What is Digg?32 Comments
- hold_steady, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think Dvorak makes a strong point that our government would function better with the implement of networking, especially the lawmaking branches. But we have a long way to go in terms of computer security. Think about it, Windows can barely protect the average consumer from spyware, imagine the vulnerabilities our national gov't would face if it were conducting work through a network.
- sfgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I live in DC, and trust me this would never work. If it did it could really reduce the amount of corruption in this country. It won't, easy access from lobbyists and most of all getting face time with other senators is how things get done around here. It's all one giant back scratching orgy. These people don't know how else to function.
- amused, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://dvorak.org/blog/
...but those who listen to This Week In Tech should know that by now.
Sorry had to do it. - mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Imagine the money the lobbyists would have to spend to visit all of these people in person. Could be lots of fun."
Could be a boost for the economy. The airlines and taxi companies would be happy. Plus the lobbyists would also see how the rest of America lives - it may change their mind about what they are lobbying for. - Raian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not American, but this is a great idea-- and which could make corruption a little more difficult.
- fu_fish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is begging for an "apple switch" commercial spoof.
- inactive, on 04/15/2009, -0/+0I wholly agree, though I doubt there's any real chance of it happening, even if solely for one of the major reasons itself (the lobbyists); who would give up a life of luxury for a principle which the public doesn't seem to care about?
- sandrino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The problem is keeping track of what all these guys are doing. If all the meetings are virtual, how does the public know what they are up to? Can you imagine the damage that could be done by Congress if we couldn't kep an eye on them?
- ThePharaoh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree ianubis. Great article. Dvoraks always seems to have some pretty interesting ideas. I'm blogging this one!
- mrman5917, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm not sure exactly how this would work though. It sounds like a good idea on paper, but then again so did the Titanic.
having government officials stay in the respective districts is nice, but it really is the staffers that are in the districts that do most of the interfacing. I have called many of my elected officials, and never once was able to speak to the actual person. However, the staffers do a majority of the work, passing on relevant (according to them) information to the rep in Sacramento/Washington. - alexhhhh, on 11/28/2008, -0/+03) teleconferencing will allow representatives to "better represent" their communities
he only really has a good argument for #1, and maybe some of #3, if physical location is important to proper democratic representation.
No, living in the communities they represent - connected to the government through teleconferencing, etc. - would allow them to better represent and understand their community. - VladDrac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The number one reason to put the federal government on a network: The off switch!
- tome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We elect our congresscritters to represent us in DC, if we go to what he is talking about why would we even hold the elections? The Constitution was written this way for a reason. If the infrastructure were to fail we can still get work done in DC. Remember you get what you voted for. If you think there is corruption fix it at the next election and take your rep/senator out and put a new one in.
- xs10shul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good idea... but it'll never happen. The prevailing view currently is that representatives only partly represent their constituents. It's currently felt that legislators also represent the collective business interests of their states. Administrative law has been this way for a long time, and Congress has largely taken the same approach.
- hazri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It will also reduce taxpayer's money. Flying them over back and forth
from states to DC plus paying their stays in capitol can be expensive. - shade73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Frankly, I think it's a great idea. Although I could be wrong, but wouldn't that require kicking out 90% of the people in there now who don't even know what a computer is? That would suck, because we need intelligent people such as these to make our laws :)
- slartibartphast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You would have to get business to start doing this effectively for congress to be pressured to mirror it. Most people value "face time" over computer links even if video. It will take a generation or two before the masses including government start to use this.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dvorak gets no spam... it must be true!
- LaPistola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think it is a great idea!
Sure there would be problems.. but there are problems now. I think this would be a huge step foward! - talam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I enjoy a lot of the articles Dvorak tosses out, but how seriously can we take an article about the government using teleconferencing from some one who proved week after week he could not get Skype to work. "Hey, it did not work for me, but why not push teleconferencing to the government."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great Article - This should go to the front page. - One of few sensible articles I've seen on digg so far.
- king_aaronj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This sounds very interesting. I wonder what sorts of technology would be used to make this work.
- maverick999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think it could work, but it would have to be an incredibly secure network. Just imagine the possibilities if the Senate's voting network were hacked...(shudder)
- motionblur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"http://dvorak.org/blog/
...but those who listen to This Week In Tech should know that by now.
Sorry had to do it."
Last week's joke went that way. --------------------------> - hawks5999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0nope it will never happen. pure and simple. getting the corruption out would result in a paralyzing of governement, not a streamlining. I'm not pro-corruption for the sake of corruption, but I agree with sfgeek. They wouldn't know what to do without special interests and lobbyists telling them. We are at the point where you have to acknowledge the meta-government that is really running things in D.C. We elect the representatives but we are actually represented by the special interests who speak for us. The truth is the corporation or the conglomeration are the constituency. The elected officials are now the mediators. The NRA, NARAL and RIAA are on one side with Mothers against guns, Pro-Life America and the EFF on the other side. Both are fighting to get their ideals codified and the elected officials are just the conduits from the collected (you might say coroporate) interests and the law. It's cynical, but it's true.
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This won't happen for the same reason tax reform won't happen. The powers that be won't allow it.
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Although the Federal Government as it stands is a sham, I can't see how putting it on something so insecure and untrustworthy as a computer network would make it any better.
- tellall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0this article has hardly any substance. there is an argument here, but it's not presented convincingly, and is hidden beneath unsupported statements like meeting in one place "makes no sense... it barely made sense once the telephone was invented."
dvorak has three main points:
1) teleconferencing will help prevent the damage caused by an attack on a centralized government
2) teleconferencing will reduce corruption
3) teleconferencing will allow representatives to "better represent" their communities
he only really has a good argument for #1, and maybe some of #3, if physical location is important to proper democratic representation.
i can understand why diggers love the idea, but c'mon - a networked government would "streamline everything and create a new model of governance for the entire world"? - thatedeguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I Agree wholeheartedly. Imagine the money the lobbyists would have to spend to visit all of these people in person. Could be lots of fun.
thatedeguy
http://www.thatedeguy.com
http://www.supergeekblog.com
http://www.distroofthemonth.com - jkearney, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0someone tell dvorak to stfu
- Dropscience, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0stop sucking dvoraks dick, he is an old ***** who tries to be diffrent, but hes not, he just does it to get hype, hes a ***** looser
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is