4 ms·

Sorry to burst your bubble but direct democracy doesn't work everywhere by default.

by tdkl 10y ago

_nalply 10y ago
And why do you think so?
- tdkl 10y ago
  The majority of population isn't in place to make honest, rational choices unaffected by feelings, culture, religion (I wanted to state educated, but education doesn't necessarily mean that the choice would be on the rational side) and media influence.
  - _nalply 10y ago
    And do you think Switzerland is different?
    - tdkl 10y ago
      No I don't need to, they've shown they're different. Can I turn the question around : do you think this would work in USA, India and Brazil (random countries, nothing specific)?
      - herbst 10y ago
        I honestly think e-democracy would work everywhere after a few years of total chaos.
    - _nalply 10y ago
      This is controversial, but I think any nation can have direct democracy adapted to the nation's culture. It's just that the Swiss have more than a hundred years experience with direct democracy and have learnt for the most part to be diligent in their decisions.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >The majority of population isn't in place to make honest, rational choices unaffected by feelings, culture, religion In a real democracy, they're not supposed to either. If their culture, religion, etc is important to them, it should definitely affect their decisions, and that's the democratic way. Same for their feelings. Democracy is not about voting what's "right" (who is to say? you?) but about getting what the majority wants. And there's nothing unhonest about letting culture, religion and feelings affecting your vote. What you describe as your ideal democracy where people only make "rational choices" is rather the old republican idea of sages who know better than the people (like the "founding fathers" in the US) and encode some norms forever. "Rational" used in this sense, is totally normative -- "what I think is rational" or "what those experts say it rational and good for you", and in the end undemocratic.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  I think it's true-ish in the same way that representative democracy doesn't work everywhere either. Many post-communist countries like Russia are an easy example. Obviously the working of a system depends on the social contract being considered legitimate by the population. Concretely this means that for direct democracy to 'work' you'll need a population that has experience and a self-confidence to be the ones that turn up and vote about a bunch of issues they'll need to understand. That's something that can't be implemented overnight. But similarly even representative democracy can't be implemented overnight. That's the dynamic nature of the social contract. Something I admire about the Swiss btw.
elcapitan 10y ago
There's no bubble. I agree with you. That's why I am in favor of small countries or at least largely federal structures. And obviously against large undemocratic bureaucratic constructs like the European Union.

Sorry to burst your bubble but direct democracy doesn't work everywhere by default.

by tdkl 10y ago

Sorry to burst your bubble but direct democracy doesn't work everywhere by default.

_nalply 10y ago

And why do you think so?

tdkl 10y ago
The majority of population isn't in place to make honest, rational choices unaffected by feelings, culture, religion (I wanted to state educated, but education doesn't necessarily mean that the choice would be on the rational side) and media influence.
- _nalply 10y ago
  And do you think Switzerland is different?
  - tdkl 10y ago
    No I don't need to, they've shown they're different. Can I turn the question around : do you think this would work in USA, India and Brazil (random countries, nothing specific)?
    - herbst 10y ago
      I honestly think e-democracy would work everywhere after a few years of total chaos.
  - _nalply 10y ago
    This is controversial, but I think any nation can have direct democracy adapted to the nation's culture. It's just that the Swiss have more than a hundred years experience with direct democracy and have learnt for the most part to be diligent in their decisions.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >The majority of population isn't in place to make honest, rational choices unaffected by feelings, culture, religion In a real democracy, they're not supposed to either. If their culture, religion, etc is important to them, it should definitely affect their decisions, and that's the democratic way. Same for their feelings. Democracy is not about voting what's "right" (who is to say? you?) but about getting what the majority wants. And there's nothing unhonest about letting culture, religion and feelings affecting your vote. What you describe as your ideal democracy where people only make "rational choices" is rather the old republican idea of sages who know better than the people (like the "founding fathers" in the US) and encode some norms forever. "Rational" used in this sense, is totally normative -- "what I think is rational" or "what those experts say it rational and good for you", and in the end undemocratic.
elcapitan 10y ago
I think it's true-ish in the same way that representative democracy doesn't work everywhere either. Many post-communist countries like Russia are an easy example. Obviously the working of a system depends on the social contract being considered legitimate by the population. Concretely this means that for direct democracy to 'work' you'll need a population that has experience and a self-confidence to be the ones that turn up and vote about a bunch of issues they'll need to understand. That's something that can't be implemented overnight. But similarly even representative democracy can't be implemented overnight. That's the dynamic nature of the social contract. Something I admire about the Swiss btw.

elcapitan 10y ago

There's no bubble. I agree with you. That's why I am in favor of small countries or at least largely federal structures. And obviously against large undemocratic bureaucratic constructs like the European Union.