3 ms·

Random, but I was thinking about this in the context of the U.S. democratic system. Why do we still have representatives all going to Washington D.C. to hash ou

Random, but I was thinking about this in the context of the U.S. democratic system. Why do we still have representatives all going to Washington D.C. to hash out decisions when each of us has the power and ability to vote remotely on single issues every day? I think it's due to your point, and I wish I had a candidate on the slate who was serious about having constituents vote securely on single issues rather than forcing us to choose a single party docket.

y4mi 9y ago
that would create a tyranny of the majority [1]. Direct Democracy is great on small scale, but a terrible idea with millions. Just imagine the damage that somebody like trump could cause within weeks with such a system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- randcraw 9y ago
  Not if combined with a Senate and Presidential veto. I agree that it's not clear that direct citizen vote is superior to Representative vote. Though given the low caliber of HoR debate and their lack of party independence (and their historical lack of accountability to serve all their constituents), I believe direct vote should be considered. Perhaps changes to law like 1) a voter calibration test to demonstrate sufficient understanding of issues (thereby scaling the value of your vote up/down) combined with 2) restrictions on corporate/lobby media ads to manipulate voters could produce better results than the HoRs? Also worth discussion, IMO.
  - wil421 9y ago
    If you’re allowing the senate or president to veto a national popular vote then it’s not really a direct democracy.
  - marktangotango 9y ago
    People forget, or don't know, that the founders had experience building lots of democracies of many types in towns, counties, and colonies/states leading up to the American Revolution. These people had more practical direct experience than anyone before or since. It behooves all of us to study what came before, only then can real improvements be made and insight gained.
- jiggunjer 9y ago
  This assumes a naive system without a constitution. If you start with a solid set of rules that say they can only be changed by reaching a certain threshold, e.g. 80% of the population and specific timeframes for votes, it will be much harder for populists to push through evil. You could also have a weight system, e.g. engineers get double votes on technical issues in their field. This will lower the power of redneckish factions.

y4mi 9y ago

that would create a tyranny of the majority [1]. Direct Democracy is great on small scale, but a terrible idea with millions. Just imagine the damage that somebody like trump could cause within weeks with such a system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

randcraw 9y ago
Not if combined with a Senate and Presidential veto. I agree that it's not clear that direct citizen vote is superior to Representative vote. Though given the low caliber of HoR debate and their lack of party independence (and their historical lack of accountability to serve all their constituents), I believe direct vote should be considered. Perhaps changes to law like 1) a voter calibration test to demonstrate sufficient understanding of issues (thereby scaling the value of your vote up/down) combined with 2) restrictions on corporate/lobby media ads to manipulate voters could produce better results than the HoRs? Also worth discussion, IMO.
- wil421 9y ago
  If you’re allowing the senate or president to veto a national popular vote then it’s not really a direct democracy.
- marktangotango 9y ago
  People forget, or don't know, that the founders had experience building lots of democracies of many types in towns, counties, and colonies/states leading up to the American Revolution. These people had more practical direct experience than anyone before or since. It behooves all of us to study what came before, only then can real improvements be made and insight gained.
jiggunjer 9y ago
This assumes a naive system without a constitution. If you start with a solid set of rules that say they can only be changed by reaching a certain threshold, e.g. 80% of the population and specific timeframes for votes, it will be much harder for populists to push through evil. You could also have a weight system, e.g. engineers get double votes on technical issues in their field. This will lower the power of redneckish factions.