4 ms·

> 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 situa

> 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

> 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.