3 ms·

You're right, that was a bad example. So let's look at Athenian-style direct democracy. You have the ecclesia, an assembly where any male citizen can vote on p

You're right, that was a bad example. So let's look at Athenian-style direct democracy. You have the ecclesia, an assembly where any male citizen can vote on proposals and elections (like a more ad-hoc city council meeting and election in one). You have a bureaucracy of 500 randomly selected men who run the city government. Once a year, you can vote to exile any leader for 10 years. Slavery was big business and women had no rights. There were very few elected officials and they were chosen randomly for the highest offices. Think of random people with conflicting, crazy ideas being voted in and out regularly, as judges, as bureaucrats, as heads of state. There was uneven representation because you had to show up regularly to voice your concern, only about a quarter of the people had this time/convenience luxury, and of course most people weren't very educated, so their opinions and positions were often.... dumb. But anyone who was a male citizen could show up and vote on just about anything, and simple majority was the winnter. The assemblies weren't held accountable to themselves, and could vote to break their own laws. Trials lasted one day; arguments were given, and then an immediate vote by the jurors. Out of 1100 citizens chosen by lot to (effectively) govern, 100 were elected. There were age restrictions and short term limits. It changed over time. Over 300 years they went from having a king to having 3 Presidents who were aristocrats elected every 10 years, to elected every 1 year, to literally assigning the Presidency to a random citizen by lot, with the military overseen by 10 elected generals with varying degrees of social/political power in addition to total military command. If the people didn't like the job they were doing, they'd be voted out, fined, possibly executed. Originally the 500 civil servants were chosen by class, with the highest class (richest) getting the top positions, and the poorest class couldn't be selected; but later they could be selected and even got paid (partly because the "random selection" just happened to represent a lot of rich dudes). Eventually laws were not just things decided by assemblies, but small pools of lot-assigned citizens who decided what the law would be. Some researchers have suggested that direct democracy like this wouldn't work over a very large area. It can work in towns and cities, and small city-states, but there's just too many factors for it to be practical in a large scale diverse modern nation.

coldtea 7y ago
>Slavery was big business and women had no rights That was the norm of the era and much much later. Democracy is not supposed to change the norms of its times, it's supposed to assist those who participate to represent themselves better. Women didn't have a vote well into the 20th century, the poor non land owning people couldn't vote in the US until the 19th century, and slavery was a thing for almost 2 and a half millennia after ancient Athenian democracy, even in much more "enlightened" and "christian love morals" nations. Even representative democracy gurus like the "Founding Fathers" had no qualms with owning slaves. So hardly a thing to blame ancient Athenian democracy for not solving 2.5 millennia in advance. We should focus on what innovative (or worse) it did bring to the table, not whether in other ways it was compatible with a baseline that held for 2.5 millennia more. >There were very few elected officials and they were chosen randomly for the highest offices. Think of random people with conflicting, crazy ideas being voted in and out regularly, as judges, as bureaucrats, as heads of state. That was not a problem, as it is in the modern world. First, life was much more public oriented, so the crazy ideas where tamed by interaction with others (and of course, knowning that you will randomly be replaced in the next term). >The assemblies weren't held accountable to themselves, and could vote to break their own laws. That's the whole point, isn't it? That you're not iron-bound to some law you've passed, if you decide it doesn't work. Even worse, being iron-bound to some law a policitian you've voted for for different reasons (say, because they promised tax breaks), passed on another matter, but you can't do anything, because you only get to vote wholesale (their whole platform, take it or leave it, even if you just strongly like 1-2 parts of it), and can't change anything for 4 years. >It changed over time. Again, that's a plus - people can change the system directly, they're not thrown into a rigid system they have no power on. The rest, it not being perfect, the rich having increased influence (e.g. class playing a role), etc, were artefacts of the power balances of the era. That was the case everywhere, and is still now. >Some researchers have suggested that direct democracy like this wouldn't work over a very large area. It can work in towns and cities, and small city-states, but there's just too many factors for it to be practical in a large scale diverse modern nation. Doesn't need to be an exact replica. It could be multi-level (e.g. direct voting at the city/small district level), with national referendums on any major law, etc. Today we also have the option to vote online with crypto etc.

coldtea 7y ago

>Slavery was big business and women had no rights That was the norm of the era and much much later. Democracy is not supposed to change the norms of its times, it's supposed to assist those who participate to represent themselves better. Women didn't have a vote well into the 20th century, the poor non land owning people couldn't vote in the US until the 19th century, and slavery was a thing for almost 2 and a half millennia after ancient Athenian democracy, even in much more "enlightened" and "christian love morals" nations. Even representative democracy gurus like the "Founding Fathers" had no qualms with owning slaves. So hardly a thing to blame ancient Athenian democracy for not solving 2.5 millennia in advance. We should focus on what innovative (or worse) it did bring to the table, not whether in other ways it was compatible with a baseline that held for 2.5 millennia more. >There were very few elected officials and they were chosen randomly for the highest offices. Think of random people with conflicting, crazy ideas being voted in and out regularly, as judges, as bureaucrats, as heads of state. That was not a problem, as it is in the modern world. First, life was much more public oriented, so the crazy ideas where tamed by interaction with others (and of course, knowning that you will randomly be replaced in the next term). >The assemblies weren't held accountable to themselves, and could vote to break their own laws. That's the whole point, isn't it? That you're not iron-bound to some law you've passed, if you decide it doesn't work. Even worse, being iron-bound to some law a policitian you've voted for for different reasons (say, because they promised tax breaks), passed on another matter, but you can't do anything, because you only get to vote wholesale (their whole platform, take it or leave it, even if you just strongly like 1-2 parts of it), and can't change anything for 4 years. >It changed over time. Again, that's a plus - people can change the system directly, they're not thrown into a rigid system they have no power on. The rest, it not being perfect, the rich having increased influence (e.g. class playing a role), etc, were artefacts of the power balances of the era. That was the case everywhere, and is still now. >Some researchers have suggested that direct democracy like this wouldn't work over a very large area. It can work in towns and cities, and small city-states, but there's just too many factors for it to be practical in a large scale diverse modern nation. Doesn't need to be an exact replica. It could be multi-level (e.g. direct voting at the city/small district level), with national referendums on any major law, etc. Today we also have the option to vote online with crypto etc.