5 ms·

>Current implementation of democratic systems is result of the fact that process for voting had been expensive in pre-Internet era. One of the major thing Inter

by wnevets 11y ago

>Current implementation of democratic systems is result of the fact that process for voting had been expensive in pre-Internet era. One of the major thing Internet does is to make process of voting dirt cheap. One no longer has to setup physical voting booths, deploy thousands of election officials, physically tally votes and so on. This means we can give direct democracy a real chance. Why should we let senators or presidents make all of the decisions for us for years? Why not just vote for every issue directly? Why shouldn't anyone on Internet be able to propose a law and have it voted by people in the country directly? This can change everything... Cost of physically tally votes isn't the reason the US is a representative democracy. The mob is inherently irrational, stupid and over reactive, which is why the founders settled on representatives. Case-by-cases voting also doesn't solve this problem, even with the internet.

crdoconnor 11y ago
"The mob is inherently irrational, stupid and over reactive" This was the main thrust of the monarchist argument against representative democracy. Most dictators have used it too. The other one is that people "are not ready" for more democracy but maybe they will be one day. Mubarak favored this excuse - that is, before murdering demonstrators in cold blood who had the gall to ask for it.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Just because dictators used it doesn't mean it isn't right. And I think its truth is self-evident, if you just care to look around. Democracy has good sides, like bloodless government transitions, but one thing it does not do is facilitating sane decision making.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    The opposite seems self evident to me. Saner decision making: Switzerland > US > Egypt > North Korea Level of democracy: Switzerland > US > Egypt > North Korea I used to think Singapore was a good example of "benevolent dictatorship", but after living here for a few years I've come to understand that this isn't the case. The ruling party has made some spectacularly bad decisions that they wouldn't have without more democratic accountability, and many of the good decisions they did make were stolen from the opposition (whomever they happened to be at the time).
  - monstruoso 11y ago
    > And I think its truth is self-evident Reads as if you are saying that nothing can convince you otherwise.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Seeing a mob coming up with non-completely-idiotic solutions to problems on a regular basis would. I doubt it's possible in principle though, even without negative (with various degrees of malice) influence of the media. It's funny how the tool that's supposed to guarantee accountability in a democracy is also the thing that dumbs it down.
kriro 11y ago
"The mob is inherently irrational" I strongly disagree with this sentiment or at least I think it should be put to the test more often. There's some wisdom of the crowd factors that would suggest the mob doesn't need to be smart on an individual basis but my main objection is philosophical in nature. It strongly object to the Plato ideal of elitists that rule over the dumb (be it for good reasons or not). I think the case outlined by Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (particularly book 1) is pretty solid.
- quanticle 11y ago
  >I strongly disagree with this sentiment or at least I think it should be put to the test more often. Donald Trump is proving that sentiment right now. More seriously, there's a difference between a crowd and a mob. Notably, crowd opinions are uncorrelated - everyone in the crowd comes to their own conclusion, and then they vote. Mob opinions are correlated. People whose opinion differs from the mob, even are intimidated into either changing their opinion or, at the very least, remaining silent. Thus the mob quickly converges on a single opinion, whereas the crowd maintains a diversity of opinions.
  - FilterSweep 11y ago
    I'm not trying to argue either way here - my argument is above - but do you think Twitter and social media in general favors the mob over the crowd?
    - bsbechtel 11y ago
      When it comes to internet vigilantism, it appears to be the case.
  - monstruoso 11y ago
    >Mob opinions are correlated. People whose opinion differs from the mob, even are intimidated into either changing their opinion or, at the very least, remaining silent. Voting is supposed to be secret. So I don't think what you say applies at all.
tinkerdol 11y ago
>The mob is inherently irrational, stupid and over reactive Any type of democracy relies on trusting the public to decide for themselves. It is an old idea that education is the solution to this problem: "The commonwealth requires the education of the people as the safeguard of order and liberty" -- inscribed outside the Boston Public Library, 1895.
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  There is a big difference between relying on people to make decisions for themselves in domains of life that affect only them (i.e., personal decisions), and relying on people to make decisions for others. This debate is about how many people should have a voice in making decisions in government, but the more important question is what decisions should be made by government, regardless of how many people participate (though I would argue more is generally better than less).
JulianMorrison 11y ago
Representative democracy has hardly been a solution for irrationality, stupidity, or over-reaction.
- wnevets 11y ago
  "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"
  - JulianMorrison 11y ago
    "Recourse to pithy aphorisms is the refuge of the lazy" -- me

by wnevets 11y ago

crdoconnor 11y ago

"The mob is inherently irrational, stupid and over reactive" This was the main thrust of the monarchist argument against representative democracy. Most dictators have used it too. The other one is that people "are not ready" for more democracy but maybe they will be one day. Mubarak favored this excuse - that is, before murdering demonstrators in cold blood who had the gall to ask for it.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Just because dictators used it doesn't mean it isn't right. And I think its truth is self-evident, if you just care to look around. Democracy has good sides, like bloodless government transitions, but one thing it does not do is facilitating sane decision making.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  The opposite seems self evident to me. Saner decision making: Switzerland > US > Egypt > North Korea Level of democracy: Switzerland > US > Egypt > North Korea I used to think Singapore was a good example of "benevolent dictatorship", but after living here for a few years I've come to understand that this isn't the case. The ruling party has made some spectacularly bad decisions that they wouldn't have without more democratic accountability, and many of the good decisions they did make were stolen from the opposition (whomever they happened to be at the time).
- monstruoso 11y ago
  > And I think its truth is self-evident Reads as if you are saying that nothing can convince you otherwise.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Seeing a mob coming up with non-completely-idiotic solutions to problems on a regular basis would. I doubt it's possible in principle though, even without negative (with various degrees of malice) influence of the media. It's funny how the tool that's supposed to guarantee accountability in a democracy is also the thing that dumbs it down.

kriro 11y ago

"The mob is inherently irrational" I strongly disagree with this sentiment or at least I think it should be put to the test more often. There's some wisdom of the crowd factors that would suggest the mob doesn't need to be smart on an individual basis but my main objection is philosophical in nature. It strongly object to the Plato ideal of elitists that rule over the dumb (be it for good reasons or not). I think the case outlined by Popper in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (particularly book 1) is pretty solid.

quanticle 11y ago
>I strongly disagree with this sentiment or at least I think it should be put to the test more often. Donald Trump is proving that sentiment right now. More seriously, there's a difference between a crowd and a mob. Notably, crowd opinions are uncorrelated - everyone in the crowd comes to their own conclusion, and then they vote. Mob opinions are correlated. People whose opinion differs from the mob, even are intimidated into either changing their opinion or, at the very least, remaining silent. Thus the mob quickly converges on a single opinion, whereas the crowd maintains a diversity of opinions.
- FilterSweep 11y ago
  I'm not trying to argue either way here - my argument is above - but do you think Twitter and social media in general favors the mob over the crowd?
  - bsbechtel 11y ago
    When it comes to internet vigilantism, it appears to be the case.
- monstruoso 11y ago
  >Mob opinions are correlated. People whose opinion differs from the mob, even are intimidated into either changing their opinion or, at the very least, remaining silent. Voting is supposed to be secret. So I don't think what you say applies at all.

tinkerdol 11y ago

>The mob is inherently irrational, stupid and over reactive Any type of democracy relies on trusting the public to decide for themselves. It is an old idea that education is the solution to this problem: "The commonwealth requires the education of the people as the safeguard of order and liberty" -- inscribed outside the Boston Public Library, 1895.

bsbechtel 11y ago
There is a big difference between relying on people to make decisions for themselves in domains of life that affect only them (i.e., personal decisions), and relying on people to make decisions for others. This debate is about how many people should have a voice in making decisions in government, but the more important question is what decisions should be made by government, regardless of how many people participate (though I would argue more is generally better than less).

JulianMorrison 11y ago

Representative democracy has hardly been a solution for irrationality, stupidity, or over-reaction.

wnevets 11y ago
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  "Recourse to pithy aphorisms is the refuge of the lazy" -- me