3 ms·

This is the exact reason why I think it might be even better to vote for 'Where should our resources go to?'. For example rank the following subjects: * Hea

by pasta 10y ago

This is the exact reason why I think it might be even better to vote for 'Where should our resources go to?'. For example rank the following subjects: * Health care * Security * Climate Because now you might agree with Trump except for his climate policy. With the current system it's very hard to express this.

hyperhopper 10y ago
Because this is not what our system of government is meant to express. We are not a democracy: we are a democratic republic. Many people forget this. The intended way for us to make our voices heard is to democratically select somebody to represent our wants and needs accurately. However, with the current state of lobbying, career politicians, and how much the world has changed since this system was put into place, whether this is still a valid idea is up in the air...
- talmand 10y ago
  Nothing has changed, that was the way it was when the system was implemented. I would even say if you break things down to people's wants and needs, the world hasn't even changed that much.
zo1 10y ago
I've suggested something similar numerous times. Along the lines of what the Humble Indie Bundle does. That way, people can decide what has priority over what, and how much to allocate to it. Unfortunately, this'll open up a can of worms for the state and its proponents. It does not sit well with them that people can "via taxes" influence what gets funded or defunded. E.g. Rich people could reduce their "welfare group" contribution to 0.1% of their taxes, and bump up say infrastructure to 99.9%.
- toyg 10y ago
  > Rich people could reduce their "welfare group" contribution to 0.1% of their taxes, and bump up say infrastructure to 99.9% If it happened, we would quickly see "infrastructure" legally redefined in the loosest possible way (e.g. hospitals would become infrastructure, homeless shelters would become infrastructure, tax-processing offices would become "infrastructure'... and these things need people to work so their salaries would also be classed as "infrastructure", etc etc). You can't effectively implement technical solutions to political problems. Elites will do what elites want to do, unless they are politically pressured every day not to do it. Technicalities won't stop them.

by pasta 10y ago

hyperhopper 10y ago

Because this is not what our system of government is meant to express. We are not a democracy: we are a democratic republic. Many people forget this. The intended way for us to make our voices heard is to democratically select somebody to represent our wants and needs accurately. However, with the current state of lobbying, career politicians, and how much the world has changed since this system was put into place, whether this is still a valid idea is up in the air...

talmand 10y ago
Nothing has changed, that was the way it was when the system was implemented. I would even say if you break things down to people's wants and needs, the world hasn't even changed that much.

zo1 10y ago

I've suggested something similar numerous times. Along the lines of what the Humble Indie Bundle does. That way, people can decide what has priority over what, and how much to allocate to it. Unfortunately, this'll open up a can of worms for the state and its proponents. It does not sit well with them that people can "via taxes" influence what gets funded or defunded. E.g. Rich people could reduce their "welfare group" contribution to 0.1% of their taxes, and bump up say infrastructure to 99.9%.

toyg 10y ago
> Rich people could reduce their "welfare group" contribution to 0.1% of their taxes, and bump up say infrastructure to 99.9% If it happened, we would quickly see "infrastructure" legally redefined in the loosest possible way (e.g. hospitals would become infrastructure, homeless shelters would become infrastructure, tax-processing offices would become "infrastructure'... and these things need people to work so their salaries would also be classed as "infrastructure", etc etc). You can't effectively implement technical solutions to political problems. Elites will do what elites want to do, unless they are politically pressured every day not to do it. Technicalities won't stop them.