4 ms·

>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 mad

>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.

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.