6 ms·

The problem is with the idea of representative democracy at all. If the electorate is smart enough to figure out that Candidate A is _both_ correct on a range

The problem is with the idea of representative democracy at all. If the electorate is smart enough to figure out that Candidate A is _both_ correct on a range of policy matters _and_ of a trustworthy nature, then why are they not smart enough to decide directly on said policy matters? Governments should be composed solely of civil servants drawn from academia and other fields in which they need to prove their knowledge and competence. Their job would be to advise on and implement the policy goals chosen by ballot measures. Figuring out some way to allow direct ballot/referendum securely and efficiently would be more welcome than re-jigging the USA to bring it into line with one of the other countries that has an elite class shuffling between ruling in the interests of businesses and remunerating themselves as leaders of those businesses.

orthecreedence 9y ago
Just like I hire a person to fix my car, or hire a person to fly the planes I sometimes travel on, we hire people to handle running the country for us. It's an abstraction of labor. I really don't want to be bothered with every little tiny decision about budget or foreign policy. That said, people in the US are so busy that they don't have any time at all to even make informed decisions on who to elect to run the city/state/country for them. This is a problem...people need to work less, but good luck solving that one with a crippled economy and enormous wealth disparities. In principle, I agree with you...we have the technology to allow referendum voting, and it would certainly make for a more representative government. However, I think time, understanding, and human nature are large barriers. Also, don't think that just because people can vote directly means they won't be easily swayed by ruling-class propaganda. A good example is when cities try to install their own fiber infrastructure and Comcast rolls in and convinces everyone it's somehow communism. That doesn't go away just because people have a more direct rule. I think a representative republic still makes sense for our day and age. Gerrymandering is a huge issue and should be dealt with...along with lobbying and other forms of (very obvious) corporate intervention in our republic.
- 75dvtwin 9y ago
  I think allowing to specify what percent of your tax goes into what 'pre-canned' list of causes, would allow a way for folks to influence the politicians outside of the 'election process', and, without, full blown on-line-referendum surveys for all the issues. Clearly, the above would bias some of the decision making power away from low-income populous, however this can be addressed by some form of weighting and thresholds.
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    The problem is, I, and the typical taxpayer, is not qualified to make an informed decision about budget allocations. When I want to know where to spend my tax dollar, It is not sufficient to know how I value the causes, but rather how I value them relative to their existing budget allocations, and how useful additional money would be to them. For instance, I may value national defense and our military in the abstract. However, if I look at the actual budget, think we overspend and that the marginal value of an additional dollar is small because of diminishing returns. In contrast, I am sure that there are government programs that provide me great benefit but that I do not know or think about. This proposal would require every government cause to engage in large scale marketing, which is wastefully expensive, and would likely result in inefficient allocations. >Clearly, the above would bias some of the decision making power away from low-income populous, however this can be addressed by some form of weighting and thresholds. We could avoid this problem entirely by giving every voter an equal slice of the government budget to allocate.
    - 75dvtwin 9y ago
      I think, my recommendation, would create more informed voter base. Mostly because lobbyist would have to reach out to the voters, rather than to the politicians. Additionally, perhaps, letting a voter to 'forego' his/her right for the allocation could be allowed. This way you can choose to forego the right, while others would keep it.
      - pyroinferno 9y ago
        So we're opening a whole new floodgate of lobbyist propaganda?
- frabbit 9y ago
  > Just like I hire a person to fix my car, or hire a > person to fly the planes I sometimes travel on, we > hire people to handle running the country for us. It's > an abstraction of labor. I really don't want to be > bothered with every little tiny decision about budget > or foreign policy. Except you're not getting a choice about any details, large or small. In actuality it is entirely unclear what you are getting to choose at all apart from which person you imagine, might, against hope, history and evidence maybe do something you agree with. I am proposing that fundamental policy matters: taxation, foreign wars, climate change accords, trade deals be dealt with directly. The smaller details can be handled by experts in order to free up our time to watch football games, catch up on soap operas and paint our nails.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >Just like I hire a person to fix my car, or hire a person to fly the planes I sometimes travel on, we hire people to handle running the country for us. This could easily still be done with referendum voting, by allowing people to appoint SMEs as proxies for relevant issues. >That said, people in the US are so busy that they don't have any time at all to even make informed decisions Neither does congress, because most of their time is spent begging for money and selling legislation. So much so that they regularly pass bills that was neither authored by a congressman nor read by many of those who voted for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act
ouid 9y ago
>_both_ correct on a range of policy matters _and_ of a trustworthy nature I think representative democracy only needs to do the second one to be successful.
- frabbit 9y ago
  I think the idea that any of us are able to judge the trustworthiness of a politician is dubious on its face. When we add in the cliched and repetitive history of broken campaign promises then it becomes laughable.
clarkmoody 9y ago
New ballot initiative: Impose a new wealth tax on anyone in the top 1% of income earners. Redistribute the money directly to the people. > The problem is with the idea of representative democracy at all. The real problem is faith in democracy itself. It's not about a smart electorate or a technocratic bureaucracy. It's about voting being inherently adversarial, with a voting majority (population minority) always on the offensive against the rest of the people. Many vote in defense of their property against their neighbors who would take it through the ballot box. Look at the 2016 US election. How many actually voted for either candidate, rather than against the other one? The only hope for the long-term survival of America is to decentralize power into smaller and smaller self-governing units, with free movement of people and property between those units. We are a union of states, after all (not that they teach republicanism in schools).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 9y ago
  There are two moral alternatives: either you impose the yoke of government on people, then give them majoritarian control over government, or you have no government. The latter sucks for people who make up the 1% now, because it's government that keeps the merchant/capitalist/industrial class from being dominated by the warrior class.
- fivestar 9y ago
  Didn't Venezuela do that? Enjoy the collapse while watching your family starve and fighting the army with sticks and rocks. No thanks.

orthecreedence 9y ago

Just like I hire a person to fix my car, or hire a person to fly the planes I sometimes travel on, we hire people to handle running the country for us. It's an abstraction of labor. I really don't want to be bothered with every little tiny decision about budget or foreign policy. That said, people in the US are so busy that they don't have any time at all to even make informed decisions on who to elect to run the city/state/country for them. This is a problem...people need to work less, but good luck solving that one with a crippled economy and enormous wealth disparities. In principle, I agree with you...we have the technology to allow referendum voting, and it would certainly make for a more representative government. However, I think time, understanding, and human nature are large barriers. Also, don't think that just because people can vote directly means they won't be easily swayed by ruling-class propaganda. A good example is when cities try to install their own fiber infrastructure and Comcast rolls in and convinces everyone it's somehow communism. That doesn't go away just because people have a more direct rule. I think a representative republic still makes sense for our day and age. Gerrymandering is a huge issue and should be dealt with...along with lobbying and other forms of (very obvious) corporate intervention in our republic.

75dvtwin 9y ago
I think allowing to specify what percent of your tax goes into what 'pre-canned' list of causes, would allow a way for folks to influence the politicians outside of the 'election process', and, without, full blown on-line-referendum surveys for all the issues. Clearly, the above would bias some of the decision making power away from low-income populous, however this can be addressed by some form of weighting and thresholds.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  The problem is, I, and the typical taxpayer, is not qualified to make an informed decision about budget allocations. When I want to know where to spend my tax dollar, It is not sufficient to know how I value the causes, but rather how I value them relative to their existing budget allocations, and how useful additional money would be to them. For instance, I may value national defense and our military in the abstract. However, if I look at the actual budget, think we overspend and that the marginal value of an additional dollar is small because of diminishing returns. In contrast, I am sure that there are government programs that provide me great benefit but that I do not know or think about. This proposal would require every government cause to engage in large scale marketing, which is wastefully expensive, and would likely result in inefficient allocations. >Clearly, the above would bias some of the decision making power away from low-income populous, however this can be addressed by some form of weighting and thresholds. We could avoid this problem entirely by giving every voter an equal slice of the government budget to allocate.
  - 75dvtwin 9y ago
    I think, my recommendation, would create more informed voter base. Mostly because lobbyist would have to reach out to the voters, rather than to the politicians. Additionally, perhaps, letting a voter to 'forego' his/her right for the allocation could be allowed. This way you can choose to forego the right, while others would keep it.
    - pyroinferno 9y ago
      So we're opening a whole new floodgate of lobbyist propaganda?
frabbit 9y ago
> Just like I hire a person to fix my car, or hire a > person to fly the planes I sometimes travel on, we > hire people to handle running the country for us. It's > an abstraction of labor. I really don't want to be > bothered with every little tiny decision about budget > or foreign policy. Except you're not getting a choice about any details, large or small. In actuality it is entirely unclear what you are getting to choose at all apart from which person you imagine, might, against hope, history and evidence maybe do something you agree with. I am proposing that fundamental policy matters: taxation, foreign wars, climate change accords, trade deals be dealt with directly. The smaller details can be handled by experts in order to free up our time to watch football games, catch up on soap operas and paint our nails.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>Just like I hire a person to fix my car, or hire a person to fly the planes I sometimes travel on, we hire people to handle running the country for us. This could easily still be done with referendum voting, by allowing people to appoint SMEs as proxies for relevant issues. >That said, people in the US are so busy that they don't have any time at all to even make informed decisions Neither does congress, because most of their time is spent begging for money and selling legislation. So much so that they regularly pass bills that was neither authored by a congressman nor read by many of those who voted for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_the_Bills_Act

ouid 9y ago

>_both_ correct on a range of policy matters _and_ of a trustworthy nature I think representative democracy only needs to do the second one to be successful.

frabbit 9y ago
I think the idea that any of us are able to judge the trustworthiness of a politician is dubious on its face. When we add in the cliched and repetitive history of broken campaign promises then it becomes laughable.

clarkmoody 9y ago

New ballot initiative: Impose a new wealth tax on anyone in the top 1% of income earners. Redistribute the money directly to the people. > The problem is with the idea of representative democracy at all. The real problem is faith in democracy itself. It's not about a smart electorate or a technocratic bureaucracy. It's about voting being inherently adversarial, with a voting majority (population minority) always on the offensive against the rest of the people. Many vote in defense of their property against their neighbors who would take it through the ballot box. Look at the 2016 US election. How many actually voted for either candidate, rather than against the other one? The only hope for the long-term survival of America is to decentralize power into smaller and smaller self-governing units, with free movement of people and property between those units. We are a union of states, after all (not that they teach republicanism in schools).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 9y ago
There are two moral alternatives: either you impose the yoke of government on people, then give them majoritarian control over government, or you have no government. The latter sucks for people who make up the 1% now, because it's government that keeps the merchant/capitalist/industrial class from being dominated by the warrior class.
fivestar 9y ago
Didn't Venezuela do that? Enjoy the collapse while watching your family starve and fighting the army with sticks and rocks. No thanks.