Ok so one of the common arguments against direct democracy aka participatory democracy is that it would physically impossible for everyone to vote on every matter requested by the community, let alone a country, because there would be so many things to deal with that nobody would have time.

I have solved this problem using currently existing technology. I call it:

Cyber Democracy

1. Use current governmental database which has citizen's I.D.s to give citizens an username and password. (non-mandatory)

2. Create a software compatible with most cellphones and operating systems which allows for each citizen to log in by using his I.D.

3. Allow each citizen to create topics on which to vote for (topics must be catalogued into themes). Citizens would be automatically subscribed to public-resource themes, and would have the option to subscribe to other user-created themes (company management, unions, recreational activities, etc).

IMPORTANT (guidelines to prevent malfunction)

- The main operating system must allow a vote to occur ONLY when a pre-established number of citizens are online (pre-established by initial vote)

- The main operating system must be heavily protected from physical and cybernetic attacks. This can be done through scattering the physical location of the system and taking advantage of cloud computing.

- The main operating system must be created in such a way that its maintenance is requested by democratic vote (i.e: It senses an error and automatically sends a vote to everyone who uses the system, with info on the specifics needed for maintenance, as well as a list of engineers with higher skills which will be voted to fix the system, if they (engineers) so desire, that is).

- Votes will have the ability to be boycotted if too low or too many options are included (to prevent unrealistic choices).

- The duration of votes will generally last a day (In the beginning of the implementation of the system, there can be an initial vote on the optimum duration of the following votes, each user-created theme being able to freely set their standards). The option to increase or decrease the duration is also subject to posterior vote if the subscribers so desire.

- Specifics on who can vote will be set equal to the current standards as a default, but can also be changed through vote a posteriori (typically the voters must have a valid I.D. and +18 years old to vote).

The end

I hereby release this into public domain. Feel free to edit and alter it, as well as share it. This last edit was performed 8th February 2010 by myself.

Thank me later

Cyber/internet voting systems are notoriously unreliable from what I've heard. Until you can make the system practically foolproof then this isn't a viable idea.

I'm not talking of current internet voting systems.

Where is "teh flaw" in my system? Why didn't you bother to type it? Is it sooooo self-evident?

This is of course assuming that most people have access to a cellphone or computer (which is a realistic assumption).

Man, wouldn't it be nice to just receive a text message and vote instantly?

Indeed.

I still say there's nothing wrong with just having directly accountable and re-callable delegates to represent each community in matters of higher regional levels. As long as those delegates have little to no power of their own, they can coexist alongside direct democracy in local matters.

Ditch the username and password for PGP. Way more secure.

Good idea. Perhaps we could even have fingerprint recognition in the cellphones for increased reliability (although someone might lose their thumbs...)

I don't think it would work... it sounds to much like RevLeft... LOL!!!!

On a more serious side, it would require people to have computers and cellphones and that could be problematic, as well as this I think it would fade away after the novelty wore off- people would no longer be bothered to vote because the Cup Final were on live streaming....

I also think that people would not trust this system- rightly or wrongly there would be suspicions of hacking and manipulation.

It's a shame, because there is a good idea nestling in there- brought down by logistical and technical problems.

Well it would be far more easier than now - where people have to currently get their ass of their chair and go to a voting location.

There's suspicion everytime xD! Just look at the ukranian elections recently.

well, its interresting.

i think its a workable idea, but would require heavy duty infrastructure.
if you really want it safe, you would want this system to have its own parallel physical infrastructure.

Only about 1/4 of the world have access to the internet, most of whom are concerntrated in 'the Western World'. Although I am all for direct democracy this method would result in a bias with thosewho have access to such systems required and could possibly result in a class divide of those with an those without Internet access.
Although this system could be implemented partially as a secondary method to the traditional method and/or for voting on local topics in areas where Internet access is high this could not be the primary voting method whilst still satisfying the majority.

Didn't Paul Cockshott suggest a thing similiar to this in a presentation of his? It was a presentation about labour-tokens and whatnot in the transitional period and the gradual dissolving of capitalism, forward into communism. Does anyone know the one I'm talking about? It was the one where the was a good economic discussion in learning a while ago.

Towards a New Socialism? I haven't gotten around to reading it, but he has a Revleft account...

Well it's not exactly anything new . I'm not that worried about voting though. Most of the things in a communist society can simply be accomplished by direct action. There is little need to vote on most of the stuff and since an anarchist society is a confederation of communes, local councils can be established say every Sunday and discuss the issues whose solutions would affect everyone. After all direct democracy it's not only about voting, it's about democratically proposing solutions and discussing them beforehand.

it is not only not new, it also isn't a real solution.

it's actually really easy to have internet voting that works. using a server which presents simple html (which can be understand by all user-agents made within the last 10 years), it is possible to have a system that works "every where".

two problems with your "solution" however, imediently present themselves. "government database"? why would you trust them. the other is a little less obvious perhaps. how can you decide that the person with the username and password hasn't had it beaten out of them? how can you know that there isn't a thug making a person vote a particular way?

i personally suggest that if you want electronic voting, you have it in booths, like polling booths. these can be protected from those problems.

Why not have open-source voting in the same way Wikipedia works? Wikipedia's methodology, despite what many people suspected, has proved to be quite effective.

That is a useful contribution. We have been doing some practical experiments with setting up an evoting system for direct democracy detailed here :
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/#edem

The systems that I describe on the web page that I linked to are designed to get around these difficulties with anonymity and distrust of those running the voting system. The goal is that the voters themselves can check how their vote went and check the validity of the count so that the system uses the people themselves as the scrutineers.

For Gods Sake,

First of all, this problem is'nt a problem at all, why on earth would it be nessesary for EVERYONE to vote on EVERYSINGLE matter in an issue? Its rediculous, for example, I could care less on how the milk factory is run as long as I get my milk.

Democracy does not equal, every one needs to vote on everything, there are some things that are simply personaly desicions, things that need to be voted on only need to be voted on my those who are involved, You know how rediculous it would be to recieve text messages all the time about voting to plant new shrubs in a park miles away, or whether or not management in a milk factory should be rotated, or about road construction in farmland where you never go? For anarchists, democracy is'nt a system, its a tool to get things done.

The main headings of the budget should be democratically decided : how much on education, healthcare, environment protection etc.
The problem is how to express these quantitative questions democratically rather than leaving it to a cabinet or polibureau.