6 ms·

How do we fix this? Here's an idea - direct democracy where one can only vote on a topic that he/she has proven a minimal set of competence in. This could be i

How do we fix this? Here's an idea - direct democracy where one can only vote on a topic that he/she has proven a minimal set of competence in. This could be in the form of an exam on a topic (eg. economics) and/or logic test. The goal is that one should not be allowed to vote on something like climate change without knowing the science and data behind climate change. We need to acknowledge that the world is too complex for one person to know what's best for everyone on every single topic. Our system of representatives is totally outdated now that we have the internet. The beauty of direct democracy is that it removes the politicians. As long as there are politicians, there will always be corruption (eg. bribery). Ideally of course we'd have AI deciding our best course of action because humans are inherently biased, but that's further down the road.

hasenj 10y ago
The problem then is it gives too much power to few people. Especially in the case of AI.
- JDiculous 10y ago
  That's already are problem - power is concentrated in too few people (politicians) that are bought out by special interests. My direct democracy proposal expands that power to more people. You would have the power to vote on issues you're qualified to vote on rather than be beholden to your jack-of-all-trades representative who isn't the most qualified person to be making every decision.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
This is an extremely naive view. The sort of direct democracy you propose will most likely end up systematically discriminating against various groups. >As long as there are politicians, there will always be corruption Corruption is unlikely to go away with politicians, my guess is that it'll be there as long as human nature stays the same. >Ideally of course we'd have AI deciding our best course of action because humans are inherently biased AI can be as biased as the training data you feed it.
- JDiculous 10y ago
  What's your solution? I'm not claiming that this idea isn't without its flaws. Our current system is just such an inefficient laughingstock that we need to be seeking to improve it. Of course corruption will most likely persist under any system. The goal is to minimize it. The purpose of my proposal would be to make us make more informed policy decisions and incentive society and the media to focus on the issues.
chillacy 10y ago
> one should not be allowed to vote on something like climate change without knowing the science and data behind climate change Okay, so in states where the majority don't believe in climate change and evolution, you'll have them design tests to exclude voters who believe in evolution/climate change from voting? > This could be in the form of an exam on a topic (eg. economics) and/or logic test We already have a long history of stifling voting rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St... Some that stood out: * Poll tax prevented the poor from voting * At one point, religious tests prevented non-christians from voting * Literacy tests prevented blacks from voting
- JDiculous 10y ago
  The tests should be as objective and unbiased as possible. Yes one can never remove 100% of bias, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything at all. Remember, the whole point is to only have people qualified on a topic voting on said topic. So if you're voting on, say, the minimum wage, you should be familiar with the economic ramifications of it. You should be familiar with both the arguments and counter-arguments, and perhaps the general consensus of economists. If you're voting on trade policy, you should know the economic ramifications of a tariff. You should probably know the history of our positions on trade as well. If you're voting on some issue related to the national debt, you should know the difference between a country's debt and household debt. You should probably also know the role of the Fed as well and how it relates to this. The tests should be on a federal level because knowledge is universal. I'm really surprised that you and the other commenter implied that these tests would be on a state basis, and am curious as to what made you guys think that. > We already have a long history of stifling voting rights Poll taxes and religious tests are totally irrelevant. Literacy tests are sort of comparable to what I'm proposing, but I wouldn't advocate literacy tests because I don't care if you can't speak English if you know what you're talking about. Again, the main idea is that only people qualified on a specific issue should be voting on said issue. Or maybe I should propose it from this angle - we should institute direct democracy instead of our current republic system due to the reasons I outlined in my original post. Direct democracy however has some glaring flaws (mainly that most people are too stupid and emotional), and the solution I propose seeks to rectify the glaring problem with direct democracy.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
Corruption is one of those things that probably isn't going away any time soon: It isn't just a plague on politicians, but other areas of life as well. Businesses, etc. And unfortunately, you have to have someone produce those voting tests. How do you think they will get their positions? Do you think that the tests in states such as Utah will have the same sort of things as tests in California or Vermont? In your version of the system, the politicians have simply changed professions. Besides, there is actual need for politicians at this point (the AI still seems pretty far out). It is good to have someone to organize large infrastructure projects, good to have folks handle money and dividing it up, overseeing military operations - and it is good to have folks outside some of the industries asking questions and learning and trying different solutions. Corruption itself won't go away any time soon: The best we've been able to do is minimize it.
- JDiculous 10y ago
  I'm not saying that every decision must be handled by the entire voting populace, just that we need to embrace a more issue-focused mindset and acknowledge that the world is too complex for one person to know what's best on every policy stance. The test should be on the federal level (knowledge is universal), and wouldn't be designed by politicians. The tests should be very very basic and test a minimal level of understanding. For example you should be able to explain what the Fed does if you were voting on an issue pertaining to monetary policy. The questions would be as objective as possible. Yes we may still need politicians, but again the main idea is that we seek to have people only working on matters they're qualified for rather than some jack of all trades who's supposed to have the country's answers on everything. Military operations would be handled by military personnel, housing policy would be designed by experts in housing policy, energy and climate change issues would be designed by experts in those fields, foreign policy would be dictated by foreign policy experts, etc. Could this new system be a slippery slope? Are there other problems? Of course. But our current system is failing - just look at the presidential "debates", they're a complete laughingstock. We need to try to figure out how to improve this broken system rather than keep perpetuating the status quo. I'd love to hear your ideas on how we could improve things.

hasenj 10y ago

The problem then is it gives too much power to few people. Especially in the case of AI.

JDiculous 10y ago
That's already are problem - power is concentrated in too few people (politicians) that are bought out by special interests. My direct democracy proposal expands that power to more people. You would have the power to vote on issues you're qualified to vote on rather than be beholden to your jack-of-all-trades representative who isn't the most qualified person to be making every decision.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

This is an extremely naive view. The sort of direct democracy you propose will most likely end up systematically discriminating against various groups. >As long as there are politicians, there will always be corruption Corruption is unlikely to go away with politicians, my guess is that it'll be there as long as human nature stays the same. >Ideally of course we'd have AI deciding our best course of action because humans are inherently biased AI can be as biased as the training data you feed it.

JDiculous 10y ago
What's your solution? I'm not claiming that this idea isn't without its flaws. Our current system is just such an inefficient laughingstock that we need to be seeking to improve it. Of course corruption will most likely persist under any system. The goal is to minimize it. The purpose of my proposal would be to make us make more informed policy decisions and incentive society and the media to focus on the issues.

chillacy 10y ago

> one should not be allowed to vote on something like climate change without knowing the science and data behind climate change Okay, so in states where the majority don't believe in climate change and evolution, you'll have them design tests to exclude voters who believe in evolution/climate change from voting? > This could be in the form of an exam on a topic (eg. economics) and/or logic test We already have a long history of stifling voting rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St... Some that stood out: * Poll tax prevented the poor from voting * At one point, religious tests prevented non-christians from voting * Literacy tests prevented blacks from voting

JDiculous 10y ago
The tests should be as objective and unbiased as possible. Yes one can never remove 100% of bias, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything at all. Remember, the whole point is to only have people qualified on a topic voting on said topic. So if you're voting on, say, the minimum wage, you should be familiar with the economic ramifications of it. You should be familiar with both the arguments and counter-arguments, and perhaps the general consensus of economists. If you're voting on trade policy, you should know the economic ramifications of a tariff. You should probably know the history of our positions on trade as well. If you're voting on some issue related to the national debt, you should know the difference between a country's debt and household debt. You should probably also know the role of the Fed as well and how it relates to this. The tests should be on a federal level because knowledge is universal. I'm really surprised that you and the other commenter implied that these tests would be on a state basis, and am curious as to what made you guys think that. > We already have a long history of stifling voting rights Poll taxes and religious tests are totally irrelevant. Literacy tests are sort of comparable to what I'm proposing, but I wouldn't advocate literacy tests because I don't care if you can't speak English if you know what you're talking about. Again, the main idea is that only people qualified on a specific issue should be voting on said issue. Or maybe I should propose it from this angle - we should institute direct democracy instead of our current republic system due to the reasons I outlined in my original post. Direct democracy however has some glaring flaws (mainly that most people are too stupid and emotional), and the solution I propose seeks to rectify the glaring problem with direct democracy.

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

Corruption is one of those things that probably isn't going away any time soon: It isn't just a plague on politicians, but other areas of life as well. Businesses, etc. And unfortunately, you have to have someone produce those voting tests. How do you think they will get their positions? Do you think that the tests in states such as Utah will have the same sort of things as tests in California or Vermont? In your version of the system, the politicians have simply changed professions. Besides, there is actual need for politicians at this point (the AI still seems pretty far out). It is good to have someone to organize large infrastructure projects, good to have folks handle money and dividing it up, overseeing military operations - and it is good to have folks outside some of the industries asking questions and learning and trying different solutions. Corruption itself won't go away any time soon: The best we've been able to do is minimize it.

JDiculous 10y ago
I'm not saying that every decision must be handled by the entire voting populace, just that we need to embrace a more issue-focused mindset and acknowledge that the world is too complex for one person to know what's best on every policy stance. The test should be on the federal level (knowledge is universal), and wouldn't be designed by politicians. The tests should be very very basic and test a minimal level of understanding. For example you should be able to explain what the Fed does if you were voting on an issue pertaining to monetary policy. The questions would be as objective as possible. Yes we may still need politicians, but again the main idea is that we seek to have people only working on matters they're qualified for rather than some jack of all trades who's supposed to have the country's answers on everything. Military operations would be handled by military personnel, housing policy would be designed by experts in housing policy, energy and climate change issues would be designed by experts in those fields, foreign policy would be dictated by foreign policy experts, etc. Could this new system be a slippery slope? Are there other problems? Of course. But our current system is failing - just look at the presidential "debates", they're a complete laughingstock. We need to try to figure out how to improve this broken system rather than keep perpetuating the status quo. I'd love to hear your ideas on how we could improve things.