Governmental Transparency? 34
CosmicDreams asks: "With our concern about transparency in business transactions these days, should we focus on what is arguably the largest business of all, government? Today, it is possible to build a system in which the official interactions (social, fiscal, and oral) of our elected officials can be presented to world in an uncensored, unspinned, and quick-to-market medium. Unlike talk radio, newspapers, and late night stand-up routines, only the internet can possibly supply the public which a near instantaneous collection of news in sheer bulk form. What would the effects of such a system be on America and the world? I would be interested in hearing opinions on this matter."
Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Why do you want this information? What are you -- some kind of terrorist?
"Please step aside, sir. We would like to ask you a few questions."
Wonderful idea ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck changing things now. Once-free overnments all over the world are moving in the direction of less openness, not more. In the US, the Freedom of Information Act is just about dead as a consequence of the "War On (Drugs/Terror/Iraq/villain of the month)". The irony is, of course, that at least some repressive governments are opening up, just a bit; at this point, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we see electronically open government in China before we see it in the US, or Great Britain, or France, or Germany, or Japan. (Depressed, but not surprised.)
Once upon a time, the US government was taking steps in this direction. FOIA requests, even by e-mail, were answered more often than not. Sites like FedStats [fedstats.gov] still remain as monuments to a genuine initiative, during the last decade, to making the government's vast store of information a resoucre of the people, by the people, and for the people. Enjoy it while you can, folks, because right now the trend is toward taking this stuff away, not expanding it.
And for God's sake, keep voting. The fraud machinery that stole the 2000 election is powerful, but it's not unbeatable. Yet.
Re:Wonderful idea ... (Score:1)
Now show me the result of the presidential election that has Al Gore with more votes than George W...
Re:Wonderful idea ... (Score:2)
i seem to recall that al gore actually received more total votes than george w. But because of the way the system of the electoral college works and the distribution of votes, he did not get the majority of the electoral college.
I could be wrong, but I believe I'm not.
Regardless of that, nobody seemed to raise a fuss about the electoral college before the election, nor do they seem to have continued the fuss raised, so it seems that nobody really minds.
Re:Wonderful idea ... (Score:2)
http://www.mattcallaway.com/map.html
This is the map of the 2000 election, county-by-county. Now, whether you agree with the electoral system or not, this is the reason why it exists. Because someone could recieve more electoral votes by appealing to the values of the urban and suburban citizenry, without a mandate from the people who live outside the city.
I hate to have to say it, but people who live in cities have different values from people who live in the country. The reason? The issues that face them are completely different. And the methods of dealing with those issues are different, too. In the country, people respect those who make a living on their own. In the city, the solution to most problems is collective, almost socialist, action. The reason is that people in the cities live closer together and more dependent on links in a chain. Have you ever heard of a metrorail in the middle of montana?
I believe the Founding Fathers had a better idea than Karl Marx, but I guess that's because I was raised in a small town in the middle of Podunk, Georgia.
Re:Wonderful idea ... (Score:2)
The disputed part is who received more votes in Florida, since under the Electoral College system the popular vote doesn't much matter. And I, and a whole bunch of other people, remain convinced that Gore received more votes in Florida as well as in the country as a whole, and that it took some serious legal machinations on the part of the Republican Party to cover that up. Ultimately, the vote that decided the 2000 election was one in Washington DC, and the electorate in that vote was nine people who split 5-4.
Re:Wonderful idea ... (Score:1)
http://www.mattcallaway.com/map.html
This is the map of the 2000 election, county-by-county. Now, whether you agree with the electoral system or not, this is the reason why it exists. Because someone could recieve more electoral votes by appealing to the values of the urban and suburban citizenry, without a mandate from the people who live outside the city.
I hate to have to say it, but people who live in cities have different values from people who live in the country. The reason? The issues that face them are completely different. And the methods of dealing with those issues are different, too. In the country, people respect those who make a living on their own. In the city, the solution to most problems is collective, almost socialist, action. The reason is that people in the cities live closer together and more dependent on links in a chain. Have you ever heard of a metrorail in the middle of montana?
Besides, more than 30 independant recounts have been carried out, and all have either confirmed Bush as the statewide winner, or have said that if we went with Gore's select-county recount, then he would've won (but the ones that say that also say Gore was the winner. I was calling for a statewide recount, and I'd have been satisfied if Gore would've done that, rather than carry out recount after recount after recount on those few counties).
Info in Bulk Form is useless. (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for transparent government, but if nobody has the time or energy to sift through the mountians of info, it isn't going to do you a damn bit of good.
Re:Info in Bulk Form is useless. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Info in Bulk Form is useless. (Score:2)
Regulatory analysis is just as important as a tremendous amount of foolishness goes on through the rule making process and is similarly dependent on doing things under cover of darkness.
see opensecrets.org (Score:4, Informative)
UBER CSPAN (Score:2)
"Also in the news, the Earth's first global YAWN preceded the fall of the worldwide vallium market today..."
overload! (Score:3, Insightful)
Too much (Score:1)
Want to know what a senator said? Well, you can read the journal that is printed everyday. Though, it'll take a long time to get anything from it.
Want to read a law in full? Probably not, they're really hard to read and full of jargon.
Want to know the text of messages sent between government offices? Many times they're too boring, or comminication is done between personal relationships that would suffer if all was to be non-personal for the public to see.
The government has a great deal of information online already. And they're probably going to make more public with time. What is needed is not more information (so much as) someone to cut through it all and give a non-biased assesment, with links to the full report for further study.
When you can find this mythical non-biased person, we can talk about giving it the job.
Incompatible with global hegemony (Score:2, Flamebait)
to raw information about the operations of government
is very counter-productive, because they will tend
to vote in an uncontrolled manner.
For example, could the Gulf War have been conducted
if it's pretextual deceits were not prominently
featured by the 5 major global media corporations?
Could it have been continued to a successful
conclusion if the massive extermination of the
Iraqis in the neutral zone and southern Iraq had
been covered in widely available press? Squeamish
elements would have militated vociferously against
the mass-live-burial in the neutral zone, and
the mass-incineration of the retreating, defeated
soldiers and thousands of civillians on the "road
of death".
It's crucially important that the organs of the
media which direct the attention of the masses
should be responsible to the authorities, or
the ability of the U.S. to subjugate the swarthy
people with oil is threatened, and if that is
threatened, the entire stock market is threatened.
Wouldn't work without social change (Score:3, Insightful)
The majority of voters vote in herds, they have their own problems day-to-day, and instead of reading up on the issues, they follow the opinions of their friends, family, and church. Failing that they go based on the pictures of what people look like, or where a candidate is located on the card.
People who have an issue will go in to vote for that issue. But what happens when there are 50 unrelated issues on the ballot you haven't heard of?
The best solution might be electronic voting booths, where you can research the topics and look up words while voting (In a reasonable amount of time).
One of Newt Gingrich's Top Priorities (Score:1)
Re:One of Newt Gingrich's Top Priorities (Score:2)
Recording is illegal in most countries (Score:1)
The catch is (if you ignore the current burst allowing broad phone and e-mail tapping, in the name of anti-terrorism war), nobody can record anyone else without their prior consent, in most countries. The only exception is the police, where they have to obtain a warrant
Even then, depending on the jusrisdiction, they may postpone informing the subject of tapping operations, anywhere between 6 months after the end of the operation, to never at all; some countries impose an obligation to the police to eventually inform someone that his communications were being tapped, other countries don't and even allow the police to build whole cases on someone, Stasi-style, without anyone ever being told... until it is too late and they are in court.
In a nutshell, the police can videotape your arrest and do as they please with that, but you are not allowed to videotape their search of your house or to record a conversation with any public employee, in most countries.
That old statement about those prefering safety over freedom not being worthy of either comes to mind. I prefer freedom to fight police or politicians with equal tools, than the false security that George DoubleSnort Bush and his boys might be doing the right thing - which, btw, they are not: forget Bin Laden and Sadam! Kill Dubya and save the whole world from the blatant takover of the planet by idiots like Fiorina, Gates and Walton and their lobbying drones in Washignton!
I wish... (Score:2)
This includes both career politicians of both major parties who survive by spin and civil service employees who surrender their political souls to the unions. It's not in the interest of these people for the legal voting population to understand what really goes on in the halls of government.
Anarchy (Score:2)
> America and the world?
Such an improbable fantasy would result in the collapse of government (not that this would be a bad thing).
I thought David Brin - (Score:1)
We're headed that way as it is (Score:2)
I think the market (desire) for information will provide what you want. A nice example here in Northern Virginia was the defeat of a
One element that will be harder to predict is the reaction of the public. Perhaps informatgion availability will encourage a desire to be informed. I sure appreciate having candidate white papers and such at my fingertips.
Finally, and I should have written this first, the gov't does need to lift all roadblacks to the information getting out. A glaring problem cited repeatedly in recent years is access to the proceedings of Congressional committees, as well as other documents (example [pogo.org]). Another I care about is the declassification and digitization of secret documents. I don't know how much progress has been made on these fronts.
People don't care (Score:2)
Another part of the problem, more relevant to your question, is that the majority of people actually DO believe what they read in the papers, or see on television. Those media tell them what to do, how to think, and "we must be right because we have a guy in a white coat!". People WANT that. Anyone presenting a different opinion is a crackpot, troublemaker, or 'has a history of alcohol abuse' (a good way to totally destroy someone's credibility without any proof). And if you DO present a good argument, it upsets most peoples' balance and makes them uncomfortable. Thus, they would rather pretend you are not there.
Anyway, the 'pure facts' don't really help. We actually need the spin. It tells us the repercussions and consequences of whatever decision or report or committe finding means. The problem is - we only get one spin - the other spin usually unheard, classified, or debunked. Leading Edge [trufax.org] is one, Nexus [nexusmagazine.com] is another. There are others. These sources already give alternative descriptions for many events, but they are usually ignored, or belittled. Read them, with an open mind, then make your own decision.
Don't let ME tell you its a good idea! (Score:2)
Tsk, tsk.
I would be interested in hearing opinions on this matter.Alas, even you want opinions!
Many of the facts are out there already. It's up to you to find them and come to your own conclusions about what they mean.
Are you any better than most of the population when you ask for opinions to help you distill down the vast mass of facts into a bite-sized nugget?
I'm sympathetic to the immense task of digesting the information, culling the facts from the chaff of lies and spin that flow freely in the marketplace of ideas. It's no picnic, but it's what each person must do for themselves. If you don't, someone will do it for you and will thereby control what you think.
Goverment != business (Score:1)