There needs to be some mechanism by which executive or legislative branches can say we are taking this under advisement, but we are not taking dictation [from special interest groups]
This is the crux I think--rather than taking it under advisement, can't there be a bridge between digg style and taking it under advisement? And what is the bridge or layer to add?
"All the rhetoric, including - I'm embarrassed to say - some of mine, has assumed in the past that democratic legitimation is itself enough to regard aggregate public opinion as being clearly binding on the government," Shirky explains.
For example, during the Obama campaign, he watched the campaign for legalisation of the medicinal use of marijuana become a prioritised item on the Change.gov website.
this type of online phenomenon is a 'net positive' for democracy, it is not 'an absolute positive.' It doesn't necessarily mean these representational tools are a replacement for the vote,