There's no point in corrupting the anarcho-syndicalist nature of open source with a leader... That's so fascist... No need to ruin a good thing, it works perfectly the way it is.

The real future is enacting what makes open-source work on the real world. Why not "open-source" factories, or "open-source" department stores?

how ?

This is the whole point of the Free Software Movement/Open-source people to start a party and make their views known and possibly implemented when the party has enough power. Current government has all the power over these topics you just mentioned and they can be changed!

Would our current government work effectively without the executive branch(President). Would a political party work effectively without an organizer, somebody moving down some path out of many, somebody that's directly responsible to the members of the party. The word fascist would be in context with how the military operates and the term can be misused as a scare tactic. This possible party would choose the way it's represented somewhere in the spectrum of
anarchy<--------------------------->fascism.
It's up to the members' of the party on how their represented (possibly by majority vote). Which seems most rational.

It will not and cannot work. You are talking about a Direcy Democracy and there is no feasible way it can be implemented. on top of that to be a politcal force for anyone to care about you need the support of millions.

There already exists an "open source" party. It is called the Communist Party. No, they don't talk about all the technical particulars you mentioned, but their philosophy is very much in line with the Open Source Movement.

For compu-tech stuff, the OSS philosophy works, generally. Not better in *all ways* than closed source, but it definitely does work. Politically, I am very middle-of-the-road, but I basically agree with RMS about software. But when it comes to other things, like politics, and related processes, I think it is far too idealistic. It's a nice pipe dream, but when that dream hits the hard rock of Reality, something's gotta give.

Most of the people who don't vote, don't vote because the don't care. If you *give* them full, free, internet access, they still won't use it to vote. They won't even bother to read most (if any) of the bills/petitions/questions/whatever that you put in front of them. You will still struggle to get even 50% of the eligble population to vote.

OTOH, if such a system were ever *seriously* proposed, I would do everything in my (limited) power to ensure it never saw fruition....

No, I'm talking about creating a party with the talent of the FSF/Open-source people. The using of their tools mentioned in 1st post. The FSF policy towards software would probably be one policy that's already understood as correct. Other policies would be debated and in some way come to a conclusion. I believe the FSF/Open-source people can create a way to make this "debate and conclusion" process much more efficient using IT tools rather than are reality now in government. The party would use these tools to make its own policies and then once in power, implement them in real government. One of the biggest problems with democracy is inefficiency in getting stuff done. FSF/Open-souce people are masters at manipulating information. Let's use it to society's and our own benefit.

Please give constructive criticism and don't throw terms like fascism around.

Other reasons exist for not voting:

Believing the government is in shambles and it's not worth voting.
Believing the party in power is corrupt and in bed with corporations.
Working so many hours that you have no time to watch/participate media/politics and take part in democratic process.

Avoidance of the government is shooting yourself in the foot and that's what a lot of pissed of people don't understand. Withdrawal & avoidance is not the answer and just gives power to others. There's more than 2 parties that exist, and they probably represent at least some of your beliefs. You just don't know about them because they can't afford media time or are still in a small stage.

If you give people a party that is trustworthy & transparent, they will come. The FSF/Open-source people have a good reputation, following, and are pro's at manipulating/processing information. Let's use these skills and take the community to the next level. Political Party!!!

Most people don't vote simply because they do not care. Its not the "evil" corporations making people not vote, its not the fact that all governments tend to be inheritily corrupt, its not ebcause they don't have time. Its simply because they do not care. And the reason they do not care is because no matter what congress tends to stall everything its practically 50/50 down the middle and nothing ever goes anywhere. Just stalls out in congress. Open-Source is all about how information pertaining to the advancement in technology should not be locked out by copyrights and all people should be allowed to help make it even better. How in the hell do you apply that to politics?

What you are talkign about IS direct democracy. That is what Direct Democracy is. Where evryone gets a say and directly vote on issues. And on top of that if you think have several million people debate on certain topics and use that as a premis for formign and runnign a government is efficent or better then our current system then you are horribly mistaken. You would end up instead of just two different positions on topics you would end up with 1000's of different positions on the same topics. nothign would ever get done.

Above all you keep mentioning by using the internet asa tool makes it different. That is utterly pointless and useless. Its just another outlet forinformation. A powerful and rather open one but just another outlet. Its certainly no way makes it any less distinguised from a direct democracy or communism. Which niether of which would ever work in their truest sense.

I have no idea where exsactly you are going with your idea other then trying to suggest a cyber government ho would be made up of so many geeks that the only thign ever to be fixed would be technological issues.

To clarify, each member above would be allowed only 1 thumb up or down on any one given message.

Representatives being chosen by others to me doesn't sound like direct democracy.
You got to understand that a party website would be created. Methods would be worked out to choose representatives(possibly quote above) to make at as fair as possible based on their popularity, views, and other possible characteristics. The representatives of the party would then work their way into the current government because the majority of the party chose this person. What I want to do is change the "debate & discussion" -> "conclusion" paridigm so it's more efficient an organized using current IT technology. The party itself would evolve with these changes. Once in power, the party would change the current governmental processes to become more efficient & fair. Democracy is notoriously slow in getting to "conclusion". Let's think outside the box and think of new ways to make this process more timely. Otherwise we turn to a man on a white horse.

When I think of a political party, I think of something on a much larger scale and broader sense than strictly an open-source movement. Although, a 'union' of programmers or computer specialists would seem to be a more feasible or correct term. As far as I know the margins on intellectual property is like 99% or more at least for micro. office. This, to me, signals that programmers or people involved in the process of producing such products are not getting near what they deserve or in other words being exploited.

Why would they? Just like McDonald's prohibits Unions at any of their stores (read Fast Food Nation).
Technology Corporations are exploiting programmers as well. I would think the intelligence that people have in this industry would be at a level that a union would seem like a step to ensure stability in their job, steady raises that would keep up with corporate earnings, or even profit-sharing. Unions have protected construction workers, pilots and even supported POLITICAL positions that are in favor of the intellectuals behind the intellectual property. Unions are not-for-profit companies. So there is no power-hungry politicans compromising the values that you or i stand by.

I can undestand the use of the internet as a communication portal for the computer literate to communicate and exchange ideas and come to a mass. Because we all know that when you are in a cubical or home office, the likely-hood of meeting a group of people that agree on the same issues and agrees that something must be done is not in the realm of possibilities. But the internet allows such things to happen (howard deans campaign was funded mostly by internet contributions). Imagine using the same process to promote other positive changes in the technology industry. We are the largest, smartest, un-appreciated people in the world economy. We innovate and bring the new ideas to life. Why haven't we come together to bring prosperity to our future, not just microsoft's and apples?

For anybody out there listening. A parallel discussion is going on at the gentoo forums here.

A direct democracy means a system in which all people vote on the issues directly and not through a represenative.

it seems that everyone somehow sense that possibility.
the dilemma is why people are afraid of seeing the fruition which can touch or rather affect their lives considerably
That kind of possibility is kind of "bad" , unwanted and tiresome for the majority,if you can solve this particular delimma of them then you are sure of that fruition.
As for the "tools" to ensure that fruition,you got to do a serious rethinking,well it is still worth the tiresome brainstorming,right?