10 ms·

Which is no different than now... Everyone already votes, you can already "corrupt" them all. Arguably, they already are.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Which is no different than now.. So there's no reason to change if there is no difference... But actually a very important difference exist: the right to vote is a right that can be exercised only going to vote Seems trivial, but that little friction there makes all the difference there is. If you order take away pizza, you're not cooking, if you "donate" your vote to someone else, you're not voting! But someone else is voting 1+N times. Which is not what democracy should be about.
- guerrilla 4y ago
  There's definitely a reason to change. The people effected by the decisions should be the ones making them, basic autonomy. Two systems having problems in common doesn't mean they have all problems in common. Liquid democracy solves many problems representative "democracy" can't. You can donate and undate your vote as much as you want... That's the point. You don't vote on things you don't care about and you do vote on things you do care about. You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > The people effected by the decisions should be the ones making them, basic autonomy. that's not how democracy work. > Two systems having problems in common doesn't mean they have all problems in common. at all. in fact I am saying to you that what you propose have all the problems of the current system, plus some on its own. > You can donate and undate your vote as much as you want... It doesn't matter. People spoke, and they said we don't want it. Anyway, it would not be possible in Italy where the Constitution at art. 84 says "... Vote is *personal* and equal, free and secret. Exercising it is a civic duty" Case closed. > You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy. That's not why we vote. we vote because democracy needs to engage us personally. You still don't get that technicalities are the tools of tyrannies.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > that's not how democracy work. That's why I called it autonomy, not democracy. > > "... Vote is personal and equal, free and secret. Exercising it is a civic duty" > Case closed. > > You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy. > That's not why we vote. we vote because democracy needs to engage us personally. It's pretty clear that you don't know what liquid democracy is if you think it's not personal. Here, check the Wikipedia article[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > That's why I called it autonomy, not democracy. That's why liquid democracy it's not democracy, but autarchy. > It's pretty clear that you don't know what liquid democracy is if you think it's not personal. It's pretty obvious that you don't know Italian and are trying to explain my Constitution to me... [1] Liquid democracy supporters prove, once again, that they don't understand consensus. [1] scholars of Constitutional law and jurisprudence established that "the vote is personal" should be read as Il voto è personale nel senso che non può essere delegato salva soltanto la possibilità di valersi di un accompagnatore in caso di grave impedimento fisico. Non è ammesso il voto per procura. I'll gladly translate for you Vote is personal means that it *can't be delegated* Proxy voting *is not admitted* If you read something on proxy voting, you'll know why civilized countries don't admit it. Here's a list of countries where proxy voting was used in the past - Albania - Algeria - Canada - China - Gabon - Guyana - India - Iraq - Russia - United Kingdom - United States - Vietnam What's the problem with proxy voting? As I've said before it disincentive people to actually exercise the right to vote. For example: According to Arch Puddington et al., in Albanian Muslim areas, many women have been effectively disenfranchised through proxy voting by male relatives. In Algeria, restrictions on proxy voting were instituted circa 1991 in order to undermine the Islamic Salvation Front. In Canada David Stewart and Keith Archer opine that proxy voting can result in *leadership selection processes to become leader-dominated*. Proxy voting had only been available to military personnel since World War II, but was extended in 1970 and 1977 to include voters in special circumstances such as northern camp operators, fishermen, and prospectors. The Alberta Liberal Party ran into some difficulties, in that an unknown number of proxy ballots that were counted may have been invalid According to Mim Kelber, "in Central Africa, all it takes for a man to cast a proxy vote for his wife is to produce an unwitnessed letter mentioning the name of the person to whom the voting power is delegated." The Gabon respondent to an Inter-Parliamentary Union letter commented, "It has been observed that this possibility was exploited to a far greater extent by men than by women, for reasons not always noble." Proxy voting was used in some American U.S. presidential nominating caucuses. In one case, Eugene McCarthy supporters were in the majority of those present but were outvoted when the presiding party official cast 492 proxy votes – three times the number present – for his own slate of delegates. After the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, the New Politics movement charged that Humphrey and party bosses had circumvented the will of Democratic Party members by manipulating the rules to Humphrey's advantage. In response, the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, also known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission, was created to rework the rules in time for the 1972 Democratic National Convention. State parties were required to ban proxy voting in order to have their delegates seated at the national convention. It was said that these rules had been used in *"highly selective" ways*. Several attempts have been made to place proxy voting-related initiatives on the California ballot, but all have failed. Please, stop pretending you actually understand the matter. You don't.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

> Which is no different than now.. So there's no reason to change if there is no difference... But actually a very important difference exist: the right to vote is a right that can be exercised only going to vote Seems trivial, but that little friction there makes all the difference there is. If you order take away pizza, you're not cooking, if you "donate" your vote to someone else, you're not voting! But someone else is voting 1+N times. Which is not what democracy should be about.

guerrilla 4y ago
There's definitely a reason to change. The people effected by the decisions should be the ones making them, basic autonomy. Two systems having problems in common doesn't mean they have all problems in common. Liquid democracy solves many problems representative "democracy" can't. You can donate and undate your vote as much as you want... That's the point. You don't vote on things you don't care about and you do vote on things you do care about. You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > The people effected by the decisions should be the ones making them, basic autonomy. that's not how democracy work. > Two systems having problems in common doesn't mean they have all problems in common. at all. in fact I am saying to you that what you propose have all the problems of the current system, plus some on its own. > You can donate and undate your vote as much as you want... It doesn't matter. People spoke, and they said we don't want it. Anyway, it would not be possible in Italy where the Constitution at art. 84 says "... Vote is *personal* and equal, free and secret. Exercising it is a civic duty" Case closed. > You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy. That's not why we vote. we vote because democracy needs to engage us personally. You still don't get that technicalities are the tools of tyrannies.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > that's not how democracy work. That's why I called it autonomy, not democracy. > > "... Vote is personal and equal, free and secret. Exercising it is a civic duty" > Case closed. > > You turst someone elese for the things you can and you don't for the things you don't. You've created a false dichotomy. > That's not why we vote. we vote because democracy needs to engage us personally. It's pretty clear that you don't know what liquid democracy is if you think it's not personal. Here, check the Wikipedia article[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > That's why I called it autonomy, not democracy. That's why liquid democracy it's not democracy, but autarchy. > It's pretty clear that you don't know what liquid democracy is if you think it's not personal. It's pretty obvious that you don't know Italian and are trying to explain my Constitution to me... [1] Liquid democracy supporters prove, once again, that they don't understand consensus. [1] scholars of Constitutional law and jurisprudence established that "the vote is personal" should be read as Il voto è personale nel senso che non può essere delegato salva soltanto la possibilità di valersi di un accompagnatore in caso di grave impedimento fisico. Non è ammesso il voto per procura. I'll gladly translate for you Vote is personal means that it *can't be delegated* Proxy voting *is not admitted* If you read something on proxy voting, you'll know why civilized countries don't admit it. Here's a list of countries where proxy voting was used in the past - Albania - Algeria - Canada - China - Gabon - Guyana - India - Iraq - Russia - United Kingdom - United States - Vietnam What's the problem with proxy voting? As I've said before it disincentive people to actually exercise the right to vote. For example: According to Arch Puddington et al., in Albanian Muslim areas, many women have been effectively disenfranchised through proxy voting by male relatives. In Algeria, restrictions on proxy voting were instituted circa 1991 in order to undermine the Islamic Salvation Front. In Canada David Stewart and Keith Archer opine that proxy voting can result in *leadership selection processes to become leader-dominated*. Proxy voting had only been available to military personnel since World War II, but was extended in 1970 and 1977 to include voters in special circumstances such as northern camp operators, fishermen, and prospectors. The Alberta Liberal Party ran into some difficulties, in that an unknown number of proxy ballots that were counted may have been invalid According to Mim Kelber, "in Central Africa, all it takes for a man to cast a proxy vote for his wife is to produce an unwitnessed letter mentioning the name of the person to whom the voting power is delegated." The Gabon respondent to an Inter-Parliamentary Union letter commented, "It has been observed that this possibility was exploited to a far greater extent by men than by women, for reasons not always noble." Proxy voting was used in some American U.S. presidential nominating caucuses. In one case, Eugene McCarthy supporters were in the majority of those present but were outvoted when the presiding party official cast 492 proxy votes – three times the number present – for his own slate of delegates. After the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, the New Politics movement charged that Humphrey and party bosses had circumvented the will of Democratic Party members by manipulating the rules to Humphrey's advantage. In response, the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate Selection, also known as the McGovern-Fraser Commission, was created to rework the rules in time for the 1972 Democratic National Convention. State parties were required to ban proxy voting in order to have their delegates seated at the national convention. It was said that these rules had been used in *"highly selective" ways*. Several attempts have been made to place proxy voting-related initiatives on the California ballot, but all have failed. Please, stop pretending you actually understand the matter. You don't.