Can PeopleCount fix Democracy? Is it Possible? This question arose when Joshua Tauberer bravely, honestly and publicly proclaimed it is not.

Obviously I think it can. PeopleCount’s design, plus good product design, implementation, user testing, marketing and management will make Congress accountable to the people, increase competition in elections, and free politicians from being accountable to the wealthy and to party idealogues. 

Joshua’s post had a lot of assertions in it. As I write replies, I’ll add them to this page and replace the “TBD”, below.

“If there was an idea that could ‘fix” democracy, it would have been thought of already.”
This is complete nonsense. TBD

“Wasn’t GovTrack a good idea at the beginning?”
No, see my analysis of what Josh said the idea was.

“Let’s tell representatives what their constituents think. Then they HAVE to vote with us!”
This is just sloppy thinking. TBD

“Everyone should vote on the issues before Congress — Let the people decide!”
It’s presumptuous to say this can’t work. JT makes a straw-man argument. TBD

“Any method of delegating citizen votes is going to have the same sorts of problems…”
This is presumptuous. TBD

“Let’s make a social network for politics / civics.”
Something could work in this area, too.  TBD

“Until you’ve worked 5–10 years in government…you can’t see what needs change.”
This is called “mind-reading”, a common error.  TBD

“Individuals don’t hold power, groups do”
I agree. So how do individuals become groups?  TBD

 “Become an expert first and find your unique contribution to the world”
Typical advice, and much overrated. TBD

“Your idea has no value. It’s all about execution”
This is a trite phrase that investors recite. It ignores the quality of the idea. Great execution of a lousy idea also fails. Joshua, many of your ideas were decently executed, at least in some respects. TBD

tl;dr:

• “If you’re dedicated to fixing democracy, I can’t help you. Your ego is far too big.”
  Presumptuous. Personal judgements are always a logical error (ad hominem). TBD
• “Narrow your focus. The world is unbelievably complicated.
  Good advice, but not necessarily germane. “Big” doesn’t mean complex.  TBD
• “Make sure you’re solving a problem real people have”
  No argument
• “Governance is about power. Power is a social thing, not a technological thing.”
  True. And social happens through communication which can happen via the web.
• Find a problem.. Become an expert in it. Get a real job …”
  Just one of many ways.  TBD
• “Find the humility to say your idea might be total crap”
  There’s a difference between ideas and solutions. TBD
• “and demonstrate that you are willing to let your experiences guide you.”
  This is often a bad idea. Experiences usually validate your view. They’ll teach you that something’s impossible, when actually it’s just an unhelpful view. TBD

There’s a difference between a truism and truth. Truisms are true in a certain mindset, a certain perspective, usually the dominant cultural perspective. A truth is true in every known perspective and there have been many efforts to evaluate it from many different perspectives. This is why scientists are so careful to run many different experiments and have other groups replicate them as well.

When science deviates from this, they make mistakes about the truth. An example were the very few tests that seemed to show evidence that high fat diets made people fat and high cholesterol diets raised people’s cholesterol.

Arguing that things are impossible just means you’re stuck in a view.

And if you’re stuck, try a different view. It’s actually possible to create views, so create one that’s empowering.