automating it with git would not in any way change the fundamental power structures at play
Well, currently, a lobbyist provides the desired changes, and your politician implements them. I am proposing to make it possible for everybody to propose changes easily.
proposing that anyone can change the law would clearly be insane
I agree. I was thinking more of something like wikipedia vs a classic encyclopedia. Many people determine what actually makes up wikipedia’s content, but far fewer are in charge and oversee the final approval. As an example, in the past it would have been very hard to convince an editor of a classic (digital) encyclopedia to include a list of all Star Trek episodes. Nowadays, If you want one, you can write it yourself. And if it is factually correct, then it will probably be included.
So in short, the “masses” determine what is interesting, or needs fixing. They may also contribute ideas, or general directions as to how to fix it. The commit rights stay with the regular politicians.
Currently you can call up your representative and propose a change to the law, they just will very very rarely bother to listen to you.
Exactly. So by making it as easy as possible for everybody involved, things might get better. The most upvoted proposals, if implemented, make the most voters happy, which makes live easier for your local politician, if he ever runs out of interesting topics.
Well, currently, a lobbyist provides the desired changes, and your politician implements them. I am proposing to make it possible for everybody to propose changes easily.
It’s easy to propose changes in a representative democracy. That’s what letters to politicians are for. They are not a tool that’s limited to lobbyists.
There are also other tools such as petitions or responding to requests for comments to engage with the process.
Many people determine what actually makes up wikipedia’s content, but far fewer are in charge and oversee the final approval.
Wikipedia has no process that’s well described by the words “final approval”.
As an example, in the past it would have been very hard to convince an editor of a classic (digital) encyclopedia to include a list of all Star Trek episodes. Nowadays, If you want one, you can write it yourself. And if it is factually correct, then it will probably be included.
That’s misrepresents Wikipedia policy for most articles. “Factually correct” is not a category that Wikipedia cares about. It cares about whether the article is referenced with reliable sources and whether it’s notable.
Even if this would be how Wikipedia works, it’s benefitial towards producing a quanity of articles. When it comes to laws you don’t want quantity. You want as little laws as possible because with increased quantity of laws it gets more complex.
A lobbyist is just a programmer for laws. “Everyone” already has the power to suggest changes, but only some people have taken the time to learn how to “code.” The main issue is still “who gets the power?”
And Wikipedia suffers from the same coordination problem that plagues governments: if a small group values X highly, and 90% of everyone values “not X” just a little bit (or, more often,, would value “not X” if they were made aware of X), X gets implemented (because the people in charge don’t know about the second group).
Well, currently, a lobbyist provides the desired changes, and your politician implements them. I am proposing to make it possible for everybody to propose changes easily.
I agree. I was thinking more of something like wikipedia vs a classic encyclopedia. Many people determine what actually makes up wikipedia’s content, but far fewer are in charge and oversee the final approval. As an example, in the past it would have been very hard to convince an editor of a classic (digital) encyclopedia to include a list of all Star Trek episodes. Nowadays, If you want one, you can write it yourself. And if it is factually correct, then it will probably be included.
So in short, the “masses” determine what is interesting, or needs fixing. They may also contribute ideas, or general directions as to how to fix it. The commit rights stay with the regular politicians.
Exactly. So by making it as easy as possible for everybody involved, things might get better. The most upvoted proposals, if implemented, make the most voters happy, which makes live easier for your local politician, if he ever runs out of interesting topics.
It’s easy to propose changes in a representative democracy. That’s what letters to politicians are for. They are not a tool that’s limited to lobbyists.
There are also other tools such as petitions or responding to requests for comments to engage with the process.
Wikipedia has no process that’s well described by the words “final approval”.
That’s misrepresents Wikipedia policy for most articles. “Factually correct” is not a category that Wikipedia cares about. It cares about whether the article is referenced with reliable sources and whether it’s notable.
Even if this would be how Wikipedia works, it’s benefitial towards producing a quanity of articles. When it comes to laws you don’t want quantity. You want as little laws as possible because with increased quantity of laws it gets more complex.
A lobbyist is just a programmer for laws. “Everyone” already has the power to suggest changes, but only some people have taken the time to learn how to “code.” The main issue is still “who gets the power?”
And Wikipedia suffers from the same coordination problem that plagues governments: if a small group values X highly, and 90% of everyone values “not X” just a little bit (or, more often,, would value “not X” if they were made aware of X), X gets implemented (because the people in charge don’t know about the second group).