Comments on: Could crowdsourcing be a better way to make legislation?

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:03:26 +0000

Thanks, Nitin — that sounds like an excellent idea.

By: Nitin Borwankar

Nitin Borwankar — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:00:40 +0000

Hi Mathew,

Here’s a suggestion I made to Lawrence Lessig and is very relevant here. Drafting laws is useless unless they get on the legislative agenda. The ruling party controls what gets debated by controlling the legislative agenda. i.e. the list of potential laws up for discussion.
You can crowdsource all you want but it will not make it if it is not on the agenda.
So here’s the very highly leveraged thing to do – create a “digg-like” vote on what existing draft laws should be on the legislative agenda.
This is a simple, scalable and powerful way to let those in power know what people think. It is also a powerful way to shine light on the laws that *are* on the legislative agenda. It also does not require any changes to the way things work – it just a) shines light b) expresses the will of the people in a tangible way.
The process is subject to gaming to a certain extent but the community has learned ways to keep the impact of this to a minimum.
My overall view is that radical changes to the power structure are not possible by expecting the power structure to change itself towards transparency.
But it is possible to induce radical transparency from the outside just by using available data (eg legislative agenda) and tools (eg digg like voting) to focus the power of crowdsourcing on some Archimedean levers in the system.
I believe the legislative agenda is such an Archimedean lever.

By: Geoff Middleberg

Geoff Middleberg — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:45:31 +0000

If people want to get involved in this debate that is great. That is what makes american democracy dynamic and interesting. I think we all value finding the balance between protecting intellectual property and the freedoms we hold dear. A final piece of legislation should seperate the bad actors from the well-intentioned so artists can get compensation for their work.

By: getready

getready — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:38:14 +0000

Funny how the Government seeks to regulate the Internet and the Internet takes them down. Their not going to give up the battle now though, that they know the power of the Internet to unite the people. Senator Orrin Hatch suggested over a decade ago that the Government destroy a few hundred thousands computes remotely- and without due process- to combat online piracy. Could it lead to that?
http://www.dethronehatch.com/orrin-hatch-is-no-friend-of-the-internet/

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:30:15 +0000

Interesting, but likely unconstitutional. There are many reasons the United States is a representative republic and not a democracy. If you think this is a good idea, you may want to read the Federalist Papers, specifically #10. The technology may be new, but the idea has failed every time it’s been tried over the course of many centuries. Madison wrote at length on the problems of a mob-rules democracy and Franklin perhaps put it best by saying that a democracy is “two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch”.

By: gregorylent

gregorylent — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:31:13 +0000

internet has largely erased space and time …

representative form of government in a centralized legislature was invented in and era where space and time were huge considerations

that time has passe, and direct democracy is not only possible but desirable, if just to remove the bribing and lobbying

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:43:20 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Rex — I agree that crowdfunding and crowd-editing are different, but both fall under the general heading of crowdsourcing I think (i.e., things that involve input from large groups of people). And I also agree that group-editing of laws will be, er… a challenge :-)

And thanks for the mention of Expert Labs as well — I should have added them to the post, since they are doing some interesting stuff in this area.

By: Rex Hammock

Rex Hammock — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:34:57 +0000

Huh? When did the term crowd-sourcing become a synonym with group-editing? Getting a crowd to fund a Kickstarter product is far, far different than using Kickstarter to invite anyone who wants to, to come over and design, engineer and manufacture your product.

It has taken Wikipedia almost a decade of constant experimentation and struggle to develop what is a benign dictatorship and “invisible hand” that heavily filters the ignorance of crowds in the process of seeking the wisdom.

Group-editing laws is a mis-guided effort, in my opinion. However, I’m all for anyone experimenting with it.

There are many great efforts to develop online tools and processes that will enable all citizens, not just the rich and powerful, to participate in policy and advocacy and the legislative process. I’d look to efforts like the Macarthur Foundation-backed efforts at ExpertLabs.org, for instance, for models of “crowd-sourcing” citizen participation in public policy.

By: Dan Farfan

Dan Farfan — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:16:12 +0000

Hopefully the lunacy of 30-50 people simultaneously editing a document will give way to a more rational mechanism to structure open document drafting (ODD). (e.g. the one proposed by the Legislation Amendment in my book, “The Next 10 Amendments.”)

The real competitor to what this generation of ODDs is doing isn’t legislation or legislators, it’s think tanks. The crowd efforts are essentially an open door think tank with virtually no barrier to entry and almost no structure. There is rational, effective ground between “last edit wins” and “you have no voice since you aren’t in the club.”

Ideally ODDs evolve to grow a structure (sooner rather than later) that’s fitting the seriousness of the challenge these few high profile projects have undertaken.

@DanFarfan