4 ms·
If we had a more granular democratic say that was counted above and beyond a token X in a limited choice of option every 4-5 years with those options promises b
by Zenst 7y ago
If we had a more granular democratic say that was counted above and beyond a token X in a limited choice of option every 4-5 years with those options promises being no guarantee that what was on the tin is what you will get. Then maybe we would have more harmony and progress.
Imagine if you will that every voter had the ability to submit their idea's for other voters to support/debate and the top ones go onto being voted into policy. For some they could just vote upon the policey, if they choose, be their choise.
But that would take technology that was trusted. But then voting democratically is something that happens in so many countries, be great if there was an open/auditable standard of such a system that the people could get behind. Facebook and other social media is not that solution.
Today we have a token say periodically with those representatives being driven by media, that is in part driven equally by events and social media reaction to those events. It is messy, informal, rabble driven mess and that is what plays out in politics. Yes that needs to change, but it needs to change slowly to allow people to adjust or you will create just as much friction as you are trying to solve.
But for letting goverment being decided as a lottery, well - look at jury duty, that is how that works. You can find good examples of this as you can bad examples. So on average you could say that you would be no worse off. But the extreme's could potentially be larger. Let's face it, what are the odds of a lottery picking all KKK members as a government - they are not zero. That's all that needs to be said upon that idea.
- js8 7y agoThis already exists, it's called initiative and I believe that some of the U.S. states even implement it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in... Representation, referendum, initiative and lottery are all just different tools in the toolkit of democracy. They all have advantages and disadvantages, and ideally, they should be used as such. So for example lottery is great if you want people who are good representation of common interest (i.e. not corrupt), but of course it suffers that these people might not be experts or interested in the problem. Lottery is probably the best for advisory or supervisory boards.
- Zenst 7y agoInteresting and was not aware of this (Being UK peon), glad that voting ballots have at least shown some form of expression beyond an X and embraced it. In the UK, anything than a single X in a box will void the ballot paper/vote. EDIT [Autotype correction - embarrassed into embraced - opps]
- BiteCode_dev 7y agoThe lottery system has several variants to take that in consideration. In one of them, everybody votes for x (e.g: 3) people around them. Then you remove the top 10% to avoid people campaigning, and the bottom 10% to avoid psychopathic candidates. The ones that remain can then register to the lottery. In some variants, you have limits to the wealth you have, jobs you hold, geographic min and max, number of times you can try, etc. The lottery concept is not about embracing chaos, but smoothing the odds, playing with the Gauss curve in our favor, limiting the network+money factor and avoiding turning politics into a job.
- Zenst 7y agoTactical voting would have a field day with that.
- BiteCode_dev 7y agoTactical voting has a field day with almost any strategy. We love playing games with out system. But my intuition is that this system would lower the incentive to do so by nature, because of the culture it promotes.
- buboard 7y ago> they are not zero. People already did elect the Nazi party and Hitler, multiple times. Someone needs to calculate the odds, but the probability of getting Kkk by chance is much lower