5 ms·

I would not want to live in any country where elections are run on the basis of cost.

Quarrelsome 10y ago
I wouldn't want to live in a world where people's imaginations were bound by their current reality. I don't make this argument as a "right", its a what if. AND if they're cheap you can run em all the time, that's interesting isn't it?
- lostboys67 10y ago
  Interesting in the Chinese way :-(
  - Quarrelsome 10y ago
    well yea, you might not want to live there.....
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  No, I think being able to run more elections is dangerous, because there are a lot of reasons republicanism works better than direct democracy at scale, but people are self-entitled idiots and will want to weigh in on things they have no idea about or useful input on because they're important.
  - Quarrelsome 10y ago
    There are many forms of democracy and to act as if we've got it all figured out today and have the best system is potentially another form of being self-entitled and silly. Our system very much "sucks least".
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      We have plenty of evidence that governing by asking a large, diverse population over and over about local issues just leads to exactly the sort of tragedy-of-the-commons that government is meant to reign in. Having too many votes simply doesnt work, because the voters can't put in the required effort per vote to decide on a prudent course of action. The only reason to switch off paper ballots is of you're running so many elections you're just influence laundering by pretending to be democratic when you're not.
  - elif 10y ago
    Yes there are theoretical justifications for a republic over a democracy. But in modern practice, do you believe that the average person is more of a "self-entitled idiot" than the corporate lobbyists writing our laws?
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      Yes. Not self-entitled part, but the idiot (on a particular topic) part. I think lobbyists could sell the public on things they could never sell senators on. Now lobbying is a problem, but the solution should be in our picking and regulatory mechanisms, not in letting them lobby the public directly.
  - dane-pgp 10y ago
    You seem to suggest that the complement of "direct democracy" is "republicanism", rather than "representative democracy". "Republicanism" is the opposite of "Monarchism", and it is possible for a republic to be a direct or representative democracy (or anti-democratic). You're not one of those people who think "America isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic" are you? I see that meme expressed online a lot, and it's really unnerving that people believe that. Also, might I infer that your support of "republicanism" over "democracy" is because you support the Republican party in the US and have been taught to fear and loath anything which starts with the string "Democra"? > "people are self-entitled idiots" Actually, that answers my question, thanks.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      Republic: a form of government where elected officials exercise power on behalf of the public. I would argue that kind of by definition, a republic is a representative democracy, though it's possible there are representative democratic governments that aren't republics. The US is a republic, which is a form of representative democracy -- much like Im a mammal and a eukaryote. The end of your comment of course is just a non-sense ad hominem. I don't support the Republican party, but your need to other and slander people you don't agree with is troubling. And yes, people are self-entitled idiots. You, me, everyone else. That's why, even with it as our full time job, a support staff, and the genuine motivation to make a difference, we couldn't keep up with the actual complexity of every vote. Expecting the average person to do what a professional with staff can't is ludicrous! Now, there are lots of ways we could use technology to better harness the public for decision making, but having them vote on everything would just be a disaster.
      - dane-pgp 10y ago
        Thank you for your clarification and I apologise if I over-reacted. It felt like you were excluding yourself from the "self-entitled idiots" designation, which would itself be an attempt to "other and slander people". For what it's worth, I think you are under-estimating yourself if you describe yourself as simply a self-entitled idiot, but certainly we all have a bit of that in us.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where people's imaginations were bound by their current reality. I don't make this argument as a "right", its a what if. AND if they're cheap you can run em all the time, that's interesting isn't it?

lostboys67 10y ago
Interesting in the Chinese way :-(
- Quarrelsome 10y ago
  well yea, you might not want to live there.....
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
No, I think being able to run more elections is dangerous, because there are a lot of reasons republicanism works better than direct democracy at scale, but people are self-entitled idiots and will want to weigh in on things they have no idea about or useful input on because they're important.
- Quarrelsome 10y ago
  There are many forms of democracy and to act as if we've got it all figured out today and have the best system is potentially another form of being self-entitled and silly. Our system very much "sucks least".
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    We have plenty of evidence that governing by asking a large, diverse population over and over about local issues just leads to exactly the sort of tragedy-of-the-commons that government is meant to reign in. Having too many votes simply doesnt work, because the voters can't put in the required effort per vote to decide on a prudent course of action. The only reason to switch off paper ballots is of you're running so many elections you're just influence laundering by pretending to be democratic when you're not.
- elif 10y ago
  Yes there are theoretical justifications for a republic over a democracy. But in modern practice, do you believe that the average person is more of a "self-entitled idiot" than the corporate lobbyists writing our laws?
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Yes. Not self-entitled part, but the idiot (on a particular topic) part. I think lobbyists could sell the public on things they could never sell senators on. Now lobbying is a problem, but the solution should be in our picking and regulatory mechanisms, not in letting them lobby the public directly.
- dane-pgp 10y ago
  You seem to suggest that the complement of "direct democracy" is "republicanism", rather than "representative democracy". "Republicanism" is the opposite of "Monarchism", and it is possible for a republic to be a direct or representative democracy (or anti-democratic). You're not one of those people who think "America isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic" are you? I see that meme expressed online a lot, and it's really unnerving that people believe that. Also, might I infer that your support of "republicanism" over "democracy" is because you support the Republican party in the US and have been taught to fear and loath anything which starts with the string "Democra"? > "people are self-entitled idiots" Actually, that answers my question, thanks.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Republic: a form of government where elected officials exercise power on behalf of the public. I would argue that kind of by definition, a republic is a representative democracy, though it's possible there are representative democratic governments that aren't republics. The US is a republic, which is a form of representative democracy -- much like Im a mammal and a eukaryote. The end of your comment of course is just a non-sense ad hominem. I don't support the Republican party, but your need to other and slander people you don't agree with is troubling. And yes, people are self-entitled idiots. You, me, everyone else. That's why, even with it as our full time job, a support staff, and the genuine motivation to make a difference, we couldn't keep up with the actual complexity of every vote. Expecting the average person to do what a professional with staff can't is ludicrous! Now, there are lots of ways we could use technology to better harness the public for decision making, but having them vote on everything would just be a disaster.
    - dane-pgp 10y ago
      Thank you for your clarification and I apologise if I over-reacted. It felt like you were excluding yourself from the "self-entitled idiots" designation, which would itself be an attempt to "other and slander people". For what it's worth, I think you are under-estimating yourself if you describe yourself as simply a self-entitled idiot, but certainly we all have a bit of that in us.