2 ms·

Some of the issue is that you're almost always still voting for people. People have to implement the ideas and make them happen. There's any number of policies

Some of the issue is that you're almost always still voting for people. People have to implement the ideas and make them happen. There's any number of policies that I'm in favor for if they worked perfectly, but I don't think they're feasible to implement or enforce using humans. You see this a lot in local elections where often there are specific ideas on the ballot for local people to vote on. I want to vote for "more public transit options" but it's not as if I'm voting for specific train lines or bus routes. That's before you get into the issue of who is coming up with the ideas to go on the ballot, how they word them, and how carefully they consider them. It's easy to make a lot of things sound good on the snippet you'll read on a ballot, but not prevent bad side effects that you wouldn't think about.

chr1 6y ago
There is a big difference between picking someone to be your boss and decide what needs to be done, and picking someone to work for you and try to implement what you think needs to be done. You are not going to read the idea on the ballot, you read them on internet, or propose them on a site similar to change.org, and then you have lots of opportunity to give feedback during the implementation. There will not be an option to vote for "more public transit options" Without the limitations of current voting system, there will not be useless votes like "more public transit options". Instead of that when you are stuck in traffic jam you'll create a proposal for a specific line, other people stuck in the same jam would support it, then your city will hold a competition with different companies proposing different solutions, then will be a vote to pick one of them.