Recrafting Government As an Open Platform 233
itjoblog writes "How effective are the world's governments at using technology to become more responsive? Technology has revolutionised the way that we do business, but the public sector has traditionally moved more cautiously than the private one. Now, a report from the Centre for Technology Policy Research in the UK has made some recommendations for the use of technology as an enabling mechanism for government."
I have one simple requirement: all laws must be written in a wiki with full history.
Likely the best websites from the US Government... (Score:5, Informative)
...are the Library of Congress [loc.gov] site and the Supreme Court [supremecourt.gov] site. Both of them are extremely informative, and have a massive wealth of information that is readily available.
Government Transparency (Score:3, Informative)
Including Open Source Software and Open Document Standards.
It's already all there. (Score:1, Informative)
There problem with most laws isn't that the information isn't publicly available. If you're Google-Fu skill is high enough, you can generally find any non-classified information that you want. The information is already out in the open.
The problem with most laws is that the information is that it isn't easy to find the damn stuff. A good example was when Baltimore created an ordinance requiring non-abortion providing clinics to post signs saying that they didn't provide abortions. You could find a ton of references to the ordinance, but not the actual ordinance itself. It turned out that the ordinance was buried under a poorly (imho) made city website with a non-searchable PDF, but unless you already knew where to look, chances are you would never find it.
Re:Not who wrote, but who paid for. (Score:4, Informative)
No, there's a much easier answer, that's more inherent in the job: you're dealing with (among other things) the allocation of a significant amount of cash. When you have a significant amount of cash to distribute, most people will try to get as big a share of that pile of cash as they can muster, and one way they'll do that is to butter up the people who are making the decision about how to distribute the cash.
And the next step, of course, is that too many people try to butter up the actual decisionmaker, so a new set of people comes up who's job it is to decide who can butter up the decisionmaker, and they now get buttered up by the people who want extra cash.
This is not limited to government - corporate purchasing departments and the like are also get caught up in this.
Re:We don't entirely *want* government to be ... (Score:3, Informative)
So, a law being backed by the interstate commerce clause means that the Congress has deemed that law "necessary and proper" for carrying out their duty to "regulate interstate commerce".
Re:Not who wrote, but who paid for. (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking from my experience as a permanent non-partisan staffer for a state legislature, which required that I spend a lot of time with both state and federal bills, statutes and legislative processes, some remarks:
Re:We don't entirely *want* government to be ... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, a government can't be too ineffective either. A lot of people forget that the Constitution wasn't the first government of the United States of America. The founders tried an even weaker form of government with the Articles of Confederation. That government was so weak that the newly independent colonies were almost separate countries. The chaos caused by that state of affairs is what prompted them to create the Constitution and lay out a form of government that could move boldly and decisively in times of crisis, but still have the checks and balances of a more deliberative system.