Finland to crowdsource new legislation.

[Wells]

Essentially its an referendum system that allows citizens to force a vote on a given issue in the Eduskunta. What do you guys think? I'm generally hugely against direct democracy legislation but this is more interesting.

http://gigaom.com/europe/online-crow...ws-in-finland/

[Deleted]

Isn't this what the Swiss have been doing for ages?

[Deleted]

The European Union has something like this too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...39;_Initiative

[Wells]

My understanding, and my understanding is weak on the internal workings of various EU countries, is that this is the most direct and most likely to be effective. For instance the UK's version only gets the issue discussed.

[obdigore]

It is, as far as I can tell, less direct democracy than California's system, since it forces legislature to vote on it, instead of forcing citizens to vote on a proposition.

Or are you wanting to discuss the fact that it is over the 'net and so can be exploited by people around the world if they spend enough time/resources to do it?

[kivipää]

If people were actually able to vote for the laws itself, this would be a catastrophe. We elect representatives to legislate laws, but their main job is actually research and understand the subject before they vote for it. On any given subject, majority of the people will be illiterate in it and instead of reason, vote with their morals or gut feeling without understanding all the consequences. This also makes them more suspectible for lobbying. It's easier to manipulate masses of people to think one way on a subject they don't know yet than it is to manipulate a small group of individuals that understand it and have strong oppinions of it already.

Even as it is, where you simply need a sufficient number of people to suggest a law, it still has to be handled and voted by the Parliament(1). Granted, this will still put pressure on them about the any suggested law. My worries about this thing being misused are already manifesting. At this rate we already have things like "ban fur farms" going in as soon as the sytem is officially adopted. It might just become a channel for all sorts of misguided activism, an indirect way for dishonest organisations like, say, Greenpeace, to lobby their agenda to the parliament through the people. The country is very much screwed without nuclear power, but what if 20% of population wanted (or thought they wanted) to ban it? 30%? 50%!?

(1)Eduskunta is actually synonymous with both parliament and congress, so why OP used the finnish term in an english post is beyond me. It's not a proper noun.

[Morae]

If people were actually able to vote for the laws itself, this would be a catastrophe. We elect representatives to legislate laws, but their main job is actually research and understand the subject before they vote for it. On any given subject, majority of the people will be illiterate in it and instead of reason, vote with their morals or gut feeling without understanding all the consequences. This also makes them more suspectible for lobbying. It's easier to manipulate masses of people to think one way on a subject they don't know yet than it is to manipulate a small group of individuals that understand it and have strong oppinions of it already ...

While I agree that not everyone would vote sensibly (actually probably quite few) I do believe it is much easier to "bribe" small group of self centered politicians who are only interested staying in their current position. They can easily change their "opinions" when a little direct or nondirect personal gain appears in their view.

[Deleted]

While I agree that not everyone would vote sensibly (actually probably quite few) I do believe it is much easier to "bribe" small group of self centered politicians who are only interested staying in their current position. They can easily change their "opinions" when a little direct or nondirect personal gain appears in their view.

Of course, but it's much easier to mislead a dumb general public who do not understand the issues, or care about the issues, to vote a certain way through rhetoric and showmanship. Leave decision making to the people whose job it is to evaluate decisions and who have trained staff to help them out with it.

[Woebegone]

(1)Eduskunta is actually synonymous with both parliament and congress, so why OP used the finnish term in an english post is beyond me. It's not a proper noun.

Probably because that's the word the reporter used, despite it being an english article.

As for the topic itself, the system feels like a better platform for raising awareness than getting actual laws passed. It may only take 1% of the population to sign a petition to pass it to parliament, but the politicians will definitely spend a long time thinking about what the other 99% thinks.

[Deleted]

This is a complete non-story in Finland.

[Woebegone]

Or are you wanting to discuss the fact that it is over the 'net and so can be exploited by people around the world if they spend enough time/resources to do it?

Not possible. The system requires a strong e-identification - in other words you need to confirm your identity via a bank or a teleoperator. Or it would really take some serious resources and then the whole rigged petition would be taken down the instant the hacks on bank accounts get exposed.

[Wells]

This is a complete non-story in Finland.

Why? Is it not expected to amount to much?

[Deleted]

Why? Is it not expected to amount to much?

It seems the whole thing is 6 month old news, and no one was talking about it then either.

Some organizations try to collect names to force a vote on cannabis, to ban fur farming and shit like that. Won't have much of an effect.

[Urti]

Given a world where a group of faceless strangers can have Pitbull shipped off to Alaska, and destroy a multi-million dollar soft drink product promotion by naming the thing "Hitler did nothing wrong", I shudder at the thought of giving too many people too much direct control over the reigns of power. A little disconnect can be a good thing. That being said, I anxiously await the forced referendum on renaming some public works project "Gushing Granny".

[artemishunter1]

Of course, but it's much easier to mislead a dumb general public who do not understand the issues, or care about the issues, to vote a certain way through rhetoric and showmanship. Leave decision making to the people whose job it is to evaluate decisions and who have trained staff to help them out with it.

not as easy as bribing few. Besides, the mass is only stupid when grouped together in something like say a political party. Individually, that person is not as stupid.