I'm fascinated by an election of people to positions of responsibility that's done completely online.
I wonder what kind of issues this causes, or whether in my imagined world, this frees people from the political BS that accompanies our modern shill-for-the-camera election incentives?
For example, by the fact that the main place to compare candidates is a written summary and response to questions, you are forced to read and think, rather than watch TV? Does this cause a different type of candidate to be favored? Does it cause the voter to be different?
I don't know, do the candidates lobby outside of this format? Do they email around campaign materials and try to get people to vote for them? Do they rally supporters through Zoom? (maybe OSM is not quite that level)
Hard to get a sense of what it's really like to work with someone through written text, but maybe that's to certain people's advantage if they don't speak well in person. Does someone who responds well over text = suited to negotiating and managing a huge project? Do you have to ask more questions to figure out what kind of work/family/personal situation they're in, and how much time they really have to devote to your project? How confident can you be? How about if a decision about the project involves millions of $ later -- trustworthiness?
Can you imagine if the elected board gets together for their first Zoom call and a 60 year old retiree sees a 13 year old teenager?
Fascinating.
throwaway201103 1238 days ago [-]
I mean, aren't most local elections like this? Where I am none of the local candidates for things like city council, school board, etc. are on TV. Some yard signs, maybe a public forum for those interested enough to show up, but mainly they answer a set of questions and their answers get published by the local paper. That's the only way I know anything at all about who is running for these local offices.
Rendered at 17:56:11 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I wonder what kind of issues this causes, or whether in my imagined world, this frees people from the political BS that accompanies our modern shill-for-the-camera election incentives?
For example, by the fact that the main place to compare candidates is a written summary and response to questions, you are forced to read and think, rather than watch TV? Does this cause a different type of candidate to be favored? Does it cause the voter to be different?
I don't know, do the candidates lobby outside of this format? Do they email around campaign materials and try to get people to vote for them? Do they rally supporters through Zoom? (maybe OSM is not quite that level)
Hard to get a sense of what it's really like to work with someone through written text, but maybe that's to certain people's advantage if they don't speak well in person. Does someone who responds well over text = suited to negotiating and managing a huge project? Do you have to ask more questions to figure out what kind of work/family/personal situation they're in, and how much time they really have to devote to your project? How confident can you be? How about if a decision about the project involves millions of $ later -- trustworthiness?
Can you imagine if the elected board gets together for their first Zoom call and a 60 year old retiree sees a 13 year old teenager?
Fascinating.