4 ms·

I was assuming you had liquid democracy because if you did that's the only way she'd still be in power after being disliked, so your complaint could only mean t

I was assuming you had liquid democracy because if you did that's the only way she'd still be in power after being disliked, so your complaint could only mean that you disagreed with the majority. If you had liquid democracy and you didn't like her, then how was this a problem? You would have just been able to outvote her any time she did something you didn't like. The fact that you even had a mayor makes me think you didn't have liquid democracy at all... > But most of all your answer proves why liquid democracy doesn't work: you seem to know virtually nothing about Rome and yet you expressed your opinion as it was a fact, because instead of checking if what I said was true or not, you simply found an angle to argue. I wouldn't be voting on Rome, which isn't something I really need to know about today. You said you had liquid democracy, so I assumed you did; apparently you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> otherwise you wouldn't be complaining 1. I said kinda 2. You're wrong again. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse. Lucky us she had to respond to the laws and the hierarchy of powers, not only to her supporters or we would be all f***ed by now. For once: they said she could be removed if she didn't do what she said she would, when they tried she refused. End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like. We already had these arguments decades ago, "Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation" explains it well, "Tiranny of the structureless" explains why (the) lack of structure, disguised an informal, unacknowledged, and unaccountable leadership and ensured its malefaction by denying its existence Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less. Looks to me that every 5 years someone rediscovers politics and propose solutions that have already failed both in theory and in practice, since the 60s of the past century.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > 1. I said kinda It's either liquid democracy or not. It seems the fact that it was not was a big problem for you. > 2. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse If you say so. > End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like. Liquid democracy doesn't have representatives. You've misunderstood what it is, which explains why you think having elected a mayor has anything to do with it. > Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less. That's why you should have liquid democracy, where you can withdraw your vote at any time for any reason and don't need a delegates permission.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > It's either liquid democracy or not this makes absolutely no sense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman > Liquid democracy doesn't have representatives. I love when people don't realize that changing names to things doesn't magically make those things disappear... Edit: to make it clear why you're wrong. In Italy they tried to implement what you talk about, but when they tried to enforce those rules, elected went straight to justice that deliberated that it is incompatible with the constitution to remove an elected person before the terms have expired based on a private vote - not officially recognized (before you blame Italy it is incompatible with virtually all western constitutions, that basically represent all the liberal democracies in the World!) But it's even simpler than that: elected have ways of opposing to their leaders because every constitution recognizes their freedom and independence. Take for example filibustering in the US senate. Those are simply senate rules, they could change them because justice said that simple.majority is enough, but it is hard to change the rule of the game while you are playing the game so filibuster is still there.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> otherwise you wouldn't be complaining 1. I said kinda 2. You're wrong again. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse. Lucky us she had to respond to the laws and the hierarchy of powers, not only to her supporters or we would be all f***ed by now. For once: they said she could be removed if she didn't do what she said she would, when they tried she refused. End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like. We already had these arguments decades ago, "Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation" explains it well, "Tiranny of the structureless" explains why (the) lack of structure, disguised an informal, unacknowledged, and unaccountable leadership and ensured its malefaction by denying its existence Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less. Looks to me that every 5 years someone rediscovers politics and propose solutions that have already failed both in theory and in practice, since the 60s of the past century.

guerrilla 4y ago
> 1. I said kinda It's either liquid democracy or not. It seems the fact that it was not was a big problem for you. > 2. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse If you say so. > End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like. Liquid democracy doesn't have representatives. You've misunderstood what it is, which explains why you think having elected a mayor has anything to do with it. > Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less. That's why you should have liquid democracy, where you can withdraw your vote at any time for any reason and don't need a delegates permission.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > It's either liquid democracy or not this makes absolutely no sense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman > Liquid democracy doesn't have representatives. I love when people don't realize that changing names to things doesn't magically make those things disappear... Edit: to make it clear why you're wrong. In Italy they tried to implement what you talk about, but when they tried to enforce those rules, elected went straight to justice that deliberated that it is incompatible with the constitution to remove an elected person before the terms have expired based on a private vote - not officially recognized (before you blame Italy it is incompatible with virtually all western constitutions, that basically represent all the liberal democracies in the World!) But it's even simpler than that: elected have ways of opposing to their leaders because every constitution recognizes their freedom and independence. Take for example filibustering in the US senate. Those are simply senate rules, they could change them because justice said that simple.majority is enough, but it is hard to change the rule of the game while you are playing the game so filibuster is still there.