3 ms·

Is that actually a good thing though? (I'm honestly not sure.) I would think that as the response time becomes shorter and shorter, the system starts being mor

Is that actually a good thing though? (I'm honestly not sure.) I would think that as the response time becomes shorter and shorter, the system starts being more and more volatile. One of the benefits of the current system is its stability. It's unfortunate (depending on your point of view) that certain causes don't move faster, but at the same time it also prevents bad ideas from moving fast. Not only that, but as the involvement is more and more frequent, it might have the effect of numbing people more. Right now national elections are a big deal because they are so rare, so it adds a bit of "moral weight" to the whole process. If they are as easy as pulling out your phone and tapping a button from your couch, is that actually going to result in more "correct" (in terms of long-term viability) decisions being made? These things might not actually matter though, because they might have equal and opposite benefits that balance things out. I'm sure many people smarter than me have debated this topic from both sides. If anyone knows of any articles/papers on these ideas I'd love to read them!

barnacs 10y ago
Initially it would probably be a mess. But I also think more involvement is the only way to build a more responsible, informed, interested citizenry. People need to feel that they can affect things, that they have a say in policies. I think a lot of people are indifferent because it doesn't seem to matter whether they vote for the red or blue team every few years, <insert favorite cause> doesn't seem to be improving. If they had a slider to set their preferred allocation of public spending and they could vote on specific proposals about <their favorite cause>, they would probably be more inclined to participate and do so in a more responsible manner. You can't force people to participate though. Maybe you could optionally delegate your vote, and then it would be effectively the same level of involvement as with the current hands-off representative system. But at least you could still withdraw or reassign the voting power at any time.
- noobermin 10y ago
  One of the ways to help that feeling is to get people more involved in local government. Local government has a lot more of an impact on them and they have much more power in such matters.

barnacs 10y ago

Initially it would probably be a mess. But I also think more involvement is the only way to build a more responsible, informed, interested citizenry. People need to feel that they can affect things, that they have a say in policies. I think a lot of people are indifferent because it doesn't seem to matter whether they vote for the red or blue team every few years, <insert favorite cause> doesn't seem to be improving. If they had a slider to set their preferred allocation of public spending and they could vote on specific proposals about <their favorite cause>, they would probably be more inclined to participate and do so in a more responsible manner. You can't force people to participate though. Maybe you could optionally delegate your vote, and then it would be effectively the same level of involvement as with the current hands-off representative system. But at least you could still withdraw or reassign the voting power at any time.

noobermin 10y ago
One of the ways to help that feeling is to get people more involved in local government. Local government has a lot more of an impact on them and they have much more power in such matters.