4 ms·

Although these pranks are funny they highlight a something very serious - the failure case of direct democracy. When minor issues come up for vote not everyone

Although these pranks are funny they highlight a something very serious - the failure case of direct democracy. When minor issues come up for vote not everyone cares. The people who do care enough to vote can easily be trolls. As an example, imagine that a vote comes up for raising tolls from $1 to $2 on little used street. It's one of 1000 votes a month in a direct democracy. There's little chance of getting attention if you get a bunch of people together to vote "no" but what if you get a bunch of people together to vote "no" on all odd numbered streets? A large number of contests with low voter interest, plus the potential for publicity is fertile ground for trolling.

slazaro 11y ago
I always thought that a direct democracy where you can by default delegate your vote to one of the elected politicians, but you override whenever you want, would be the best of both worlds (representative democracy and direct democracy). That wouldn't necessarily work on this kind of votes (names for stuff), but I think it would work well on the regular issues that politicians make decisions about.
- faitswulff 11y ago
  Google has been testing just such a form of governing: http://www.tdcommons.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=dpubs_series http://www.tdcommons.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&co...
- SpeakMouthWords 11y ago
  I went to the Pirate Party conference in the UK a few years ago. This method of decision making was proposed, but issue that was recognised was that of absenteeism. What happens when Alice gives her vote to Bob, but then gets disillusioned with the entire system and disengages without de-registering her delegation. Any liquid democracy system needs a strong way of differentiating between genuine delegation and disinterest, in order to stop legacy power accruals.
  - AlgorithmicTime 11y ago
    Couldn't the delegation have a time-out, such that Alice must renew her commitment to delegate her vote to Bob every 6 months or whatever we decide the optimal period is?
BlackFly 11y ago
I would say this highlights a different problem of democracy: Everyone is aware of the fact that even if their candidate wins, someone else will have the final say in the matter. Therefore, no one takes the election seriously. I myself feel confident that a large proportion of people voting Boatey McBoatface believe that they will not actually name the ship that.
LesZedCB 11y ago
Your conclusion assumes that direct democracy tends to affect things that have little real impact on the humans voting on them. People don't take voting seriously because voting feels less like casting a vote, and more like buying a raffle ticket. "Enter for a chance for your vote to be taken seriously." However, in small communities and towns, I think they often vote on things that are important to them and end up taking it seriously, and feel better off for having a say in it. Honestly, how can people picking a funny name for a boat seriously make you come to that conclusion about direct democracy? I think rather, you already had that conclusion, and found a good anecdote to float your opinion on.
- golemotron 11y ago
  > Honestly, how can people picking a funny name for a boat seriously make you come to that conclusion about direct democracy? I think rather, you already had that conclusion, and found a good anecdote to float your opinion on. Nope. The boat made me think of other situations.
noja 11y ago
Direct democracy doesn't mean democratic micromanagement of everything.
rtkwe 11y ago
Yeah direct democracy improves some cases but has 2 cases off the top of my head that it fails for 1) small issues few people will care to vote for and 2) large complex issues. In the case of (2) it makes the issue of in informed lawmakers making laws based on partial biased information even worse by vastly increasing the number of people who 1) have to care to get educated in the first place and 2) have to find good sources to get their education from.
simonh 11y ago
Another problem with direct democracy is consistency. In one vote the people will overwhelmingly support a constitutionally mandated limit on taxation. Then in the next vote they will overwhelmingly vote in mandatory ring fenced high spending on health care, education, etc, etc with automatic inflation-busting increases every year. This is why you need a government with the power to govern, because someone has to be able to make the trade offs between different and changing demands and priorities that one-off, single-issue referenda can't make.

slazaro 11y ago

I always thought that a direct democracy where you can by default delegate your vote to one of the elected politicians, but you override whenever you want, would be the best of both worlds (representative democracy and direct democracy). That wouldn't necessarily work on this kind of votes (names for stuff), but I think it would work well on the regular issues that politicians make decisions about.

faitswulff 11y ago
Google has been testing just such a form of governing: http://www.tdcommons.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=dpubs_series http://www.tdcommons.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&co...
SpeakMouthWords 11y ago
I went to the Pirate Party conference in the UK a few years ago. This method of decision making was proposed, but issue that was recognised was that of absenteeism. What happens when Alice gives her vote to Bob, but then gets disillusioned with the entire system and disengages without de-registering her delegation. Any liquid democracy system needs a strong way of differentiating between genuine delegation and disinterest, in order to stop legacy power accruals.
- AlgorithmicTime 11y ago
  Couldn't the delegation have a time-out, such that Alice must renew her commitment to delegate her vote to Bob every 6 months or whatever we decide the optimal period is?

BlackFly 11y ago

I would say this highlights a different problem of democracy: Everyone is aware of the fact that even if their candidate wins, someone else will have the final say in the matter. Therefore, no one takes the election seriously. I myself feel confident that a large proportion of people voting Boatey McBoatface believe that they will not actually name the ship that.

LesZedCB 11y ago

Your conclusion assumes that direct democracy tends to affect things that have little real impact on the humans voting on them. People don't take voting seriously because voting feels less like casting a vote, and more like buying a raffle ticket. "Enter for a chance for your vote to be taken seriously." However, in small communities and towns, I think they often vote on things that are important to them and end up taking it seriously, and feel better off for having a say in it. Honestly, how can people picking a funny name for a boat seriously make you come to that conclusion about direct democracy? I think rather, you already had that conclusion, and found a good anecdote to float your opinion on.

golemotron 11y ago
> Honestly, how can people picking a funny name for a boat seriously make you come to that conclusion about direct democracy? I think rather, you already had that conclusion, and found a good anecdote to float your opinion on. Nope. The boat made me think of other situations.

noja 11y ago

Direct democracy doesn't mean democratic micromanagement of everything.

rtkwe 11y ago

Yeah direct democracy improves some cases but has 2 cases off the top of my head that it fails for 1) small issues few people will care to vote for and 2) large complex issues. In the case of (2) it makes the issue of in informed lawmakers making laws based on partial biased information even worse by vastly increasing the number of people who 1) have to care to get educated in the first place and 2) have to find good sources to get their education from.

simonh 11y ago

Another problem with direct democracy is consistency. In one vote the people will overwhelmingly support a constitutionally mandated limit on taxation. Then in the next vote they will overwhelmingly vote in mandatory ring fenced high spending on health care, education, etc, etc with automatic inflation-busting increases every year. This is why you need a government with the power to govern, because someone has to be able to make the trade offs between different and changing demands and priorities that one-off, single-issue referenda can't make.