3 ms·
> make good decisions on a scale of several years I work with government often. I am often outside begging to be given access to help my community with one civ
by patcon 10y ago
> make good decisions on a scale of several years
I work with government often. I am often outside begging to be given access to help my community with one civic project or another. Interactions that take hours in open source communities, take months to coordinate with City staff.
I'm the last one to advocate taking the brakes off the car, but there are many many many parts of government where decisions require several years only because everything takes years to do. I think there is a perspective, if you step back to imagine this world, where we as citizens can participate and make the turn-around quicker. Not everywhere. Many government functions require care and caution and sober second/third/fourth thoughts.
But many of these actions need not take years, if we could re-imagine something better. And right now, the lifeblood of government runs like molasses, not because each slow process has been intentionally made slow, but because the processes and practices and hierarchies are structurally slow at their core. That's not clever slowness. That's a calcifying fossil.
I personally think giving citizens more decision-making access will keep civil servants on their toes, keep them learning, and speed up the cycle time in many needlessly slow areas of government.
- jgmjgm 10y agoI see your point and often share your frustration. However, none of what you said necessitates electronic voting. In fact, it may be detrimental to the democratic process at the local level. A couple thoughts: (i) First, taking time to do something means that people that don't agree get a chance to discuss and possibly mobilize against it. (ii) More subtly, forcing people to vote between options means that the options themselves have already been codified. This process of choosing what to choose between is fundamental to local governance. A somewhat absurd example but imagine being given the choice between reducing the tax rate on the wealthiest people to 20%, 15% or 5%. Sure, we can vote on that but it doesn't seem very democratic...