4 ms·

>Yeah, this is what liquid democracy solves Do you have any real-world examples of where this was implemented & provided better results than a normal, represen

>Yeah, this is what liquid democracy solves Do you have any real-world examples of where this was implemented & provided better results than a normal, representative system? If not, this seems like an overly strong statement- history is littered with hundreds of examples of social, economic or electoral systems that in theory sounded better, but didn't really work out in practice

guerrilla 4y ago
It's an a priori fact that it can't have the same kind of corruption because that kind of corruption requires representatives who have terms and who can't be recalled, and it does not have either. If you think that it can have the corrupt politician problem, then you haven't understood it. Everywhere it's used is an instance of broader interests being taken into account, by definition.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > It's an a priori fact that it can't have the same kind of corruption In theory, again. It is also a well known fact that it is gonna have a worse type of corruption: incompetence supported by numbers. Liquid democracy is nothing more than a system where social connections have been replaced by popularity. It is in practice a system run by influencers. Beware of what you wish for.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    Not "in theory" - it's literally just impossible to even apply the problem to the system. Again, if you don't see that that is obvious then you don't understand the system we're discussing. > It is also a well known fact that it is gonna have a worse type of corruption: incompetence supported by numbers. That's a real criticism, for sure. > It is in practice a system run by influencers. We already have that problem. Our system is a system run by influencers. Enough people will never hear about any candidate or idea that the people who own the media (the state an capitalists) don't want them to hear about.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > it's literally just impossible to even apply the problem to the system if you can't see why this is completely false, I don't think it is of any use to argue further. You should also prove me that in practice it never happened, because it's impossible. > We already have that problem. No, we don't. Our system is run by politicians, influencers and politicians are different jobs, if you think Obama, Bush , even Trump, could be replaced by Shane Dawson, you're delusional. Short lesson about the difference: politicians have to reach consensus,often with people with very different ideas, influencers value only their own personal popularity and would do anything to increase it. Also: politics is strictly regulated, influencers are not. There's a reason why proponents of liquid democracy are against public funding of free press and politics: that way they only have to buy influencers and not much harder to convince politicians. Putin is financing many influencers and very few politicians. He knows!
      - guerrilla 4y ago
        > if you can't see why this is completely false, I don't think it is of any use to argue further. What are you talking about, if the system has zero politicians then it is literally impossible for any politicians to become corrupt.
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > What are you talking about, if the system has zero politicians then it is literally impossible for any politicians to become corrupt. then you simply corrupt someone else. corruption is not the act of paying politicians. but those in positions of power that can influence decisions. doesn't matter of they ate politicians or actors or soldiers.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        Which is no different than now... Everyone already votes, you can already "corrupt" them all. Arguably, they already are.

guerrilla 4y ago

It's an a priori fact that it can't have the same kind of corruption because that kind of corruption requires representatives who have terms and who can't be recalled, and it does not have either. If you think that it can have the corrupt politician problem, then you haven't understood it. Everywhere it's used is an instance of broader interests being taken into account, by definition.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> It's an a priori fact that it can't have the same kind of corruption In theory, again. It is also a well known fact that it is gonna have a worse type of corruption: incompetence supported by numbers. Liquid democracy is nothing more than a system where social connections have been replaced by popularity. It is in practice a system run by influencers. Beware of what you wish for.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Not "in theory" - it's literally just impossible to even apply the problem to the system. Again, if you don't see that that is obvious then you don't understand the system we're discussing. > It is also a well known fact that it is gonna have a worse type of corruption: incompetence supported by numbers. That's a real criticism, for sure. > It is in practice a system run by influencers. We already have that problem. Our system is a system run by influencers. Enough people will never hear about any candidate or idea that the people who own the media (the state an capitalists) don't want them to hear about.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > it's literally just impossible to even apply the problem to the system if you can't see why this is completely false, I don't think it is of any use to argue further. You should also prove me that in practice it never happened, because it's impossible. > We already have that problem. No, we don't. Our system is run by politicians, influencers and politicians are different jobs, if you think Obama, Bush , even Trump, could be replaced by Shane Dawson, you're delusional. Short lesson about the difference: politicians have to reach consensus,often with people with very different ideas, influencers value only their own personal popularity and would do anything to increase it. Also: politics is strictly regulated, influencers are not. There's a reason why proponents of liquid democracy are against public funding of free press and politics: that way they only have to buy influencers and not much harder to convince politicians. Putin is financing many influencers and very few politicians. He knows!
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > if you can't see why this is completely false, I don't think it is of any use to argue further. What are you talking about, if the system has zero politicians then it is literally impossible for any politicians to become corrupt.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > What are you talking about, if the system has zero politicians then it is literally impossible for any politicians to become corrupt. then you simply corrupt someone else. corruption is not the act of paying politicians. but those in positions of power that can influence decisions. doesn't matter of they ate politicians or actors or soldiers.
        guerrilla 4y ago
        Which is no different than now... Everyone already votes, you can already "corrupt" them all. Arguably, they already are.