5 ms·

That is an absolutely horrible idea. Why? Because proper legislation requires expert knowledge. It is simply impossible for every citizen to know enough to be a

That is an absolutely horrible idea. Why? Because proper legislation requires expert knowledge. It is simply impossible for every citizen to know enough to be able to be an effective legislator That's why we elect representatives.

woodman 11y ago
So instead we hope that the results of a popularity contest are experts in crafting 'proper legislation'? No, representatives are theoretically there to guard against majority tyranny - it has nothing to do with building the most efficient legislation generating machine. This design is reflected in the whole checks and balances thing. I do agree with you about it being a horrible idea though, maybe we should reconsider the wisdom in granting some small portion of our freedom to every other voter. 42% of Americans believe in ghosts... let that sink in.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >No, representatives are theoretically there to guard against majority tyranny This is a classic case of the just world fallacy. Historically, representative democracy with one man one vote exists because that was the result of the last compromise between the underclasses and elites trying to keep them from getting out of hand. It isn't any more theoretically reasonable than the compromise before that (no women voting), or the one before that (no blacks) or the one before that (nobody votes who doesn't own property) or the one before that (nobody votes).
  - woodman 11y ago
    > This is a classic case of the just world fallacy. Who is experiencing the bias here, the founders of the representative democracy or me for pointing to the political theory? I assume you're talking about some system that isn't the US government, because otherwise your recollection of history is way off.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      That depends on whether you are endorsing it or not. "Theoretically", we had kings because of the divine right of kings. Theoretically the American expansion was justified by manifest destiny. Theoretically women were not allowed to vote because "90% did not want it" or because it would "place the government under petticoat rule". Theoretically, today, we have representatives in government because the people aren't smart enough to represent themselves. Every system of power and domination creates a justification for its own existence and it's nearly always bullshit.
      - woodman 11y ago
        > That depends on whether you are endorsing it or not. You might want to reserve the use of the word "fallacy" for cases where an argument's logic does not follow. Ironically, use the word otherwise often betrays one's own cognitive biases. As far as my endorsement, I don't think I could state my position any more clearly than I already have: "...maybe we should reconsider the wisdom in granting some small portion of our freedom to every other voter. 42% of Americans believe in ghosts..."
        pessimizer 11y ago
        > You might want to reserve the use of the word "fallacy" for cases where an argument's logic does not follow. You have yet to make an argument that "representatives are theoretically there to guard against majority tyranny." If you had, it wouldn't be a just world fallacy.
        woodman 11y ago
        > You have yet to make an argument that... Correct, I have no interest in arguing that position. Any highschool graduate should immediately recognize "majority tyranny" and the political theory that it is connected to. If I had argued the virtue of representative democracy, it might have been biased by the just world fallacy, but I haven't - so it wasn't.
crdoconnor 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes
yuhong 11y ago
I have been thinking about sortition for a while now.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  As have I, with some level of favourability. It avoids the problems of campaign finance and low voter turnout, though not of tampering once in office. It adds the additional complication of legislators or executives who face little or no consequence for their actions. Not sure how it would work out ultimately.
  - yuhong 11y ago
    If it works out properly, such legislators will be few enough that it will not be a major problem.
barry-cotter 11y ago
Switzerland disproves your argument.
- blumkvist 11y ago
  I can think of an exception to every rule. Also, Switzerland does not vote on every law with a referendum.
logingone 11y ago
Hmm... representatives... like the guy with two kitchens representing the homeless.

woodman 11y ago

So instead we hope that the results of a popularity contest are experts in crafting 'proper legislation'? No, representatives are theoretically there to guard against majority tyranny - it has nothing to do with building the most efficient legislation generating machine. This design is reflected in the whole checks and balances thing. I do agree with you about it being a horrible idea though, maybe we should reconsider the wisdom in granting some small portion of our freedom to every other voter. 42% of Americans believe in ghosts... let that sink in.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>No, representatives are theoretically there to guard against majority tyranny This is a classic case of the just world fallacy. Historically, representative democracy with one man one vote exists because that was the result of the last compromise between the underclasses and elites trying to keep them from getting out of hand. It isn't any more theoretically reasonable than the compromise before that (no women voting), or the one before that (no blacks) or the one before that (nobody votes who doesn't own property) or the one before that (nobody votes).
- woodman 11y ago
  > This is a classic case of the just world fallacy. Who is experiencing the bias here, the founders of the representative democracy or me for pointing to the political theory? I assume you're talking about some system that isn't the US government, because otherwise your recollection of history is way off.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    That depends on whether you are endorsing it or not. "Theoretically", we had kings because of the divine right of kings. Theoretically the American expansion was justified by manifest destiny. Theoretically women were not allowed to vote because "90% did not want it" or because it would "place the government under petticoat rule". Theoretically, today, we have representatives in government because the people aren't smart enough to represent themselves. Every system of power and domination creates a justification for its own existence and it's nearly always bullshit.
    - woodman 11y ago
      > That depends on whether you are endorsing it or not. You might want to reserve the use of the word "fallacy" for cases where an argument's logic does not follow. Ironically, use the word otherwise often betrays one's own cognitive biases. As far as my endorsement, I don't think I could state my position any more clearly than I already have: "...maybe we should reconsider the wisdom in granting some small portion of our freedom to every other voter. 42% of Americans believe in ghosts..."
      - pessimizer 11y ago
        > You might want to reserve the use of the word "fallacy" for cases where an argument's logic does not follow. You have yet to make an argument that "representatives are theoretically there to guard against majority tyranny." If you had, it wouldn't be a just world fallacy.
        woodman 11y ago
        > You have yet to make an argument that... Correct, I have no interest in arguing that position. Any highschool graduate should immediately recognize "majority tyranny" and the political theory that it is connected to. If I had argued the virtue of representative democracy, it might have been biased by the just world fallacy, but I haven't - so it wasn't.

crdoconnor 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

yuhong 11y ago

I have been thinking about sortition for a while now.

dredmorbius 11y ago
As have I, with some level of favourability. It avoids the problems of campaign finance and low voter turnout, though not of tampering once in office. It adds the additional complication of legislators or executives who face little or no consequence for their actions. Not sure how it would work out ultimately.
- yuhong 11y ago
  If it works out properly, such legislators will be few enough that it will not be a major problem.

barry-cotter 11y ago

Switzerland disproves your argument.

blumkvist 11y ago
I can think of an exception to every rule. Also, Switzerland does not vote on every law with a referendum.

logingone 11y ago

Hmm... representatives... like the guy with two kitchens representing the homeless.