Comment: It's fascinating to

(See in situ)

It's fascinating to

think of the possibilities for creating laws this way.

I think the answer to the question of how to remain a republic while having this level of transparent democracy is simple. You merge them.

In a republic the power of the final vote/decision rests with an individual - the elected representative. What this technology allows is for uncoordinated collaboration to produce something complex and useful.

To see how this model might be transferred to law use the open-source Linux software as an example. Linux has several distributions or versions. These versions are all Linux at the core, that is, based on Linux originally, but they branch off like tree branches from a trunk. Some versions work well for different hardware devices, or software configurations, or maybe security considerations. Popular branches, or distributions, attract more people to support, contribute to and improve upon them. Unpopular ones will languish and die on the metaphorical vine.

The result of this ongoing complex and collaborative process is different usable distributions of Linux which can be explained to a potential new user in terms of pros and cons for which distribution might suit them better.

An elected representative could be thought of as the end-user in this analogy. The creation of a core law could be collaboratively formed and result in different versions each with its own pros and cons. The elected official could then decide on which was most suitable to become law, or perhaps craft something entirely different. But at least this way, the citizens have a much more dynamic, possibly more democratic, way to participate in the law creation process.

EDIT: Can you imagine the edits libertarians would have made to the Patriot Act? LOL