Swedish online party stirs municipal democracy

by SDR Fri Sep 17, 2004 16:52

So that means that decisions will be made firstly be those with access to computers and the Internet. So it will be the better-off in society who retain control. So much for online democracy.

by NUI Student Fri Sep 17, 2004 16:59

Surely that's open to people to register a number of times and fix the vote. Also it is biast towards those that can access the internet. Remember most people don't go near the internet!

Also it shows a lack of politics. What if the 'people' on the internet site vote for racist policies? Will this councillor vote for racist policies? What about cuts? What about privatisation? What about actually mobilising people into active opposition or support for policies?

by redjade Fri Sep 17, 2004 17:17

Yes this is a curiosity - but think its more complicated than just a 'electronic vote' more details at... http://arkiv.demoex.net/eng/

by iosaf Fri Sep 17, 2004 18:45

they used the word on the Demex site. It's greek means "space". Hence - agoraphobia.
During the lead up to the Iraq war, there was a lot of discussion (not for the first time) on making democratic institutions "as they exist" more open to participation and transparent and so on.
And it's a toughie. Sweden has a much higher level of home access to internet than Ireland or Malta, (the lowest in the EU) so the criticism that it such a method is prejudiced against non internet users is less valid in Sweden that it would be in Ireland. In addition to home lines internet is now available in libraries and social centres and schools and WAP. There are very few Swedes who can genuinely say "they have no internet access".
I like the general thinking behind the Demex project. I also like the other variations which presented themselves last year. In Spain "alternative democracy" attempted to put referenda style questions to voters (examples being "yes or no to war", "yes or no to constitution" etc) at the municipal elections with relative success last year, but with few exceptions all their attempts to "poll" voters at the General Elections of March 14 were stopped by the police.
That group had grown with "Agora" who first appeared in BCN during the peace camps, and attempted to mirror parliamentary debate "on the street". I'll remember one of "Agora's" gigs for ever- the nunca mais discussion which took up good friday 2003, a whole load of debaters walking around the square with chairs on their heads because the police wouldn't let anyone sit down or stand still.
Anyway, this experiment could work in other cities and states and ought to be given serious thought. Especially by smaller parties and independents. Though it stinks of reformism which more often than not is used by non democratic institutions to add validity to systems almost bereft of democracy.
So- I'd like to hear the cogent arguments _against_ this type of decision making.
Why do people not think their elected representatives should be aware and act upon the majority wishes of their electorate?
What is the real reason for party whip systems and block voting?
Why do we allow some representatives to "vote with their conscience" on difficult matters yet do not encourage them to "consult" in such a way their constituents.

I suspect the arguments against will be more lame than those for.

websites of "another democracy is possible"
http://unaaltrademocraciaespossible.net
http://efimera.org/archivos/topico_politica/otra_democracia_es_posible.php

by moonwolf Sat Sep 18, 2004 01:19

sounds like an improvement. Good also that internet access is available free in ireland in almost every public library in the country, so the internet is accessable, more accessable than your local politician!