4 ms·

It's the dirty little secret when it comes to "Democracy". The idea is simple and noble in that everyone has a say, but then we turn around and go with "represe

by zo1 6y ago

It's the dirty little secret when it comes to "Democracy". The idea is simple and noble in that everyone has a say, but then we turn around and go with "representational" systems instead because we don't really want everyone to have a say in everything. Like you said with today's and maybe the last 1-2 decades technology, there is no excuse for not going with more direct democracy like voting. I've argued it before, and get rebutted with things such as "we need to let the experts decide, average people don't understand nuance" or "we don't want rule by mob/majority" or "get involved in your local community meetings instead" or "what if the people vote to exterminate minorities", etc. But the fact of the matter is that some sort of direct-democracy, or individual-level decision making (such as suggested above regarding tax-spending) would allow society to self-correct and adapt without the need for complicated and "expert" interventions. I understand the extreme examples, sure, but we're not even trying to involve the populace more for even minor things. On a side note, with my conspiracy hat on, this is why "electronic" voting is opposed so heavily. That and the whole "votes have to be anonymous yet independently verifiable but not linked to your identity because you might sell your vote" nonsense. Because the natural consequence of a reduction of cost when it comes to voting is that we'd end up voting on more granular things and more often, and we can't have that. Instead we want people to enact change by fostering "movements" and "protesting for change", because that really doesn't do anything at the end of the day.

arrosenberg 6y ago
> Like you said with today's and maybe the last 1-2 decades technology, there is no excuse for not going with more direct democracy like voting. The average American isn't remotely qualified to make these types of decisions. That's why direct democracy has never, ever, in the history of humanity, worked in a society above a few dozen people. > I understand the extreme examples, sure, but we're not even trying to involve the populace more for even minor things. Let's try a non-extreme example - naming a post-office. The lefties want to name it after Rosa Parks and the righties want to name it after Stonewall Jackson. The vote ends up 51/49 in either direction - how do you feel that type of conflict would resolve itself in 2020? It's much, much better for the stability of the government to keep passionate people away from the majority of the mundane work of government. Plebiscites should be reserved only for massive issues, like changes to the Constitution. > On a side note, with my conspiracy hat on, this is why "electronic" voting is opposed so heavily. It's because security experts have repeatedly exposed how flawed these systems are, and how cheaply and effectively voting is done with paper and pencil.
- ta1234567890 6y ago
  > The average American isn't remotely qualified to make these types of decisions. So what? that's just an excuse to keep power away from them. We are already getting incredibly important decisions made by totally unqualified people (e.g. Pandemic response by the current administration) not only are making bad decisions, they are making them in their own best interest, in detriment to the people they are supposed to represent. > That's why direct democracy has never, ever, in the history of humanity, worked in a society above a few dozen people. Examples please? What country/government has ever implemented a real/direct democracy?
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    You call it an excuse, I call it a valid reason. The current administration is a perfect example of what happens when you let people with no qualifications make decisions that impact the entire country. The current administration if failing in large party because it isn't acting according the norms and structures of the current system, and they are encouraging "independent thinkers" to question whether the virus is even real. It's a terrible example if you are looking to say that our representative democracy doesn't work. Pandemic response was top notch under the previous administration - turns out hiring experts and letting them do their work is effective. > Examples please? What country/government has ever implemented a real/direct democracy? That's my point. The French revolutionaries tried it for a minute until they realized you can't run a nation-state that way - it's too complex and the average person is too disconnected from the issues to fully grok the n-th order consequences. Plus the tyranny of the masses tends to get out of hand.
    - ta1234567890 6y ago
      > The current administration is a perfect example of what happens when you let people with no qualifications make decisions that impact the entire country. The current administration if failing in large party because it isn't acting according the norms and structures of the current system, and they are encouraging "independent thinkers" to question whether the virus is even real. It's a terrible example if you are looking to say that our representative democracy doesn't work. Pandemic response was top notch under the previous administration - turns out hiring experts and letting them do their work is effective. The current administration is a product of the current system. And it is a great example of what's wrong with it. It's amazing that you are using it to defend the system instead. > The French revolutionaries tried it for a minute until they realized you can't run a nation-state that way - it's too complex and the average person is too disconnected from the issues to fully grok the n-th order consequences. Plus the tyranny of the masses tends to get out of hand. Technology and data should help tremendously in solving the issues you present. Tools which were not available to the French revolutionaries. Also you shouldn't throw something completely out the window just because of one failed attempt hundreds of years ago.

by zo1 6y ago

arrosenberg 6y ago

> Like you said with today's and maybe the last 1-2 decades technology, there is no excuse for not going with more direct democracy like voting. The average American isn't remotely qualified to make these types of decisions. That's why direct democracy has never, ever, in the history of humanity, worked in a society above a few dozen people. > I understand the extreme examples, sure, but we're not even trying to involve the populace more for even minor things. Let's try a non-extreme example - naming a post-office. The lefties want to name it after Rosa Parks and the righties want to name it after Stonewall Jackson. The vote ends up 51/49 in either direction - how do you feel that type of conflict would resolve itself in 2020? It's much, much better for the stability of the government to keep passionate people away from the majority of the mundane work of government. Plebiscites should be reserved only for massive issues, like changes to the Constitution. > On a side note, with my conspiracy hat on, this is why "electronic" voting is opposed so heavily. It's because security experts have repeatedly exposed how flawed these systems are, and how cheaply and effectively voting is done with paper and pencil.

ta1234567890 6y ago
> The average American isn't remotely qualified to make these types of decisions. So what? that's just an excuse to keep power away from them. We are already getting incredibly important decisions made by totally unqualified people (e.g. Pandemic response by the current administration) not only are making bad decisions, they are making them in their own best interest, in detriment to the people they are supposed to represent. > That's why direct democracy has never, ever, in the history of humanity, worked in a society above a few dozen people. Examples please? What country/government has ever implemented a real/direct democracy?
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  You call it an excuse, I call it a valid reason. The current administration is a perfect example of what happens when you let people with no qualifications make decisions that impact the entire country. The current administration if failing in large party because it isn't acting according the norms and structures of the current system, and they are encouraging "independent thinkers" to question whether the virus is even real. It's a terrible example if you are looking to say that our representative democracy doesn't work. Pandemic response was top notch under the previous administration - turns out hiring experts and letting them do their work is effective. > Examples please? What country/government has ever implemented a real/direct democracy? That's my point. The French revolutionaries tried it for a minute until they realized you can't run a nation-state that way - it's too complex and the average person is too disconnected from the issues to fully grok the n-th order consequences. Plus the tyranny of the masses tends to get out of hand.
  - ta1234567890 6y ago
    > The current administration is a perfect example of what happens when you let people with no qualifications make decisions that impact the entire country. The current administration if failing in large party because it isn't acting according the norms and structures of the current system, and they are encouraging "independent thinkers" to question whether the virus is even real. It's a terrible example if you are looking to say that our representative democracy doesn't work. Pandemic response was top notch under the previous administration - turns out hiring experts and letting them do their work is effective. The current administration is a product of the current system. And it is a great example of what's wrong with it. It's amazing that you are using it to defend the system instead. > The French revolutionaries tried it for a minute until they realized you can't run a nation-state that way - it's too complex and the average person is too disconnected from the issues to fully grok the n-th order consequences. Plus the tyranny of the masses tends to get out of hand. Technology and data should help tremendously in solving the issues you present. Tools which were not available to the French revolutionaries. Also you shouldn't throw something completely out the window just because of one failed attempt hundreds of years ago.