3 ms·

Why can't we come up with something better than representative democracy? The problem is the representatives and that they have other motives than serving the p

Why can't we come up with something better than representative democracy? The problem is the representatives and that they have other motives than serving the peoples that elected them. If we can do a census every decade, we can certainly make a system where every vote counts.

codefreeordie 4y ago
The problem is not just representatives not representing their people. The problem is, fundamentally, that a pure and direct democracy is merely rule by the largest faction.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jschveibinz 4y ago
If you live in the US, you have access to direct democracy at the state level (in roughly 1/2 of the states) through ballot initiatives. Here is an article/paper on the pros and cons of direct democracy: https://journals.openedition.org/siecles/1072?lang=en https://journals.openedition.org/siecles/1072?lang=en
nathanaldensr 4y ago
Corruption through lobbying--"corporations are people for the purposes of speech"--is hardly an inextricable feature of representative republics.
jfengel 4y ago
If anything, the problem is that representatives are motived only to serve the people that elected them. There is little reason for them to support their constituents who oppose them, and in fact every reason to score points with their own voters by making life worse for their opponents. Most elected people are very popular in their districts. That's why they get re-elected. There are very few places where the voters say, "Gosh, we really hate our elected representative. They keep doing stuff I don't like." In the legislature, they do what they were sent to do. And what they weren't sent to do is make compromises, reach accommodations, and advance the general well-being of the city/district/state/country. Most of them promised to "fight", and fight they do. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make a system where every vote counts. The winners win, and the losers might as well not have shown up. That holds whether you've got a direct democracy or a representative democracy. The 48% of Brits who voted to remain in the EU are just as out as the 52% of pro-Brexit voters.
Arnt 4y ago
I… disagree. The problem is that we also want justice and fairness, and IMO that's not a problem, more of an advantage. But it is in conflict with the will of the people. This year's majority of the people may well be sympathetic to a NIMBY campaign, while last year a majority didn't have much sympathy for a similar NIMBY campaign in a different neighbourhood. A just society treats both campaigns similarly, the majority in a democracy is not so constrained. The representatives often end up with the blame when this conflict has bad results.
- tenpies 4y ago
  Exactly. The whole point about democracy is that it cannot just be mob rule. This leads to the tyranny of the majority problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority We mitigate for this by having separation of state powers, and completely separate judicial branch separate from the legislative, delegating day-to-day affairs to representatives, and having regular elections. However we see this problem emerge in the US regardless (e.g. centralization and the abandonment of rationality). The Federal government is dictating affairs that should be settled at lower levels. When the States do something the Federal government does not like, the Federal government attempts to retaliate. When a court does something the Federal government doesn't like, it stochastically endorses violence against the judges. It's an alarming trend, but one will most likely have to get worst before people realize how far away they've deviated.

codefreeordie 4y ago

The problem is not just representatives not representing their people. The problem is, fundamentally, that a pure and direct democracy is merely rule by the largest faction.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jschveibinz 4y ago

If you live in the US, you have access to direct democracy at the state level (in roughly 1/2 of the states) through ballot initiatives. Here is an article/paper on the pros and cons of direct democracy: https://journals.openedition.org/siecles/1072?lang=en https://journals.openedition.org/siecles/1072?lang=en

nathanaldensr 4y ago

Corruption through lobbying--"corporations are people for the purposes of speech"--is hardly an inextricable feature of representative republics.

jfengel 4y ago

If anything, the problem is that representatives are motived only to serve the people that elected them. There is little reason for them to support their constituents who oppose them, and in fact every reason to score points with their own voters by making life worse for their opponents. Most elected people are very popular in their districts. That's why they get re-elected. There are very few places where the voters say, "Gosh, we really hate our elected representative. They keep doing stuff I don't like." In the legislature, they do what they were sent to do. And what they weren't sent to do is make compromises, reach accommodations, and advance the general well-being of the city/district/state/country. Most of them promised to "fight", and fight they do. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to make a system where every vote counts. The winners win, and the losers might as well not have shown up. That holds whether you've got a direct democracy or a representative democracy. The 48% of Brits who voted to remain in the EU are just as out as the 52% of pro-Brexit voters.

Arnt 4y ago

I… disagree. The problem is that we also want justice and fairness, and IMO that's not a problem, more of an advantage. But it is in conflict with the will of the people. This year's majority of the people may well be sympathetic to a NIMBY campaign, while last year a majority didn't have much sympathy for a similar NIMBY campaign in a different neighbourhood. A just society treats both campaigns similarly, the majority in a democracy is not so constrained. The representatives often end up with the blame when this conflict has bad results.

tenpies 4y ago
Exactly. The whole point about democracy is that it cannot just be mob rule. This leads to the tyranny of the majority problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority We mitigate for this by having separation of state powers, and completely separate judicial branch separate from the legislative, delegating day-to-day affairs to representatives, and having regular elections. However we see this problem emerge in the US regardless (e.g. centralization and the abandonment of rationality). The Federal government is dictating affairs that should be settled at lower levels. When the States do something the Federal government does not like, the Federal government attempts to retaliate. When a court does something the Federal government doesn't like, it stochastically endorses violence against the judges. It's an alarming trend, but one will most likely have to get worst before people realize how far away they've deviated.