4 ms·

Paper voting means that you can hold very few elections and the like. This means choosing between representatives who nobody likes, and only discussing major qu

Paper voting means that you can hold very few elections and the like. This means choosing between representatives who nobody likes, and only discussing major questions. With electronic voting (not the black box kind of course) there's hope that democracy becomes more direct.

beat 8y ago
That's actually a good point, better than the usual blockchain fetish nonsense. But two points... First, that requires a new Constitution, throwing out our existing representative democracy and starting over with a new model. Second, not everyone agrees direct democracy is a good idea. Adding a layer of focused expertise in the form of representation is arguably a very good thing.
- doombolt 8y ago
  There are other locales other than the US. Anyway, I guess you can eventually vote in such congress that they see their only mission in providing platform for direct democracy & safeguarding its availability. Other than that, what I have seen in representative democracies (and authoritarian states) worldwide have never sparked the "expertise" feeling in me.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >First, that requires a new Constitution, throwing out our existing representative democracy and starting over with a new model. There are all sorts of changes that wouldn't require a new constitution, just likely an amendment. They're unlikely to happen though, as our current representative democracy would need to voluntarily give up some of their power. >Second, not everyone agrees direct democracy is a good idea. Adding a layer of focused expertise in the form of representation is arguably a very good thing There is a massive amount of room between a pure direct democracy and our current system. Our two party system removes any semblance of Democratic choice on issues the parties agree on.
  - beat 8y ago
    If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. Which may or may not be a good thing (see racism, history of), but it does suggest that this idea that a handful of opposition can affect change through direct democracy is wrongheaded. It might matter for issues where the parties are well behind the public (ie the War on Drugs), but most of the time, it won't matter at all.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      >If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. For this to be true, you need a majority of the population to be well informed voters, which just isn't true. I'd be surprised if 25% of American's knew about a US bomb blowing up a bus of schoolchildren recently, and doubt a strong majority would support that bombing. Yet my vote does not matter on the issue.
      - beat 8y ago
        And you want these willfully ignorant people voting more? Not saying it's a bad idea. Questioning whether you're contradicting yourself.
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        I personally want more than two options, and I don't think the potential ramifications are more dangerous than our current model. I don't think the ignorance is entirely willful, either way I'll choose ignorance over malevolence any day.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. Not really, even on some highly salient issues. Universal public health care has had majority public support most of the time since the early 1990s, but the Democratic Party has opposed it (in favor of various complex public/private schemes with insurance companies front and center) as has the Republican Party. It's even less true in issues that are of extreme interest to a narrow group and low public salience.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- liberte82 8y ago
  A layer of focused expertise is theoretically a good thing. When these experts are bought and sold by corporations who write the laws to benefit themselves and hurt the people who voted for said representatives, the system is utterly broken.
dragonwriter 8y ago
Lots of (even quite large) US states have had much more direct democracy than the federal government for quite a long time with paper ballots. Paper ballots don't prevent direct democracy in large polities, nor do they prevent voting systems with more nuance than FPTP.

beat 8y ago

That's actually a good point, better than the usual blockchain fetish nonsense. But two points... First, that requires a new Constitution, throwing out our existing representative democracy and starting over with a new model. Second, not everyone agrees direct democracy is a good idea. Adding a layer of focused expertise in the form of representation is arguably a very good thing.

doombolt 8y ago
There are other locales other than the US. Anyway, I guess you can eventually vote in such congress that they see their only mission in providing platform for direct democracy & safeguarding its availability. Other than that, what I have seen in representative democracies (and authoritarian states) worldwide have never sparked the "expertise" feeling in me.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
>First, that requires a new Constitution, throwing out our existing representative democracy and starting over with a new model. There are all sorts of changes that wouldn't require a new constitution, just likely an amendment. They're unlikely to happen though, as our current representative democracy would need to voluntarily give up some of their power. >Second, not everyone agrees direct democracy is a good idea. Adding a layer of focused expertise in the form of representation is arguably a very good thing There is a massive amount of room between a pure direct democracy and our current system. Our two party system removes any semblance of Democratic choice on issues the parties agree on.
- beat 8y ago
  If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. Which may or may not be a good thing (see racism, history of), but it does suggest that this idea that a handful of opposition can affect change through direct democracy is wrongheaded. It might matter for issues where the parties are well behind the public (ie the War on Drugs), but most of the time, it won't matter at all.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. For this to be true, you need a majority of the population to be well informed voters, which just isn't true. I'd be surprised if 25% of American's knew about a US bomb blowing up a bus of schoolchildren recently, and doubt a strong majority would support that bombing. Yet my vote does not matter on the issue.
    - beat 8y ago
      And you want these willfully ignorant people voting more? Not saying it's a bad idea. Questioning whether you're contradicting yourself.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        I personally want more than two options, and I don't think the potential ramifications are more dangerous than our current model. I don't think the ignorance is entirely willful, either way I'll choose ignorance over malevolence any day.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > If both parties agree on something without significant contention, odds are a strong majority of the population also agrees with it. Not really, even on some highly salient issues. Universal public health care has had majority public support most of the time since the early 1990s, but the Democratic Party has opposed it (in favor of various complex public/private schemes with insurance companies front and center) as has the Republican Party. It's even less true in issues that are of extreme interest to a narrow group and low public salience.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
liberte82 8y ago
A layer of focused expertise is theoretically a good thing. When these experts are bought and sold by corporations who write the laws to benefit themselves and hurt the people who voted for said representatives, the system is utterly broken.

dragonwriter 8y ago

Lots of (even quite large) US states have had much more direct democracy than the federal government for quite a long time with paper ballots. Paper ballots don't prevent direct democracy in large polities, nor do they prevent voting systems with more nuance than FPTP.