3 ms·

As you allude to, the problem with direct democracy is that people are stupid. Not all people about all things, but most people about most things. The realm o

As you allude to, the problem with direct democracy is that people are stupid. Not all people about all things, but most people about most things. The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This means that, for any given issue, the vast majority of people are ignorant about its specifics. Thus we cannot expect the masses to make wise decisions about most issues. The obvious counter-argument to this is education, that educating the public on the issues at hand would lead to better decisions. However, that would fall victim to the same demagoguery and corruption that we see infecting politics today. By way of illustration, think of an issue that you care deeply about and are well-informed on. Now ask yourself if you would trust the public at large to make policy on it. For every pg, grellas, or Schneier, you'll have far more popular Becks, Palins, and Bachmanns. Direct democracy would be inherently susceptible to such demagogues, and as such cannot be seen to be any more reliable, or likely to produce wise policy, than the current system.

seats 15y ago
>> The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This statement could actually be used just as easily against voting for representatives as we do today. The real question is do you trust public at large to make a better or worse opinion than <name your representative> on some issue you are deeply informed on? In other words the comparison should be versus the existing system as a whole, not versus an expert on a single topic. My perception of the demagogue is that their power comes from railing against the current authority. So while I can agree that it seems likely that a 'true democracy' would instantly prop up the Becks and Palins of the country, who do they blame when a majority of people vote that they are wrong? Or maybe even more extreme who do they blame when their views and proposals are voted for but still fail? There is no longer a 'bad guy' to blame and arguments put forth by a demagogue will have to deal with two new realities- 1- They can no longer claim they are part of the majority opinion in an effort to gain further support. It'd be hard for Sarah Palin to keep up her 'regular joe' persona and reconcile it with being in major disagreement with a majority of the country 2- They can no longer claim obstruction by some authority steam rolling them in legislature. It would become pointless to argue about which pundit supported which policy or law in the past, because every individual would have their personal voting record.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  >> This statement could actually be used just as easily against voting for representatives as we do today. True. I'm no big fan of representative democracy, it just happens to be the least bad system we've tried. >> The real question is do you trust public at large to make a better or worse opinion than <name your representative> on some issue you are deeply informed on? Well, yes, because they are at least (usually) experts in business or law, which are the domains that are most important to government. Some will be military or foreign policy experts, and they will (hopefully) be appointed to the relevant subcommittees. It's a fairly broken system, open to all kinds of abuses and with little assurance of wise leadership, but I still think the competence of the average politician in crafting policy is higher than that of the average citizen. >> My perception of the demagogue is that their power comes from railing against the current authority. I think there's quite a bit of truth in that. I don't, however, think it's a necessary truth. Hitler was a classic demagogue, even and especially after he gained power. He appealed to antisemitism and a fierce nationalism, rather than to the incompetence of politicians. While the current crop in the US gain power by railing against the established political class in DC, that's not the only possible source of power for them. >> It'd be hard for Sarah Palin to keep up her 'regular joe' persona and reconcile it with being in major disagreement with a majority of the country. Reconciling her views with reality has never been particularly important to her, and I don't see how that would change in a direct democracy. She could just as easily rail against the liberals in the MSM who poison the electorate with their propaganda. Ultimately, I picture direct democracy working quite similarly to the reddit hivemind, and I'm not convinced that's a good thing. It would likely be passionate and dynamic, but liable to go off the rails from time to time.
- derleth 15y ago
  You assume they won't lie outright, which seems like an odd assumption. In a world where some people claim no American planes crashed into buildings on September 11, 2001, I wouldn't put it past the average demagogue to pin every defeat on a conspiracy that subverted the will of the voters, who are of course all Right-Minded and pro-demagogue.
acroyear 15y ago
I like the idea of a Ward Republic (see Jefferson) coupled with a Delegate Democracy.
Greedy_Fools 15y ago
It's not about people knowing a lot of things, it about people with a lot of things knowing. The fundamentals are what's lacking, the basic lies. "... ALL MEN are created equal" , lie from the very foundation, and why, why ,why can't they grasp "do until others as you would have them do unto you", the very heart of what they claim as their religion and proof of their legitimate claim to power ? It's only about holding key truths, not about vast sums of knowledge. People can do anything together, all the answers exist. It's the lack of power holding key truths that skews everything to the lack of progress,the lack of agreement and ability to find solutions. In short, we can fix it very quickly, the answers are actually simple and abundant, the people are deep and strong. BUT THEY WON'T LET US.

seats 15y ago

>> The realm of human knowledge is simply too vast for anyone to have a broad command of, so we specialize. This statement could actually be used just as easily against voting for representatives as we do today. The real question is do you trust public at large to make a better or worse opinion than <name your representative> on some issue you are deeply informed on? In other words the comparison should be versus the existing system as a whole, not versus an expert on a single topic. My perception of the demagogue is that their power comes from railing against the current authority. So while I can agree that it seems likely that a 'true democracy' would instantly prop up the Becks and Palins of the country, who do they blame when a majority of people vote that they are wrong? Or maybe even more extreme who do they blame when their views and proposals are voted for but still fail? There is no longer a 'bad guy' to blame and arguments put forth by a demagogue will have to deal with two new realities- 1- They can no longer claim they are part of the majority opinion in an effort to gain further support. It'd be hard for Sarah Palin to keep up her 'regular joe' persona and reconcile it with being in major disagreement with a majority of the country 2- They can no longer claim obstruction by some authority steam rolling them in legislature. It would become pointless to argue about which pundit supported which policy or law in the past, because every individual would have their personal voting record.

redthrowaway 15y ago
>> This statement could actually be used just as easily against voting for representatives as we do today. True. I'm no big fan of representative democracy, it just happens to be the least bad system we've tried. >> The real question is do you trust public at large to make a better or worse opinion than <name your representative> on some issue you are deeply informed on? Well, yes, because they are at least (usually) experts in business or law, which are the domains that are most important to government. Some will be military or foreign policy experts, and they will (hopefully) be appointed to the relevant subcommittees. It's a fairly broken system, open to all kinds of abuses and with little assurance of wise leadership, but I still think the competence of the average politician in crafting policy is higher than that of the average citizen. >> My perception of the demagogue is that their power comes from railing against the current authority. I think there's quite a bit of truth in that. I don't, however, think it's a necessary truth. Hitler was a classic demagogue, even and especially after he gained power. He appealed to antisemitism and a fierce nationalism, rather than to the incompetence of politicians. While the current crop in the US gain power by railing against the established political class in DC, that's not the only possible source of power for them. >> It'd be hard for Sarah Palin to keep up her 'regular joe' persona and reconcile it with being in major disagreement with a majority of the country. Reconciling her views with reality has never been particularly important to her, and I don't see how that would change in a direct democracy. She could just as easily rail against the liberals in the MSM who poison the electorate with their propaganda. Ultimately, I picture direct democracy working quite similarly to the reddit hivemind, and I'm not convinced that's a good thing. It would likely be passionate and dynamic, but liable to go off the rails from time to time.
derleth 15y ago
You assume they won't lie outright, which seems like an odd assumption. In a world where some people claim no American planes crashed into buildings on September 11, 2001, I wouldn't put it past the average demagogue to pin every defeat on a conspiracy that subverted the will of the voters, who are of course all Right-Minded and pro-demagogue.

acroyear 15y ago

I like the idea of a Ward Republic (see Jefferson) coupled with a Delegate Democracy.

Greedy_Fools 15y ago

It's not about people knowing a lot of things, it about people with a lot of things knowing. The fundamentals are what's lacking, the basic lies. "... ALL MEN are created equal" , lie from the very foundation, and why, why ,why can't they grasp "do until others as you would have them do unto you", the very heart of what they claim as their religion and proof of their legitimate claim to power ? It's only about holding key truths, not about vast sums of knowledge. People can do anything together, all the answers exist. It's the lack of power holding key truths that skews everything to the lack of progress,the lack of agreement and ability to find solutions. In short, we can fix it very quickly, the answers are actually simple and abundant, the people are deep and strong. BUT THEY WON'T LET US.