human-nets@ucbvax.ARPA (10/21/84)
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) <Human-Nets-Request@Rutgers>
HUMAN-NETS Digest Saturday, 20 Oct 1984 Volume 7 : Issue 64
Today's Topics:
Computer Networks - 56kB Home Service &
Banking at Home,
Computers and People - To Read or not to Read (Email) &
Unions/Working at Home &
Electronic Democracy (7 msgs -- wow!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20-Oct-84 00:32:55 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: LADT service
$28/month? Judging from the tariff proposals I've seen, unless there
have been some DRASTIC changes, that's *way* below the real figure.
Note that Pacific Bell recently tried to boost local flat rate
service to almost $18/month. They didn't get it that time, but...
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: Sat 20 Oct 84 12:31:19-PDT
From: Sam Hahn <SHahn@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: HomeBanking from BofA
I was sent mailings from BofA about a year ago for their homebanking
system, which I saw demonstrated on a local TV show (where they
couldn't even establish a connection correctly for about 10
minutes--they were filming live), and wrote to the VP of something or
other (whose name was on the brochures) about what I thought of their
banking service through the phone. The point really is that the
service, which is still questionable in value to the consumer, is now
a great service to the provider (the bank), and I think it's robbery
to charge what they charge so that we can make life easier for them.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 84 6:07:56 EDT
From: Stephen Wolff <steve@BRL-BMD.ARPA>
To: Mabry Tyson <Tyson@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Usage of mail or lack thereof
Sure -- letting mail pile up is dumb, boasting of it even dumber.
But -
How much mail do you get each day?
How long does it take you to clear it?
What would YOU do if you received 300 or more
messages a day, NOT including junk/list mail?
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!tty3b!mjk@Berkeley
Date: 17 Oct 84 14:08:32 CDT (Wed)
Subject: Re: HUMAN-NETS Digest V7 #59
(a) the AFL-CIO's opposition to homework is based on the vast majority
of homeworker's today, which are not well-paid white-collar
professionals sipping cappucino and writing code. It is based on
the sweatshops set up by the service industry for data entry.
Many homeworkers are paid on a piece basis with no benefits. They
will get no benefits unless they are organized. It is almost
impossible to organize them. If you're for this situation because
you're against unions, say so. But make no mistake that this is
basically a sophisticated anti-union stategy. The solution to the
problems of working mothers is a good daycare program like those
existing in Western Europe.
(b) The rise of computer networks as alternative communications means
is a maybe. Personally, I think it will be a means for the upper
middle-class and well-off. But that remains to be seen. In any
event, it is no substitute for face-to-face talking, which is
really what organizing is all about.
Mike Kelly
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 19 Oct 1984 14:30-EDT
From: sjc@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Electronic Democracy
Suggestion for a preliminary step towards complete electronic
democracy (all citizens debating and voting, via email, on issues
which the Congress now legislates):
Each senator and representative should have an electronic
mailbox on a network so that people could send email to their
representatives. There would be an increase in the amount of mail
they received because 1) there would be another method, besides the
USPS, for receiving mail 2) some people would write more often because
sending email would be more convenient for them than sending paper
mail.
Anything that increases the amount of mail that
representatives receive is advantageous because the more mail a rep
receives the more basis s/he has for deciding how the constituency
wants to vote on particular issues.
Sue Cohen
sjc@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 84 11:56 MST
From: Jong@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Re: Electronic Democracy
Some random thoughts about the proposal for electronic democracy:
First, the U.S. system of government is based on a tripartie
arrangement (legislative, Executive, and judicial -- I'm remembering
my school days here). Further, the legislative branch is divided into
a 'populist' part (the House) and a 'statist' part (the Senate). The
idea is to separate popular sentiment from the legislative process, at
least to a degree, and to preserve states' rights (the Senator from
Hawaii has the same vote as the Senator from California -- er,
Senators). Now, electronic democracy would go a long way towards
direct representation, but wouldn't it tend to erode interest in
'local' politics, and indeed interest in state politics? Also, if
people could vote by proxy, then I suspect someone like Jerry Falwell
or Ralph Nader could become a political titan.
I think the idea invites pure demagoguery.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 84 20:37:57 EDT
From: Brint <abc@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
Subject: Electronic Democracy
A good point was raised here concerning who would be allowed to speak
and to whom in an "electronic," fully participatory, democracy.
1. Local governments usually make available time in which
citizens can speak publicly about the proposed budget, the proposed
SCHOOL budget, or other pending issues. Attendance in our community
is quite poor. This seems to generalize throughout our state.
2. Usenet provides a model for unrestricted talking and
selective listening. In a democratic "real time" forum, by contrast,
everyone listens (presumably) while but a few talk.
Perhaps these teach us how to proceed. Naturally, "electronic
democracy" must evolve; we could not "cut over" to it at Midnite, 31
December with the throw of a switch. During this evolution, we might
learn:
1. that not everyone wishes to speak;
2. that the "n" key will be the first to wear out on most
keyboards;
3. that regional distributions, a la Usenet, might circulate
to anyone who logs in, and that any user may request to read the
discussion groups of another region.
Consider this: by exchanging views in this manner, we have already
taken the first step. Our own ideas are enhanced and modified by this
exchange of viewpoints. The next step is some sort of measurement of
consensus.
Best regards,
Brint
(301) 278-6883 AV: 283-6883 FTS: 939-6883
ArpaNet: abc@brl
UUCP: ...!{decvax,cbosgd}!brl-bmd!abc
Postal:
Dr Brinton Cooper
U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory
Attn: AMXBR-SECAD (Cooper)
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md 21005
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 84 17:43:53 PDT
From: David Booth <booth@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
Subject: Electronic Democracy -- Discussion?
". . . Participatory democracy includes discussion and debate
as well as decision-making."
That is a problem. I would suggest some kind of tiered system, based
on coalitions: anyone could express a view or opinion to a small
coalition. If it the idea was accepted by this group, it would be
passed on to a group representing a larger segment of the population,
and they would consider it. This process would continue up to the
national level.
This tiered system should not be based on fixed groups corresponding
only to place of residence, or minorities would often be squelched
entirely. Instead, groups should be formed on issues, by people with
common views on those issues, and anyone can belong to many groups
simultaneously. Thus, you could submit your ideas to the group you
think would be most sympathetic.
Note that something like this could be used to bring bills up for
vote, as well as for discussing issues. Does anyone have further
ideas as to how this might work?
-- David Booth
{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!booth booth@ucla-locus.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Thu 18 Oct 84 15:52:39-EDT
From: Bernard Gunther <BMG@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Proxy voting
There is a major problem with having the legislature of the country
decided by those who get proxies to represent their viewpoint. The
Weimar government in Germany after WW1 had a similar system. The
system was set up such that people voted for a party and then the
party got however many seats as people who voted for them. The only
change between that system and the present German government is that
they now have a rule which says that a party must get 5% of the vote
before they get any seats in the legislature.
One small group of people, who are devoted to some goal, can
effectively stop the government from working except when they agree
with what is going on. In a networked system around the US, this
group could generate mail at such volumes as to prevent an useful
messages from being sent. The NAZIs used similar methods to come to
power in Germany before WW2. One can also see the effects of splinter
parties in the way the Italian or any other coalition government
works.
Given those choices, I sort of like our present government.
Bernie Gunther
------------------------------
Date: Fri 19 Oct 84 20:17:53-PDT
From: Tom Dietterich <DIETTERICH@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Electronic democracy
While it is true that communication technology provides the ability
for everyone to VOTE on an issue, it doesn't provide the ability for
everyone to NEGOCIATE. A crucial function provided by legislatures is
the creation of a forum in which opposing factions can negociate a
mutually agreeable (or at least tolerable) set of laws. In a sense,
whenever there is a strongly polarized vote in a legislature, it is a
sign that the negociation process has failed (or that an election is
near). Complete democracy is rarely a good idea: witness the poor
quality and ambiguous wording of the initiative statutes passed by
referundum (e.g., Prop 13). Because these initiative referundums are
"all-or-nothing" votes, bugs in the statutes can't be repaired very
easily. The issue is not so much who is allowed to vote as it is who
decides what laws are put to a vote.
A challenge for those of us interested in communication is to find
ways of improving the negociation process. Networks seem to be good
vehicles for collecting bug reports and suggestions for improvements,
but I don't think they work well for consensus-building. At present,
there seems to be no good substitute for getting representatives of
the opposing parties into the same room, face-to-face.
--Tom
------------------------------
Date: Sat 20 Oct 84 13:30:20-MDT
From: The alleged mind of Walt <Haas@UTAH-20.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Electronic Democracy
One misfeature of our current form of representative democracy is that
it creates a strong incentive for cost-ineffective projects. For
example, the Central Utah Project, which is a very elaborate expensive
way to move water from eastern Utah to the Salt Lake metropolitan
area. If the beneficiaries were paying for this project, they would
meet their needs for water from less expensive sources. However, most
of the cost is being borne at the Federal level, probably because of
the way the incentive structure works. Assume that Utah has 0.5% of
the population of the United States, which is pretty close. That
means that if the Federal government pays one dollar for a project in
Utah, then Utah taxpayers contributed only half a cent of that dollar.
The remaining 99.5 cents are the profit made by manipulating the
system of representative government. Our congressional delegation has
a strong incentive to wheel and deal with the other representatives in
Congress to achieve this result. Other forms of representation, such
as proxy voting, would probably tend to produce similar results.
However, I would expect a significant difference in a direct
democracy. It seems difficult to believe that a project which screws
99.5% of the population would be voted under a direct system. I don't
think that the N! nature of debate would remain a problem for very
long, either. I suspect that various entrepreneurs and interest
groups would produce digestified forms of the issues much as they do
now.
Cheers -- Walt
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************