4 ms·

Direct democracy for every issue individually is not the best overall system. It prevents the political favor-trading between representatives which has a valuab

Direct democracy for every issue individually is not the best overall system. It prevents the political favor-trading between representatives which has a valuable purpose - that is, voting against your immediate interest on topics unimportant to you in exchange for votes for your important interests. If every vote is independent and there's no way to coordinate things, then you can't do something like getting national healthcare reforms passed at the cost of providing corn subsidies. Furthermore, legalization of cannabis requires more than just saying "okay, it's legal now". There's a ton of unresolved questions: what are the rules around driving high? Who can buy cannabis legally? Which jobs are allowed to be worked high? Which businesses can sell cannabis? What license do you need? What are the penalties for flouting age restrictions on sales? Can you smoke cannabis in a bar? Can you vape cannabis in a restaurant? How is cannabis taxed, and at what rate?

owlsaway 9y ago
As someone living in Canada, where we're going through that literal same process, you seem to be right on the money. Although admittedly, I'm not as well-read as I'd hope to be, so take this with a grain of salt. But the way the media I've read has portrayed marijuana in Canada has been "Pot's legal in 1 year! ...okay, how are we going to implement this? [provinces rush to come up with plans]"
cinquemb 9y ago
I think it is theoretically possible to build systems where you can coordinate things on independent issues (and for bringing up and addressing questions) on a direct level. I don't think there is much incentive to build such systems now outside of say voting systems for user feedback/issues on product systems (which also have lower barriers as for the ultimately philosophical issue on deciding who is allowed to vote, and face virtually no push back from those who benefit most from the incumbent systems).
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  I'm not sure what sort of mechanism you're thinking of. My example has a majority preferring X & Y over ~X & ~Y, but with simultaneous majorities preferring ~X over X and ~Y over Y. This is fundamentally tricky to resolve. And furthermore, the power to propose "X & Y" is incredibly useful, since you get to shape the negotiation options for compromises. Even with a direct democracy system, you'd still want to be able to vote in or out some kind of elected representative for proposing various bills.
ShorsHammer 9y ago
I disagree, direct democracy has none of these problems in Switzerland. It's very easy to find flaws in systems not implemented. People will make bad decisions and societies in general will fuck up, but that is part of the process and voters will adjust accordingly. Methodical and sound polling on a single issue routinely comes within %'s of actual votes. Yet there are numerous issues overwhelmingly favoured in society which politicians knowingly ignore.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
romwell 9y ago
>Direct democracy for every issue individually is not the best overall system. Straw man in the wild. Nobody here advocates direct democracy on every issue. However, one simply can't argue that a government that acts against the interest and preferences of 90%+ of the population it supposedly represents and serves is doing a good job. >Furthermore, legalization of cannabis requires more... You speak of these questions as if they haven't been answered already in several countries and multiple states in the US. And in any case, this is another strawman. The problem is not the slow rate of legalization, it's that the Federal government is not moving at all towards that goal (in particular, by keeping marijuana on Schedule I), when simply letting the states regulate the issue would have satisfied many people.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  >However, one simply can't argue that a government that acts against the interest and preferences of 90%+ of the population it supposedly represents and serves is doing a good job. I'll bite the bullet and say that it can, in some specific cases. "Acting against the interests and preferences" of someone has a magnitude, it's not just a yes/no question. A governing system that mildly inconveniences 95% of the population to safeguard a vital liberty for 5% is doing an excellent job, IMO.
  - romwell 9y ago
    Sure, sure, but we all know this does not apply here.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
> There's a ton of unresolved questions: what are the rules around driving high? Who can buy cannabis legally? Which jobs are allowed to be worked high? Which businesses can sell cannabis? What license do you need? What are the penalties for flouting age restrictions on sales? Can you smoke cannabis in a bar? Can you vape cannabis in a restaurant? How is cannabis taxed, and at what rate? Those are mostly pretty easy questions. For driving and working high, it's just the same as working or driving in any other impaired state. It's slightly trickier than alcohol because it isn't as easy to measure the level of impairment, but that's also true of many prescription and probably even some over-the-counter drugs, so it's not a new problem. For all of the other questions, you could just copy the rules for tobacco verbatim and end up with a workable set of rules.

owlsaway 9y ago

As someone living in Canada, where we're going through that literal same process, you seem to be right on the money. Although admittedly, I'm not as well-read as I'd hope to be, so take this with a grain of salt. But the way the media I've read has portrayed marijuana in Canada has been "Pot's legal in 1 year! ...okay, how are we going to implement this? [provinces rush to come up with plans]"

cinquemb 9y ago

I think it is theoretically possible to build systems where you can coordinate things on independent issues (and for bringing up and addressing questions) on a direct level. I don't think there is much incentive to build such systems now outside of say voting systems for user feedback/issues on product systems (which also have lower barriers as for the ultimately philosophical issue on deciding who is allowed to vote, and face virtually no push back from those who benefit most from the incumbent systems).

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
I'm not sure what sort of mechanism you're thinking of. My example has a majority preferring X & Y over ~X & ~Y, but with simultaneous majorities preferring ~X over X and ~Y over Y. This is fundamentally tricky to resolve. And furthermore, the power to propose "X & Y" is incredibly useful, since you get to shape the negotiation options for compromises. Even with a direct democracy system, you'd still want to be able to vote in or out some kind of elected representative for proposing various bills.

ShorsHammer 9y ago

I disagree, direct democracy has none of these problems in Switzerland. It's very easy to find flaws in systems not implemented. People will make bad decisions and societies in general will fuck up, but that is part of the process and voters will adjust accordingly. Methodical and sound polling on a single issue routinely comes within %'s of actual votes. Yet there are numerous issues overwhelmingly favoured in society which politicians knowingly ignore.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

romwell 9y ago

>Direct democracy for every issue individually is not the best overall system. Straw man in the wild. Nobody here advocates direct democracy on every issue. However, one simply can't argue that a government that acts against the interest and preferences of 90%+ of the population it supposedly represents and serves is doing a good job. >Furthermore, legalization of cannabis requires more... You speak of these questions as if they haven't been answered already in several countries and multiple states in the US. And in any case, this is another strawman. The problem is not the slow rate of legalization, it's that the Federal government is not moving at all towards that goal (in particular, by keeping marijuana on Schedule I), when simply letting the states regulate the issue would have satisfied many people.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
>However, one simply can't argue that a government that acts against the interest and preferences of 90%+ of the population it supposedly represents and serves is doing a good job. I'll bite the bullet and say that it can, in some specific cases. "Acting against the interests and preferences" of someone has a magnitude, it's not just a yes/no question. A governing system that mildly inconveniences 95% of the population to safeguard a vital liberty for 5% is doing an excellent job, IMO.
- romwell 9y ago
  Sure, sure, but we all know this does not apply here.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

> There's a ton of unresolved questions: what are the rules around driving high? Who can buy cannabis legally? Which jobs are allowed to be worked high? Which businesses can sell cannabis? What license do you need? What are the penalties for flouting age restrictions on sales? Can you smoke cannabis in a bar? Can you vape cannabis in a restaurant? How is cannabis taxed, and at what rate? Those are mostly pretty easy questions. For driving and working high, it's just the same as working or driving in any other impaired state. It's slightly trickier than alcohol because it isn't as easy to measure the level of impairment, but that's also true of many prescription and probably even some over-the-counter drugs, so it's not a new problem. For all of the other questions, you could just copy the rules for tobacco verbatim and end up with a workable set of rules.