10 ms·
Except the government is a monopoly with its own agenda. In addition it already kind of owns us (well a large percentage), what would it gain if it negotiated t
by sfe22 5y ago
Except the government is a monopoly with its own agenda. In addition it already kind of owns us (well a large percentage), what would it gain if it negotiated this deal for us? I would argue it can gain more power by making a deal with facebook.
- newsclues 5y agoDigital direct democracy is a potential opportunity that has only become possible with ubiquitous computing devices (iPhones)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pnutjam 5y agoEveryone who doesn't vote and ignores their role in Democracy let's this happen. The president matters much less then the Mayor or the Governor.
- sfe22 5y ago
- sfe22 5y agoThere is no democracy other than direct democracy. If you cant fire your government this afternoon, they own you, not the other way around.
- codechad 5y ago
- CaptainZapp 5y agoThat's not how direct democracy works. If we assume that Switzerland is probably closest to the ideal of a direct democracy please take note that voters can not directly vote for the executive government (The Bundesrat, or federal council). They elect members of the two houses, which in turn elects the 7 executives. Usually this is based on the recommendation by the parties and with a specific formula considering party, language and area of the country. We also can't fire government members this afternoon. It's just like everywhere else. We can just not re-elect them.
- sfe22 5y agoI looked up the Swiss system, and it certainly is not direct democracy.
- ghaff 5y agoSo many towns where I live put issues on the agenda for town meetings. How this works in practice is that, if there's some issue that someone (like a developer) feels strongly about, they pack the town meeting with allies and push it through because most people probably don't care much and don't even attend the meeting.
- ebruchez 5y ago> it certainly is not direct democracy You appear to make up your own extreme definition of what the words "direct democracy" should be and what they should mean. But it's not like that. There are ways words and condepts are commonly used. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
- sfe22 5y agoLooks like I need a new word to describe a system where everyone rules, rather than certain people or organization, since both democracy and direct democracy are apparently taken to describe systems where all people don’t actually rule. Maybe “actual true direct pure democracy” should do.
- ebruchez 5y ago> Maybe “actual true direct pure democracy” should do. That would certainly be clearer :)
- CaptainZapp 5y agoI'd argue that it's closest practical example of direct democracy. As in initiatives and referendums. But I'm always happy to learn if you can come up with a counter example.
- pessimizer 5y agoUnder a direct democracy, you should be able to vote that you can't do that.
- alexashka 5y agoNo. You can't have a democracy with 100 IQ idiot majority, because their decisions are governed by whatever gets poured into their poorly working brains that week, so you end up with corporatocracy or fascism, pretending to be a democracy.
- sfe22 5y agoThen we need to fix the apparent problem of idiot majority. If you say most people are stupid why would you want them to vote every 4 years. Can you trust their vote? Do you still advocate for the current form of “democracy”? Maybe we should go back to monarchy and have only one glorious ruler rather than one glorious government.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- alexashka 5y agoYou can fix most people, or you can just abandon one idea because it's incompatible with how most people are. Tough choice, but I think I'll opt in for the latter. Uh! Oh! But if not democracy, then what? Then fascism and corporatocracy - what we have had for as long as you've been alive. You just don't know it :)
- sfe22 5y agoYour reply is confusing. So you maintain that most people are stupid, and still want to give them voting rights. What is the logic behind that? To clarify, I don’t think most people are stupid, and I advocate for direct democracy.
- scarface74 5y ago
- Jasper_ 5y agoI know this isn't the point, but you do realize that the IQ is rearranged to fit a bell curve with 100 being the exact middle average, right? By literally the definition of IQ, 100 IQ is not "an idiot".
- scarface74 5y agoSo let’s say I’m in CA voting for my two Senators. How much does my vote actually count when 10 other states combined have the same population but 20 Senators? How much does my vote count even for representatives if I’m in a state that’s heavily gerrymandered?
- ameister14 5y agoIf you're in a district that is heavily gerrymandered, your vote may actually be more important. Still, the best proportional representation for you is local. So mayor, state rep, governor.
- scarface74 5y agoHow do you propose the mayor legislate BigTech? Even on the state level, gerrymandering effects representation. Most of the population in GA (where I live), Florida, and Texas don’t support the state laws. Those three states are passing all kinds of laws to make it harder for people to vote. Especially after the “stolen election” that saw GA turn blue. And before the whataboutism replies start, I’m sure the same happens on the other side. I just know more about my own state.
- barsonme 5y agoThe allocation of Senators isn’t supposed to be proportionate to state population by design. It’s a non-issue. Proportional representation occurs in the House.
- wbsss4412 5y agoSimply because something was designed a certain way 250 years ago, doesn’t mean it’s a non issue. The political problem they were trying to solve at the time (balancing the interests of independent sovereign political entities with respect to land claims and future political power) doesn’t necessarily map onto the problems we have today.
- FactolSarin 5y agoJust because it was done by design doesn't mean it's a non-issue. The Senate is an extremely undemocratic organization. The population discrepancy between States is much higher now than when the country was founded. Nor do the reasons the founders did it this way exist anymore.
- pessimizer 5y agoWhich is why all the choices are pre-approved by the people who would be most damaged by a President.