars need to be poured into the department every year. There can be plenty of good done with a smaller military where the contracts are publicly tendered and voted upon. The budgets can be reduced to a number where the services are delivered effectively without overspending and driving a nation into further debt.

Imminent Systemic Failure

September 28, 2012 Internetocracy

Imminent Systemic Failure: Democracy is the worst form of government, with the exception of all the others. This saying by Sir Winston Churchill has always been a sticking point for many who believe that democracy is not the perfect system of governing a nation, and he is right. Democracy is not perfect in any meaning of the word. We as a society still fail from time to time in its implementation and like all things it is not necessarily a perfect fit for everyone. There are some nations that have done decently under the rule of a single person for many years. The question remains. What is wrong with democracy, and is the method we have chosen to us our government failing us? The answer comes in the form of another question. What if it is not democracy that is the problem, but the way we deliver it? Democracy is about the voices of everyone being heard and reaching a solution that will benefit the common person, not just the powerful or the special interest groups. Unfortunately it is the common person whom which democracy fails the most.

Many nations are still using the first past the post electoral system wherein people vote for the candidate that they like the best, and the one who has the highest percentage of the votes is the winner and will represent the riding, district, etc. This system has a couple glaring flaws inherent in it. Firstly this system only works best when there are two parties, such as in the United States. This would ensure that the winner of the vote received over 50% plus one and therefore has the support of the majority of people who voted. The system fails however when encountering a system like Canada where there are three or more candidates on a ballot. The winning candidate in the majority of situations may only have 40% or sometimes 30% of the popular vote. This means that the other three candidates received 70% of the vote and yet only 30% of the voting population is represented because the candidate received the most votes. There are other versions of this system of voting, each with its own benefits and drawbacks, but to date there is nothing that works properly 100% of the time.

In establishing that the problem when it comes to democracy failing is not democracy itself but the method of delivery we can start to look at it on a deeper level. How can we bring democracy to the people in such a way that they can better be represented, and also cut down on the corruption and vote ‘rigging’ that so often can be seen in today’s democracies worldwide. By vote rigging, it is not meant that people are stuffing ballot boxes or preventing people from voting. It means that corporations exert way more influence than they should by offering politicians money or ‘perks’ in exchange for them voting a certain way on a budget or bill in the House. When this happens, democracy fails because the people are no longer being represented in the way that they are supposed to. Corporations and those with money are able to get legislation favourable to them through while the rest of the public have to stand by and watch while their views and opinions are essentially ignored.

The most effective, simple, and straightforward way to prevent the failure of democracy is to simply stop using the current system. There are alternatives that fall under the umbrella of democracy, yet also make it hard for someone to unduly exploit the system to give priority to ‘pet projects.’ One of the more inclusive forms of this is the concept of Internetocracy, where the legislative body of the government is made up of the entirety of the adult voting public aided by special ‘advisors’ who could help with issues the citizen has and also would ensure that all the requirements are met for voting and new legislation. The biggest argument for those in favour of internetocracy is that it allows everyone to directly have a say and influence the policies going trough and becoming law. This also prevents the selling of votes by elected members to companies in return for favours and such because the legislative body of the government would cease to exist. There would be no member representing 1 000 people or 10 000 people because the people would represent themselves.

This also allows for people to become more active in the electoral process because instead of sending someone to do the job of choosing legislation the citizen would be in charge of that. Having a stake in something is a great motivator when it comes to getting people out to vote, so the rates of people voting are likely to go up and thus legislation and the results would be more representative of the people.

The idea of internetocracy is a good one, because it brings democracy directly back to the people. They have a say in how the voting goes, who is going to lead departments, who will represent the world on the international stage and even how they themselves are taxed and the services that they are provided. All from the convenience of their own homes through the power of the World Wide Web.

Democracy is one of the older systems of governance that we have in the world and like all things, it is still developing. We need to find a way to encourage participation from the average citizen, yet at the same time also prevent big multi-national corporations from influencing the policy of a nation so it can come out ahead of everyone else. Like everything else in the world there has to be a balance and structure that will allow for everyone to have their say. With technology being easily accessible to almost everyone, it is the natural choice to move from the halls of power to the forums of the internet to bring forward and pass legislation.

Legislative Loopholes

September 27, 2012 Internetocracy

Legislative Loopholes: Passing a bill into law is a lot of work. It can take weeks if not months before the bill itself is polished enough to go through the House, and even it is picked apart and amended needlessly until it is unrecognisable. Not only is this a needless, time wasting process, it is also filled with many flaws and loopholes that prevent the real message from getting across in the bill, convoluting it until it is nothing more than a piece of paper that benefits the big business and upper class. Not only that, but the current voting system allows for more opportunities for business and lobbyists to get involved in buying the votes of politicians and unduly influencing policy.

The way to fix this is through stripping down the government and giving everyone their own vote on policy. The internet can be used for casting and counting the votes of citizens, along with being a forum for conversation and debate on the issues. One person could suggest an idea for a bill, which would then be supported by members of society to become a full fledged issue to be voted upon. This would open the bill up to the general public to be debated continuously with public forums and private conversation culminating in the final online vote.

The first thing to do would be to establish the rules of the legislative body, what constitutes a victory and defeat and what are the core values of that cannot be broken through the introduction of laws. This would mean either altering drastically or creating a brand new constitution to close the holes and allow for more grassroots politics. To do this would mean that a significant portion of the general public would have to rise up and demand that the constitution be re-written, and by the will of the people. Not the will of the elected members. This is not unheard of however. It has happened in the nation of Iceland, where the citizens rose up and together as a nation all voted on the tenants of a new constitution because they believed that the old one was out of touch with the current values of the society. This may not have been complete overhaul of government towards this model of direct voting without the ease in corruption of elected members, but it is a step in the right direction. In the future this may happen again on a much lager scale.

For a system to work well and still be democratic; however, there must be checks and balances. One of these would be put in place to ensure that the interests of the majority are heard but do not necessarily hinder or stomp on the interests of the minority. To fix some of these problems, once a Bill had passed the initial voting stage when put before the general public, it would be sent up to a council that represents the interests of ‘minority’ or ‘special interest’ groups such as GLBTQ interests, animal rights groups, and environmental rights groups. These groups would have in a say in how the bill looks and would add any amendments they felt that the bill needed. Upon amending the bill it would be sent back down to the general public to be voted upon.

Should the amendments be accepted by the public and voted upon as such the bill would then be passed into binding law that could not be challenged. This is because the constitution would be created by people and, for a set time, it would reflect their values. It is easy to challenge a document that dictates rights and practices when it has been around for hundreds of years, for it could be out of touch with the current realities and technologies of the world. It is much harder though to fight a document that dictates values and practices when it has been created in the lifetime of the voter. They would have had a say in the documents inception and thus it would not be right to challenge their own law.

The biggest benefit of the new system of voting would be the lack of influence that corporations would have on the policy. Their political clout would cease to exist, for it is much easier for a corporation to buy one or two votes in a system where one person represents many others as opposed to a system where one person represents only themselves and is independent of any party. The same process of bribing or offering of positions can be done but it would need to be on a much, much greater scale.

The closing of the loopholes in legislation would mean that the people would have more of a say in the goings on of their government along with how the final bill would look. It would no longer be a process that is out of their hands, and the people would control the power.

Healthcare, who’s winning?

The Cost Of Security

Imminent Systemic Failure

Legislative Loopholes

You are free to vote (On these issues)!

Healthcare, who’s winning?

The Cost Of Security

Imminent Systemic Failure

Legislative Loopholes

Categories

Recent Posts

Contact

Disclaimer

Meta

Categories

Recent Posts

Contact

Disclaimer

Share

Meta