5 ms·

>Even easier to policy launder with direct democracy, since most people voting will vote for the headline purpose of the law Only if the direct democracy is se

>Even easier to policy launder with direct democracy, since most people voting will vote for the headline purpose of the law Only if the direct democracy is set up to behave that way. Any directly democratic system could in principle let people raise objections (e.g. "this law is susceptible to the cobra effect") and have those objections viewed by the people voting on the law.

notahacker 9y ago
Sure, anybody can publicise any objection to any law in any system. Ensuring such an argument is actually paid attention to and that revisions are actually made is a different matter entirely. Relatively easy for a representative to make a case for a particular amendment to a particular piece of proposed legislation by addressing the need to rewrite Clause 17b to a group of elected legislators whose full time job is scrutinising that legislation, and then proposing the amendment is voted on there and then, with the proponents of the legislation having a pretty good idea of whether making the change will be necessary to carry the vote. Much more difficult to convince a significant percentage of the public who enthusiastically support the intent of a bill that they should take the time to read objections to Clause 17b and then vote against the whole thing because of Clause 17b. Not least because even members of the public informed and concerned about 17b are aware that the reason for their vote isn't tallied, and voting against a law they want because of unhappiness with one specific provision will torpedo the whole thing.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >Sure, anybody can publicise any objection to any law in any system. Ensuring such an argument is actually paid attention to and that revisions are actually made is a different matter entirely. It's not a "different" matter. It's just a matter of how a directly democratic system is designed. If I were designing such a system, a "reddit style" forum attached to the vote that lets objections or arguments in favor float to the top would be a given - at the bare minimum. >Relatively easy for a representative to make a case for a particular amendment to a particular piece of proposed legislation by addressing the need to rewrite Clause 17b to a group of elected legislators whose full time job is scrutinising that legislation, and then proposing the amendment is voted on there and then, with the proponents of the legislation having a pretty good idea of whether making the change will be necessary to carry the vote. And it's relatively easy for a rich lobby group with a think tank attached to jam their views in to this relatively "unscrutinized" clause by making donations to the politician's campaign. This is the danger inherent with "professional" politicians and "policy experts" of any kind (economists are particularly susceptible to this phenomenon too). And, it usually requires a grass roots movement to bring attention to "17b" issues before the corporation stops getting its way. Instead of marching in front of Congress with placards wouldn't it be easier if we could just click a button to register our displeasure? >Much more difficult to convince a significant percentage of the public who enthusiastically support the intent of a bill that they should take the time to read objections to Clause 17b You could make a directly democratic system that didn't attach a forum to facilitate deliberation, but in my opinion, that would be a massive oversight. Equally I think it would be an oversight to not implement voluntary vote delegation. I don't see why just because I don't want to delegate my vote to a sleazy professional "full time" politician I shouldn't delegate some of my votes to my retired mother or some other person I personally trust with time on their hands.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    The average voter isn't going to read the bill text for most legislation, never mind thousands of pages of internet arguments with those best at brigading or astroturfing (often well-funded lobbyist concerns) at the top. The draft text is going to be written by the same politician speaking to the same lobbyists adopting the same strategy of tying it to something really desirable like preventing crime or promoting financial freedom, it's just that members of the public supporting crime prevention or financial freedom don't have the opportunity to broker an alternative wording, and once they've voted for it any objections to its provisions is going to be met with the full rhetorical force of accusations of defying "the will of the people". And people not in the pocket of the lobbyists who support parts of the policy for other reasons aren't going to muddy the waters and risk a public defeat for their ideals by arguing to fix the dodgy earmark if it's a big public vote rather than a series of rapid votes on amendments. It might work for vetoing stuff the public really didn't expect and really do care a lot about like tax rises, but in practice, referenda significantly lower the tone of debate, increase partisanship and decrease the effect policy detail has on the outcome of the decision.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >The average voter isn't going to read the bill text for most legislation, never mind thousands of pages of internet arguments That's exactly why I described how you could build a system that accounts for that. >thousands of pages of internet arguments with those best at brigading or astroturfing Brigading on a platform for direct democracy is a feature, not a bug. Astroturfing and most other forms of uncivil discourse can be pretty much eliminated by tying your account to your identity and with a few fairly basic moderation rules.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  I don't trust your group of legislators! You can raise awareness to clause 17b, even in the form of pull requests. Moreover if it turns to be toxic we can immediately revert it with a new law. With indirect democracy, none of our objections are binding. They'll just spit on them like they do every time.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    > Moreover if it turns to be toxic we can immediately revert it with a new law. I take it you don't have referenda on major issues in your country? Much easier to campaign against a dubious clause of marginal relevance - before and especially after - when political figures have to justify a series of specific votes on specific amendments, and not just pick sides in extended public campaigns based on the headline intent of bills. Especially because of the absolute outrage that follows when anyone suggests any revisions after "the people have spoken."
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >Especially because of the absolute outrage that follows when anyone suggests any revisions after "the people have spoken." If you're referring to Brexit, this "absolute outrage" is mostly generated from the not-very-democratic billionaire owned media that probably would be reined in by a more directly democratic system.
      - notahacker 9y ago
        I don't see any lack of outrage in grassroots blogs either. What it reveals is that (i) the public is very willing to believe in politicians' mendacity, and thus [depending on electoral system] the threat to politicians for repeatedly refusing to ratify amendments in the public interest is not nonexistent and (ii) turning a process of legislative change into a stage of a campaign for public assent makes politicians supporting it less accountable for its dubious implications and less willing to compromise on the detail.
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      I don't understand why the people should only speak once, as opposed to as often as they wish! Until no clause left unturned. Referendums are suboptimal. They're not the kind of direct democracy for the century XXI. They're more like XIX.

notahacker 9y ago

Sure, anybody can publicise any objection to any law in any system. Ensuring such an argument is actually paid attention to and that revisions are actually made is a different matter entirely. Relatively easy for a representative to make a case for a particular amendment to a particular piece of proposed legislation by addressing the need to rewrite Clause 17b to a group of elected legislators whose full time job is scrutinising that legislation, and then proposing the amendment is voted on there and then, with the proponents of the legislation having a pretty good idea of whether making the change will be necessary to carry the vote. Much more difficult to convince a significant percentage of the public who enthusiastically support the intent of a bill that they should take the time to read objections to Clause 17b and then vote against the whole thing because of Clause 17b. Not least because even members of the public informed and concerned about 17b are aware that the reason for their vote isn't tallied, and voting against a law they want because of unhappiness with one specific provision will torpedo the whole thing.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>Sure, anybody can publicise any objection to any law in any system. Ensuring such an argument is actually paid attention to and that revisions are actually made is a different matter entirely. It's not a "different" matter. It's just a matter of how a directly democratic system is designed. If I were designing such a system, a "reddit style" forum attached to the vote that lets objections or arguments in favor float to the top would be a given - at the bare minimum. >Relatively easy for a representative to make a case for a particular amendment to a particular piece of proposed legislation by addressing the need to rewrite Clause 17b to a group of elected legislators whose full time job is scrutinising that legislation, and then proposing the amendment is voted on there and then, with the proponents of the legislation having a pretty good idea of whether making the change will be necessary to carry the vote. And it's relatively easy for a rich lobby group with a think tank attached to jam their views in to this relatively "unscrutinized" clause by making donations to the politician's campaign. This is the danger inherent with "professional" politicians and "policy experts" of any kind (economists are particularly susceptible to this phenomenon too). And, it usually requires a grass roots movement to bring attention to "17b" issues before the corporation stops getting its way. Instead of marching in front of Congress with placards wouldn't it be easier if we could just click a button to register our displeasure? >Much more difficult to convince a significant percentage of the public who enthusiastically support the intent of a bill that they should take the time to read objections to Clause 17b You could make a directly democratic system that didn't attach a forum to facilitate deliberation, but in my opinion, that would be a massive oversight. Equally I think it would be an oversight to not implement voluntary vote delegation. I don't see why just because I don't want to delegate my vote to a sleazy professional "full time" politician I shouldn't delegate some of my votes to my retired mother or some other person I personally trust with time on their hands.
- notahacker 9y ago
  The average voter isn't going to read the bill text for most legislation, never mind thousands of pages of internet arguments with those best at brigading or astroturfing (often well-funded lobbyist concerns) at the top. The draft text is going to be written by the same politician speaking to the same lobbyists adopting the same strategy of tying it to something really desirable like preventing crime or promoting financial freedom, it's just that members of the public supporting crime prevention or financial freedom don't have the opportunity to broker an alternative wording, and once they've voted for it any objections to its provisions is going to be met with the full rhetorical force of accusations of defying "the will of the people". And people not in the pocket of the lobbyists who support parts of the policy for other reasons aren't going to muddy the waters and risk a public defeat for their ideals by arguing to fix the dodgy earmark if it's a big public vote rather than a series of rapid votes on amendments. It might work for vetoing stuff the public really didn't expect and really do care a lot about like tax rises, but in practice, referenda significantly lower the tone of debate, increase partisanship and decrease the effect policy detail has on the outcome of the decision.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >The average voter isn't going to read the bill text for most legislation, never mind thousands of pages of internet arguments That's exactly why I described how you could build a system that accounts for that. >thousands of pages of internet arguments with those best at brigading or astroturfing Brigading on a platform for direct democracy is a feature, not a bug. Astroturfing and most other forms of uncivil discourse can be pretty much eliminated by tying your account to your identity and with a few fairly basic moderation rules.
thriftwy 9y ago
I don't trust your group of legislators! You can raise awareness to clause 17b, even in the form of pull requests. Moreover if it turns to be toxic we can immediately revert it with a new law. With indirect democracy, none of our objections are binding. They'll just spit on them like they do every time.
- notahacker 9y ago
  > Moreover if it turns to be toxic we can immediately revert it with a new law. I take it you don't have referenda on major issues in your country? Much easier to campaign against a dubious clause of marginal relevance - before and especially after - when political figures have to justify a series of specific votes on specific amendments, and not just pick sides in extended public campaigns based on the headline intent of bills. Especially because of the absolute outrage that follows when anyone suggests any revisions after "the people have spoken."
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >Especially because of the absolute outrage that follows when anyone suggests any revisions after "the people have spoken." If you're referring to Brexit, this "absolute outrage" is mostly generated from the not-very-democratic billionaire owned media that probably would be reined in by a more directly democratic system.
    - notahacker 9y ago
      I don't see any lack of outrage in grassroots blogs either. What it reveals is that (i) the public is very willing to believe in politicians' mendacity, and thus [depending on electoral system] the threat to politicians for repeatedly refusing to ratify amendments in the public interest is not nonexistent and (ii) turning a process of legislative change into a stage of a campaign for public assent makes politicians supporting it less accountable for its dubious implications and less willing to compromise on the detail.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    I don't understand why the people should only speak once, as opposed to as often as they wish! Until no clause left unturned. Referendums are suboptimal. They're not the kind of direct democracy for the century XXI. They're more like XIX.