Pros/Cons of Direct Democracy in Computer Age - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14959919
Computers and the internet would appear to eliminate the need for ‘Representative Democracy’. Why should we not eliminate our corrupt politicians?

Edit: I would suggest the use of geographic sub forums. If you wanted to propose a national law, it would have to pass a majority of local forums before advancing to the state. Then pass a majority of states before being placed on the national forum.
#14959927
SolarCross wrote:"You had better have one king, than five hundred." - King Charles of England and Scotland.

Why not have 30 million kings? It might be a fun experiment, but I suspect the result will be 30 million laws and no one respecting any of them.


Why do you think others (especially a king) would make better decisions for you than you and your neighbors would? We constantly discuss our politicians being out of touch with the people. I think the number of laws would be restricted by the sub forum layout. You could also restrict individuals to one proposal per year for example.
#14959932
One Degree wrote:Why do you think others (especially a king) would make better decisions for you than you and your neighbors would? We constantly discuss our politicians being out of touch with the people. I think the number of laws would be restricted by the sub forum layout. You could also restrict individuals to one proposal per year for example.

Actually you are the one suggesting that your neighbours (all 300 million of them) would make better decisions for you. How about we have one guy chairing the armed forces and the rest us live by our own ways?
#14959934
One Degree wrote:Computers and the internet would appear to eliminate the need for ‘Representative Democracy’. Why should we not eliminate our corrupt politicians?



That could pose a problem for oversight and investigations. I'm not saying it wouldn't work but I don't think it would be a good idea to go straight to direct democracy. Direct proportional representation would be a good first step and then after the public gets accustomed to a more active role in politics we could proceed from there to liquid democracy where representation is optional and if that goes well and there's still a need to abolish representative politics altogether then we could do direct democracy.

But the truth is none of that is very likely to happen anytime soon, I doubt we'll even get instant runoff voting within the next 20 years. That's the level of stupidity, ignorance, and apathy you're dealing with. The citizenry is mostly worthless retards so shit is stuck on fucking stupid for the foreseeable.
#14959935
SolarCross wrote:Actually you are the one suggesting that your neighbours (all 300 million of them) would make better decisions for you. How about we have one guy chairing the armed forces and the rest us live by our own ways?


Yes, I am. Because our representatives do not seem capable of doing so. Why should we continue with a system that no one likes? Congress’s approval rating is currently 18%. Up from 15%.
#14959936
One Degree wrote:Yes, I am. Because our representatives do not seem capable of doing so. Why should we continue with a system that no one likes? Congress’s approval rating is currently 18%. Up from 15%.

Somebody should try it, but I suspect the result of your system will an approval rating of 0.0001%.

Ideally we should have few laws that everyone can respect, not millions of laws that no one respects or is even aware of. I can tell you that under your system I will ignore the law completely.
#14959937
Sivad wrote:That could pose a problem for oversight and investigations. I'm not saying it wouldn't work but I don't think it would be a good idea to go straight to direct democracy. Direct proportional representation would be a good first step and then after the public gets accustomed to a more active role in politics we could proceed from there to liquid democracy where representation is optional and if that goes well and there's still a need to abolish representative politics altogether then we could do direct democracy.

But the truth is none of that is very likely to happen anytime soon, I doubt we'll even get instant runoff voting within the next 20 years. That's the level of stupidity, ignorance, and apathy you're dealing with. The citizenry is mostly worthless retards so shit is stuck on fucking stupid for the foreseeable.


These are good arguments and suggestions. We would still need to deal with the mass media and propaganda, but we already have that problem anyway.
#14959939
SolarCross wrote:Somebody should try it, but I suspect the result of your system will an approval rating of 0.0001%.

Ideally we should have few laws that everyone can respect, not millions of laws that no one respects or is even aware of. I can tell you that under your system I will ignore the law completely.


I understand your concern, but disagree with your reasoning because we already have those problems. I think direct democracy would decrease laws if anything. They have no reason to pass all the special interest legislation that is the bulk of our laws.
#14959940
One Degree wrote:We would still need to deal with the mass media and propaganda, but we already have that problem anyway.


Public access solves that problem. 99% of all problems have simple solutions, the only reason most problems don't get solved is people are stupid assholes.
#14959941
One Degree wrote:I understand your concern, but disagree with your reasoning because we already have those problems. I think direct democracy would decrease laws if anything. They have no reason to pass all the special interest legislation that is the bulk of our laws.

Yes we already have those problems and your system will exponentially increase on the source of those problems which is too many lawmakers of too little credibility.
#14959943
SolarCross wrote:Yes we already have those problems and your system will exponentially increase on the source of those problems which is too many lawmakers of too little credibility.


We don’t know, so either of us could be right. Having chaired a committee to recommend zoning laws, I am aware of how ridiculous and petty people can be. I believe this would be overcome by having to compete with others to advance to a higher level. The harm would be mainly restricted to the lower levels and their idiocy would quickly become apparent and reversed. As @Sivad pointed out, this would Probably best be done as a gradual transition and learning process.
#14959944
Rugoz wrote:Funny. Why don't we ask a pedophile what he thinks of the age of consent.

From a certain point of view over-ruling is tyranny, if there is but one over-ruler then that is minimum tyranny, if everyone is an over ruler then that will be maximum tyranny. King C has a point, more rulers does not dilute tyranny it multiplies it. The 20th century is a pretty good proof of that.
#14960069
SolarCross wrote:From a certain point of view over-ruling is tyranny, if there is but one over-ruler then that is minimum tyranny, if everyone is an over ruler then that will be maximum tyranny. King C has a point, more rulers does not dilute tyranny it multiplies it. The 20th century is a pretty good proof of that.


What an inane statement. 1 ruling over 99 is more tyrannical than 51 ruling over 49, by definition. The 20th century is a pretty good proof of that.
#14960104
The problem with direct democracy is getting consistency of policy. A majority may vote for lower taxes, and higher spending, at the same time. And if the economy then implodes, there's no way of holding them to account. At least politicians who do things like that can then be voted out in favour of someone with a reasonable overall policy.

Certain decisions that don't conflict with other areas, or fundamental principles, might be suitable for referendums, and some countries could hold more of them (it might be good to have a long run up to them, to give people time to really find out about the options and debate them, but not in the febrile "decide this within a month" atmosphere public votes can have now).
#14960109
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:The problem with direct democracy is getting consistency of policy. A majority may vote for lower taxes, and higher spending, at the same time. And if the economy then implodes, there's no way of holding them to account. At least politicians who do things like that can then be voted out in favour of someone with a reasonable overall policy.

Certain decisions that don't conflict with other areas, or fundamental principles, might be suitable for referendums, and some countries could hold more of them (it might be good to have a long run up to them, to give people time to really find out about the options and debate them, but not in the febrile "decide this within a month" atmosphere public votes can have now).


Not that I don’t understand your concerns, but am partly playing devil’s advocate. Why should some ‘higher principles’ override what people think they want? Who decides these principles if not the people? This seems to be the age old argument of the ‘elites’ must be allowed to control the masses for the good of the ignorant masses.
Yes, a president or cabinet would be required for emergency decisions, but these are rare. Most are concocted today.
We also still have the question of why we should continue with representatives when we overwhelmingly agree it is not working?
#14960317
One Degree wrote:Not that I don’t understand your concerns, but am partly playing devil’s advocate. Why should some ‘higher principles’ override what people think they want? Who decides these principles if not the people? This seems to be the age old argument of the ‘elites’ must be allowed to control the masses for the good of the ignorant masses.
Yes, a president or cabinet would be required for emergency decisions, but these are rare. Most are concocted today.
We also still have the question of why we should continue with representatives when we overwhelmingly agree it is not working?

I'm saying that direct democracy might be OK for deciding the 'higher principles'* (eg it is/isn't OK to use the death penalty), but after that you need detailed legislation for the actual laws - which requires work that the average person can't put in. It's a full time job. And government is not just setting laws; it's also administration. That's where the consistency needs to come in. You need to set budgets, and decide how it's paid for - again, a full time job. So no, it's not 'emergency decisions' the politicians are needed for, it's running everyday things. We choose the people to represent us in these jobs.

Who says "we overwhelmingly agree it is not working?" I don't agree that.

*: I see now that I wrote an ambiguous sentence. When I said "certain decisions that don't conflict with other areas, or fundamental principles, might be suitable for referendums" I should have put it as "certain fundamental principles, or decisions that don't conflict with other areas, might be suitable for referendums".
#14960334
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I'm saying that direct democracy might be OK for deciding the 'higher principles'* (eg it is/isn't OK to use the death penalty), but after that you need detailed legislation for the actual laws - which requires work that the average person can't put in. It's a full time job. And government is not just setting laws; it's also administration. That's where the consistency needs to come in. You need to set budgets, and decide how it's paid for - again, a full time job. So no, it's not 'emergency decisions' the politicians are needed for, it's running everyday things. We choose the people to represent us in these jobs.

Who says "we overwhelmingly agree it is not working?" I don't agree that.

*: I see now that I wrote an ambiguous sentence. When I said "certain decisions that don't conflict with other areas, or fundamental principles, might be suitable for referendums" I should have put it as "certain fundamental principles, or decisions that don't conflict with other areas, might be suitable for referendums".


The “overwhelmingly agree” was based upon Congress’s approval level. You might be one of the 15 to 18% that thinks they are doing a good job. Day to day affairs are handled by bureaucrats, not elected representatives. As mentioned, a mayor, governor, and president would be needed but they would simply get their direction direct from the people rather than our representatives. Congress has no effect on day to day affairs for example other than their expected reactions to the President’s decisions. The President and Mayor are responsible for actual operations of the bureaucracy, not representatives.

Did British pubs create Stone Cold, so that Triple[…]

Actually, you basically conceded your failure on[…]

Ha, yes. I like your analogy on science comparing […]

Europeans despise Trump because of his character.[…]