As is shown by Lord Acton’s famous words of wisdom that “power corrupts,” what characterizes the history of man is the corrupted leaders blinded by their power and might. Throughout history, monarchs, religious and ideological leaders, as well as elected presidents go crazy. The French king Louis’ XIV claim “L’Etat, c’est moi” (I am the State) is typical to the leaders then and now.

I'm not if you can change that with Internet.
Tommy

I'm not sure if you can change that with the help of Internet.
Tommy

Digg was a great concept, but it is susceptible to hijacking.

how so:?
You just need a ardent group of volunteers or people you are willing to pay to post information on the website. The information being the kind of information you would like the public to see.

For the latter, a good example in that regard would be Rupert Murdoch. (check this out --> http://www.youtube.c...watch?v=JF9HpuZm6-g)

I guess this ties into the bigger question of Democracy being susceptible to hijacking itself. We see that evident in U.S politics, where there are what 35 (I lost count) lobbyist per congressman.

The world is moving too fast for our old political structures, our politicians to keep pace with it.

Democrats and Republicans are the remnants of this old idealogy. The average North American is apathetic to speeches and promises being made by these people.

A 2 party system will lead to a catastrophic failure.

We need a 100 active political parties, not two....the two who only wish to serve and safeguard their corporate friends

I agree with gen. Digg can be gamed. Imagine a thousand lobbyists in there gaming the system.

It could be "associated" with Pollster.com

There's a difference between having a democratically-elected government and making all policy decisions by public vote. One could feasibly argue that only the latter represents true democracy, but I think one could also argue that it would be an unmitigated disaster!

We elect politicians (in theory at least) because they are better able to make these decisions and have a better understanding of the issues. When in office they have the benefit of being much better informed and advised. They are able to see the whole picture and the potential results of their actions either way, and can't narrow-mindedly focus on their own particular favourite issue in the way that many campaigners are wont to do.

Collecting public opinion on policies and presenting it to politicians is one thing; expecting or demanding that they act on that opinion - even if you really could poll a representative sample of the population - is another.

I think would work for a while it was small, but as the word got out I think it would be inundated with professional lobbyists.

Not to mention the fact even this is not really going to represent all groups, so really it is just another special interest. This is because not every one in the US uses the internet because they may not have money or time (because they are out trying to make ends meet) or because they don't know how (they grew up in one of those homes without the internet or it is just "too complicated")