Couldn't really know if this is the correct section:

Ok its not really anything to do with bitCoin but the name helps.

Democracy was created as an ideal to keep the power of state within the hands of the people and not a certain entity of people or certain ruler. Its not fool proof though, because its manipulable and you need intelligent voters (democracy is not democracy if stupid people are doing the voting, because money and power can sway mass amounts of voters). Our global society has an issue because our educational system is run by the same corruption that holds up our broken democratic process. It creates and ever falling spiral of leaders like George bush, rob ford, Harper and the like.

Worse still, democracy is only as freeing as the confidence people have in it. And because of this obvious corruption, the people have lost faith in their vote. We might then understand why the world is in the state its in, or we might not care or know that state the world is in because of this loss of confidence in our vote.


Here's the idea

Each of these are solvable algorithms representable with computer code.

The application of such an idea has two parts, the creation of the program, and the implementation as our voting system. The system becomes instantly implemented once the peoples have faith in it.

At first you have random peoples making random votes for no good reason. But once its true that such a system surpass the integrity and security of our current system, the implementation by definition will have taken place.

Lastly we should understand, once a true democracy begins to bring true intelligent change, many parts of this system and the current system should change or cease to exist.


I have ideas to solve the 3 parts but it seems to me we could all see that its not an unsolvable suggestion.

Your post is a mess, but if i am reading it right your solution to stupid people voting is to make them vote more but on direct issues not on representative candidates?

The solution is mandatory voting with a move if the above option and lobbying & campaign finance reform, btw.

Direct democracy is just a ****ing awful idea. Just way too many uninformed/easily manipulated people.

They would be voting on anything and everything, things like whether or not we should even have candidates. The society can vote on what it votes for etc. That all part one, wrapped up in an ideal wording "we develop a hierachy". It doesn't work with stupid people, but as they get smarter, the subjects voted on become more ideal.

What's really important is we get a system that can bring people to start to care, and start to talk about issues, and move from our daily lives of consumers, to people who are all thinking about how we can make society a free place (liberty kind).

Education and a proper governing system are not separate. You cannot have an intelligent society under a corrupt rule.

You cannot have a legit voting system if people have no faith in it.

Forcing people to vote is not a free society, its just the same conditioning of a government's right to force things on its people. And about the reform, that reform will only come when the people have the power back to enact the change.

Today democracy represents a slippery belief that if you don't like things you can use your vote to change them, but the reality is, the vote is simply a pacifier that gives the illusion of freedom and possible change.

Nothing about mass human behavior is solvable with an algorithm. Anything implemented will be gamed and exploited, as it always has been and always will be.

Besides, we already have the exact system we deserve. It reflects us quite well, unfortunately.

its what we were taught yes. Although we do have unexploitable solutions for games available right?

The gaming and exploitation you refer to is a product of our current system, in short cooperation and the benefits are teachable. The problem is the current myth that competition out performs cooperation.

I agree with saying we have the exact system we deserve in a certain sense, but thats not to say if we change that we don't deserve a better system. Its also of most of our beliefs that we accidentally and somewhat randomly evolved to this stage of society...its not then our fault.

(thx )

You are talking about our current system, a direct democracy creates faith in your vote, and this raises our intelligence, and begins to reform the school systems.

edit: i agree tho somewhat, that the time from now till ideal is not fully encompassed in the op. But the change is fairly instantaneous.

Its not the content it creates....its the question it brings to each person who now believes in their vote "What matters?" We don't ask that question, we ask "how can compete succeed for myself in this world" When voting matters, daily life, our daily questions changes.

Easily duped and corrupted? Yeah, pretty much.

Human behavior on the scale of hundreds of millions of people is eighteen bazillion times more complicated than any solved game theory. You're also assuming that we can (or would) devise a system that we ourselves could not exploit. That gets you into all sorts of paradox scenarios pretty quickly where you're trying to build a system inside itself which also somehow controls itself.

Then we can divide them into nationalistic sub games of smaller groups? I don't really understand how you could feel this way. Humans have basic needs wants and motivations no? I don't expect the scale to really matter whatsoever. Is millions of players the issue?

I'm not sure how you feel we are not attempting this with our current system.

Paradox is a result of an incorrect limiting belief, the one hear can be understood by re writing your point in a different view: an intelligent society will dissolve the system that attempts to control them. And if we agree its true, I def touched on it at the end of op.

Human behavior is not solvable by humans. You're dancing around the divine, or worse, axioms. Ratchet your thinking back towards simply improving the status quo where possible, when possible, for a species of animal that is biologically programmed to live in a vastly different society than the one we created for ourselves. That's all you can do, and any positive results will still only be relative.

I trust uninformed/easily manipulated people in mass number more than those with something to gain/easier manipulated people in smaller numbers.

Democracy in general is an awful idea. Consolidated democracy even worse.

Sounds about as fun/realistic as voting on every issue of every company as an index fund owner.

Firstly I don't believe in axioms, not that even 1 = 1, although apparently me saying this sentence doesn't mean what i think it does. But I do believe I understand what you are refering to. I'm not sure if you are trying to say your point renders my real democracy not legit, while somehow keeping the current system held as legit? or if you mean to say that ultimately there should be no system of government.

I agree with the latter, however we have no way of voting out this current version of democracy. bitVote can do that, even before we decide it is valid.
You get to SEE, that in a valid voting system the people want 'this'. Currently in the corrupt system, the people press buttons, and then george bush does what he wants.

Toronto has a crack head, alcoholic, crook, and they are claiming that it is un democratic to remove him. Am I really wrong to point this out? Must we keep in corrupt politicians to hold up democracy? Why in the world do I have to convince people this is ridiculous?
Ya i understand what you are saying. And really I think its your axiom or religion. How did we let ourselves get convinced that by the laws of nature we must live in corruption. I wanted to leave the real esoterism out, but I think you are alluding this way anyways. When we optimize our daily lives in regards to bettering society (and/or cooperation), technology will advance at a significantly higher rate (it could be said to a level we can't get to without cooperation), and that brings in things like time/space travel, and then you might understand we cannot just say that because im touching divinity that bitVote is not legit or ideal or more ideal than the current system.

Its not that we are creating a new ideal system, but that we are giving an out for change, and when we facilitate change and growth we eventually get to the equilibrium, that you probably will suggest does not or cannot exist. Its a religious belief I suggest, that causes us to refuse to acknowledge the possibility of such a thing. I haven't defined what that (equillibrium) means in relation to irl.

I'm also not suggesting I have fully put out the new solution of democracy. But I want to suggest that this idea is equivalent to bit coin, mostly in that it requires a growing faith to have any effectiveness, but we haven't said what the effectiveness is for whether on the subject of bit coin or bitvoting.

I think that they are not separate issues. What we all want is the most efficient way of exchanging the efficiencies created by the divisions of labor. Wealth in the form of money, is friction against the free flow of such efficiency and so is a corrupt government. Money (in the form we use it today), and government in the form it exists today, have destroyed economy and are opponents of it. All this of course is not separate from the average persons intelligence, or the total consciousness if you want to say it that way. They are all the same thing, the same issue, and have the same solution. So maybe you are protesting by saying 'if you try to fix voting you'll have to fix everything', and of course for all the problems in the world, dealing with them as a whole is the only way to do it. To separate interconnected problems is to create an unsolvable paradox.


The solution to point 1) creating a hierarchy of most urgent and important decisions takes care of this issue.

As far as fun goes, this world should not be about fun, its should be about reforming our society

This was addressed by the realistic part.

"Boring, arbitrary and solves nothing" can be your slogan.

So then you think we cannot create an algorithm that filters the most important and urgent issues to the top, provided the assumption that the average intelligence of the population in this regard grows over time?



Lets say its not arbitrary if it can be shown to be fun.

Lets say its fun if it solves something.

So we are back to either 1 of my points can't be done.
My points don't outline a better democratic process.
The system cannot be 'enacted'

I find people like to say 'no' to change, and generally refuse to cut out what is correct, and point out the actual piece they disagree with. Then we have zero explanation as a rebuttal, and simply the mass peoples throwing there vote into the pot, and mass people agreeing because your vote is the same as their vote.

Is this issue i point out, your point about my system, or is a systemic issue stemming from the current one?

Man, you could scam the pants off of internet libertarians by coming up with some kind of "bit_____" financial hustle. bitstocks? bitloans? bitmortgage-backed-securities?

you could also create legit versions of these, who's purpose is an extension of the idea put forth by bitcoin. In that we might understand what bit coin really is, the beginning of a new node of technological advance, nothing to do with being a new money or gold.

I dunno, something about your tone made me think you haven't read the paper that basically is the creation of bitcoin written by the creator.

Its really simply, we have the algorithms to create a secure voting system, that is true democracy, and we know that we don't live in a fair system today.

Its not on my to do this, its not on me to prove it, or to convince others. Just sayin, somewhere someone else is working on this, and we'll have a legitimate voting system we can have faith in very soon.

See what I mean? This guy's just itching to hand his money over to a scam.

Bitvideo! The cryptographically secure streaming video service!

ya see you missed the point of bitcoin.

www.iPoliticsFaceSpace.com

a system

150 character policies

drone-robocop enforcement

What's absurd is that we don't use public key encryption to record votes. I ought to go home from the polling place with a certificate which permits me to check that they have counted my vote correctly.

I had the same idea 8 years ago, when I was a socialist and I believed that profit was a drag on the economy.

Since then I have learned a lot, and among those things I have learned that democracy is the worst possible form of government. The least bad is absolute monarchy; and the best organization would be a stateless society.

The fact that what we have in most of the world today is representative democracy and not direct democracy serves to provide some buffer to the destructive powers of democracy. While "the people" may feel cheated when a representative promises to do one thing, then does another once elected, this is for the better. If the representatives did exactly what the masses want, the economy would be dead in a couple generations, as opposed to a few tens of generations.

And what you said is encompassed by my 2. and 3. point

It is absurd, but we do have it, because the technology is possible, and much of our society understands this because of bitcoin.

I want to check the counted my vote...but i also want to be able know that everyone can check if their vote counted. I want there to be an observable integrity to the system.

And we have the ability to set that up. By what authority are the people not able to reform their government system to a known better one? Should it be by the constitutions and legal from work they installed themselves?








Was this nationalistic socialism, global, universal?

Profit is not the drag, its the accumulation of wealth that is a symptom of a drugged (dragged druggned) economy.

I wont even argue this.


This leads me to believe that you are clueless to both the purpose of democracy (real democracy, not the pseudo one we live in), and the world we live in today.

Why do you refer to them as representatives if they are not doing what the people want? How do you call it a democracy when the peoples opinion is not being enacted. Its not democracy, you need intelligent society for a democracy, I don't give a **** what people call it, its dictatorship with the illusion of freedom.

I guess all of the above (but not national-socialism i.e. nazism). Not sure what the difference is between global and universal tho.

Well without accumulation of capital there can be no progress. One generation needs to save more than they consume in order for there to be better productive opportunities for the next.

Because they're elected by "the people" (the masses). Which is a bad thing, but it's what we've got.

It is, just not to a 100% degree.

Well you better check your definition again, democracy doesn't mean rule by the smart, or anything of the sort.

By the way, it seems to me that you need to wake up to reality. While you're living in this 2+2 dream (or whatever other social circles you typically engage in), it can seem to you that just about everybody is fairly smart. That is not true. It's just that smart people tend to choose groups where most other members are fairly smart as well.

Democracy is the antithesis of freedom. What you're proposing would make things much worse.