37 ms·

I don't like this example because the effectiveness of direct democracy is greater in small groups. I selected a dinner with families as representative of stat

I don't like this example because the effectiveness of direct democracy is greater in small groups. I selected a dinner with families as representative of states with different desires but similar desires within a state. Akin to how a family has similar tastes in food. On that level I feel it is a good example. Lets say we have a group of families voting on what to have for a shared dinner. Each family gets one vote. Each family gets to decide how their vote is cast. One family of 10 decides they want roast beef. One family of 5 decides they want roast chicken. One newlywed couple decides they want roast chicken. Every member of each family is happy with their choice because they agreed through discussion in their family. So, there is one vote for roast beef and 2 for roast chicken. But, every family member was happy with the way their vote was tallied even if 10 people aren't getting what they want for dinner. A popular vote removes the ability of a family to vote in a way they all agree. The family of 10 will always be deciding what everybody has for dinner. At that point it isn't a dinner of families it is a dinner of 17 individuals with 7 never having what they want. So if you are having a dinner with 17 individuals why maintain the grouping of families? With regards to directing what is for dinner the group of a family becomes irrelevant. It also creates division within families instead of agreement on shared direction. This is similar to popular vote vs electoral college. A popular vote makes the grouping of a state irrelevant and more easily argued that it shouldn't exist. "The populous elects the president directly. Why do we have representatives? We should make policy direct vote as well. Lets get our greater number of representatives to push that through." Disbanding congress is not an immediate result of popular vote. It is a possible undesirable end. The structure of government should remove the possibility of undesirable outcomes of human nature as much as it can.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
In your dinner example, giving each family one vote wouldn't make things any better. Instead of the majority of people deciding what to eat every night, the majority of families would decide every night. If 25% of the families liked Thai food, but 75% liked Italian food, they would all eat Italian food every night. The only thing that would solve your example would be to let either one person or one family choose what to eat each night, on a rotating basis. Of course, you could just let each family choose its own meal, while using a majority vote (either of people or families) to decide things that affect all the families. This is federalism. But I submit that families choosing what to eat is different from government making laws. Many things have to be decided by a central authority, and there has to be a way of apportioning representation in that central authority. Giving certain citizens 3x as much power because they live on one side of a line vs. another violates the principle of "one person, one vote".

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

In your dinner example, giving each family one vote wouldn't make things any better. Instead of the majority of people deciding what to eat every night, the majority of families would decide every night. If 25% of the families liked Thai food, but 75% liked Italian food, they would all eat Italian food every night. The only thing that would solve your example would be to let either one person or one family choose what to eat each night, on a rotating basis. Of course, you could just let each family choose its own meal, while using a majority vote (either of people or families) to decide things that affect all the families. This is federalism. But I submit that families choosing what to eat is different from government making laws. Many things have to be decided by a central authority, and there has to be a way of apportioning representation in that central authority. Giving certain citizens 3x as much power because they live on one side of a line vs. another violates the principle of "one person, one vote".