of p! or Flickr
We've heard a thousand times to say that democracy is not perfect but so far is the best system, and I must say that I am a little tired.
It seems that, because it is the best system, it should be developed and analyzed.
It seems that the top of democracy has been achieved in some recent past in some countries and not far undefined, but probably in some bucolic industrial region between Copenhagen and Stockholm around 1995.
There is a dogmatic approach: no one even dream of questioning the foundations of democracy.
If someone speaks critically is immediately accused of being undemocratic, but if someone behaves in an overtly anti-democratic, like our B, only vague distinction and feel weak positions.
Democracy is a system and there are no perfect systems and improved.
So this conservative attitude really does not seem to conceal the preservation of democracy, but the status quo.
Read: if they change the rules of politics, the political class current decays.
A bit like if Google changes its algorithm, who was on the front page disappears and dies.
Consequently, the political class defends the algorithm that leads them to collect the votes and do not want to hear about changes.
If you notice, sadly, when they talk about democratic reform, they are always read temporary changes that serve to increase the votes of their party. Pitiful.
Now, in this article I propose a Bug Hunting, ie a search for bugs (errors, imperfections) of the system, to expose the limits and possibly propose solutions.
A bug in my opinion is outrageous as follows: You Autolesionsista.
I mean, there are three types of voters.
a) The person concerned Far-Sighted: thinking about how she votes to the general good of the country by putting their own immediate interest in the background.
And 'the worker who rages at a time in which the extreme left, he understands that we must balance a bit toward the center, or the industry which fear is that the insecurity will go to the end against his own interest and tries to balance to the left. Representing 0.0001% of the voters and count for nothing.
b) The individual myopia: thinking about how she votes to their short-term interest. The worker who votes for the party that promises to increase salaries if elected, or the arms industry that supports Bush promises a good war. They are the majority.
c) The Ideologue Extinct: What vote according to ideology. They look like the first, but no longer exist.
Then, finish the ideologies, the system is based on the votes of short-term interest, and has the numerical balance:
a majority vote because the majority is right, then the majority will be fine.
It 'a bit simplistic, but we can understand the reasoning of the fathers of democracy and we understand that in a theoretical context and logic do not bat an eyelid.
But perhaps no one had considered the fourth type of voting:
d) Self-injury:
And 'the voter who votes against his own social class.
The employee who votes a party that will make it unstable, the industrial worker who votes on the dismissal, the student of middle class people who vote will make it impossible to subscribe to a good university etc. ...
They are, apparently, a very large number. Perhaps the majority.
Obviously it was not expected. In fact, the most insidious bugs are those that are discovered when the user does something that the programmer never anticipated: submit a form and reload the page (send it twice), click a button 50 times, inserts strange codes in the URL etc. ...
Who could have predicted that a voter voted against himself?
It 'very dangerous because a bug in the long run leads to the destruction of the democratic system itself.
There would be many other things to say and to make the argument made against attack, and instead will let you know that with many doubts and negative comments. But this is an article online and it is already too long.
For now I leave you with a prediction:
While the politicians fight for control of the algorithm that Google keeps them on the front page, not realizing that the battle will be won on Facebook in the future.
I mean they kill while they control the media in the traditional information (TV, print, etc ...), who have the power to influence the masses, this same power if it is quickly going from there.
Having in hand the TVs in 2030 will be like today, owners of all the microphones in the world and go out into the streets to shout their slogans. Inefficient, inadequate and uncomfortable.
Good extinction.
Like it? Perhaps you also interested in these:
- Obama's victory, a relief to a few months ago I wrote a post in which I expressed my doubts about whether Obama wins the election. I concluded by saying he hopes to be wrong. I was wrong and I'm happy. I do not consider your most trusted political commentator. The feeling that I feel is relief. If ...
(2 votes, average: 9.00 out of 10) 
Loading ... 
October 12th, 2009 at 21:21
"Who could have predicted that a voter voted against himself?"
If the majority of voters (and unfortunately they are), so perhaps it is not unexpected ....
In 60 years on TV there was an elementary school teacher who taught the illiterate Massimo Manzi.
But now there is a shift Constantine wrong ... but in return the subjunctive has the 6-pack of cans in the abdominal skin.
Pol Pot in his madness had understood: the New Man is constructed by shaping the very young.
Replace Manzi with Constantine and get the man you need ...
Widely expected ... ...
October 13th, 2009 at 05:46
Your post has "crossed" the road and the thoughts of my e-mail that I sent in recent days to a few friends. On the eve (October 21) for a short trip to Tunisia with a group of Citroen 2cv we decided to "start" and what "leave" for only 10 days ...
[...] "I think that does not go to Italy and us there and slap" we ",
back and dream. And finally we send, always U.S., ahead.
So I would also be entitled (and happy) to continue
slamming, back and dream. Points of view. "[...]
Greetings great Luca. I wonder, but this breed is very strong? According to my calculations we should die out giàmolti decades ago ...
October 13th, 2009 at 16:28
I think it's inevitable that you use today and tomorrow, a mechanism similar to that of the current democratic system (party-candidate elections-universal-parliament-government). I do not think that the Internet and Facebook will be able to change anything substantial in this scenario.
What can revive the system is a robust injection of direct participation, that people get out of the television and the internet to meet in real life, you attend, touch, understand that the truth is that you tap with your hands, that other people are living beings.
The Internet can be one of the media (perhaps the most effective) to help put people in high-speed connection, but everything must be based on real life: in my opinion, the reason this site works and is popular in fact that is occurring within the real things. Individuals make decisions about their lives, hot bodies moving through the world, meetings are held real, not virtual.
Only small networks of individuals, including virtually connected to each other, they can keep up what we call democracy. Or not?
October 14th, 2009 at 13:24
Hello everyone, I would like to introduce a new category: e) the non-voter.
In fact I did not vote last election. For me it is not so much a matter of right or left. I want to vote for who represents me. And in that moment there was nobody that I represented. Yeah I know you also give me the "indifferent" and tell me that what I did is shameful. I find it shameful to vote who does not represent me. If I choose to eat dung, or guano, I prefer not to eat.
I agree with what Francis says, you have to take people beyond the gray box is the TV and that is brainwashed, start talking about real things, to have meeting places with real people, especially young people.
Hello!
October 15th, 2009 at 03:24
Similarly to think that in future the rules will be dictated by a facebook or something, I think a thought of a huge horror, and downright Orwellian to 100% because paradoxical 'll have a freedom', but there the 'We will never have. The Internet is running out, the great, just think of your various Facebook, etc. to different Waves. etc. ... perhaps useful for self-promotion on the basis of effective rates of popularity 'reduced, a niche, but have you ever thought about how and' easy for multinationals, black men and things like steal our ideas belleitariamente write every day on Facebook , and for free? good market research. I am skeptical of the Internet, this system, this company '. As a voter, and 'a puppet, all of us who profess a saw cybervirtuale heroes, we are puppets in the same way. Imagine in the future ... there is no 'need to kill to think, just be aware, the dawn of time there' who has power and who does not. And who has it, is certainly not on TV. If you had the power, that's true, you want to be singled out in the street x 'your face is all over the papers? definitely not.
October 17th, 2009 at 09:40
Facebook will obviously not change things, but in general the Internet, especially when it finally came out of the computer, where is still imprisoned.
It will change the way people form an opinion and it will drop those based on traditional media.
Eye, does not mean that things will improve or that people will be free or it will stop believing in lies.
But the political class that the current consensus-building based on traditional media is consigned to oblivion.
Then maybe come the young politicians who learn to put it in the ass to the people rather than wirelessly or via CRT ...
November 3rd, 2009 at 14:22
Then maybe come the young politicians who learn to put it in the ass to the people rather than wirelessly or via CRT ...
here, this is the core: traditional media, modern media, old media. at the end of the basic concept remains the brains of people who drink this shit any good and packed by skilled puppeteers. remains until this axiom, or the stupidity of not being able to see and think independently, things will change clothes, but not the body.
November 4th, 2009 at 16:28
if I learned to say shit in the streets
that lies propagated to the right or left
I would not have become immigrant retired to a minimum.
I almost seventy, I would suggest to my posterity
to learn all that I did not.
Politicians do not need to appropriate contributions
access to retirement gold.
November 13th, 2009 at 09:11
But what else the youth of 68 with those of today, perhaps naive ignorance, coarseness and union that drove them to revolt and protest ... ...
Today young people are born old .... ... lazy are born made to limit the experience ....
and what you can never expect from a society in which class struggle in the + is not clear who is on one side and those on the other ... as if some young people embody and are possessed by the soul "Andreotti" ...