3 ms·

No, you get the opposite: Voter fatigue, and in the end only the cranks show up to vote for their pet issues.

joshspankit 5y ago
Maybe, but remember we’re not talking about making people show up. What I’m imagining is a bit of a utopia, but: - Voting from a personal device that every citizen can use problem-free, no matter where they are - Clear language about what the choices are, and what will be affected - Open and available clear-language information for people who choose to dig deeper - Ways to discuss the pros and cons without being subject to scrutiny or chilling effects Yes people could still get fatigued. But I suspect much less so than they are by a vote that happens every 4 years and does not let them participate in the stuff that moves fast.
- henrikschroder 5y ago
  > Voting from a personal device that every citizen can use problem-free, no matter where they are Which means there would be no protections against vote coercion or vote buying. > But I suspect much less so than they are by a vote that happens every 4 years and does not let them participate in the stuff that moves fast. The problem is that there's so much of politics that moves fast, but is also incredibly boring and irrelevant for the vast majority. The whole point of representative democracy is that we elect representatives that have the same values as we do, and then we let them deal with all the boring crap so that we don't have to. The mistake you're making is assuming that everyone would be equally interested in every single issue that came up for a public vote, and that is just simply not the case. Just look at California that often have referendums on the ballot, and what an incredible shit-show those usually are.
  - joshspankit 5y ago
    “Which means there would be no protections against vote coercion or vote buying.” Yes, definite potential issues here. Again: I’m imagining a utopia (where there is no corruption of individual voters) “... incredibly boring and irrelevant for the vast majority” It’s clear that an overwhelming percentage of politics is intentionally uninteresting to the public. Parties battling through intentional bureaucratic stalling, thousands of hours put in to adding loopholes that are designed to be exploited for personal gain, reams and reams of information designed to hide a simple “I don’t know”, and so-on. If we truly were in a utopia, the choices left would be straightforward, manageable, and in less volume over time. “The mistake you're making is assuming that everyone would be equally interested in every single issue that came up for a public vote, and that is just simply not the case.” Kind of. Even if 70% vote in each issue, and it’s a different 70% each time, that’s a huge upgrade. “The mistake you're making is assuming that everyone would be equally interested in every single issue that came up for a public vote” I disagree with your take on it. It’s just as valid to say that the mistake you are making is assuming that people would be more jaded and hopeless than they are now.

Maybe, but remember we’re not talking about making people show up. What I’m imagining is a bit of a utopia, but: - Voting from a personal device that every citizen can use problem-free, no matter where they are - Clear language about what the choices are, and what will be affected - Open and available clear-language information for people who choose to dig deeper - Ways to discuss the pros and cons without being subject to scrutiny or chilling effects Yes people could still get fatigued. But I suspect much less so than they are by a vote that happens every 4 years and does not let them participate in the stuff that moves fast.

henrikschroder 5y ago
> Voting from a personal device that every citizen can use problem-free, no matter where they are Which means there would be no protections against vote coercion or vote buying. > But I suspect much less so than they are by a vote that happens every 4 years and does not let them participate in the stuff that moves fast. The problem is that there's so much of politics that moves fast, but is also incredibly boring and irrelevant for the vast majority. The whole point of representative democracy is that we elect representatives that have the same values as we do, and then we let them deal with all the boring crap so that we don't have to. The mistake you're making is assuming that everyone would be equally interested in every single issue that came up for a public vote, and that is just simply not the case. Just look at California that often have referendums on the ballot, and what an incredible shit-show those usually are.
- joshspankit 5y ago
  “Which means there would be no protections against vote coercion or vote buying.” Yes, definite potential issues here. Again: I’m imagining a utopia (where there is no corruption of individual voters) “... incredibly boring and irrelevant for the vast majority” It’s clear that an overwhelming percentage of politics is intentionally uninteresting to the public. Parties battling through intentional bureaucratic stalling, thousands of hours put in to adding loopholes that are designed to be exploited for personal gain, reams and reams of information designed to hide a simple “I don’t know”, and so-on. If we truly were in a utopia, the choices left would be straightforward, manageable, and in less volume over time. “The mistake you're making is assuming that everyone would be equally interested in every single issue that came up for a public vote, and that is just simply not the case.” Kind of. Even if 70% vote in each issue, and it’s a different 70% each time, that’s a huge upgrade. “The mistake you're making is assuming that everyone would be equally interested in every single issue that came up for a public vote” I disagree with your take on it. It’s just as valid to say that the mistake you are making is assuming that people would be more jaded and hopeless than they are now.