3 ms·

Hands raised is even better, fair point. So long as you're physically verifying humans, it's good. The problem is that usually direct and liquid democracy aren'

Hands raised is even better, fair point. So long as you're physically verifying humans, it's good. The problem is that usually direct and liquid democracy aren't scalable, and you're not going to do country wide elections on everything. So these methods tend to converge to some electronic hack instead.

panick21_ 4y ago
In Switzerland we do direct democracy with paper and count the votes in a 1 day. This can be done many times a year. > and you're not going to do country wide elections on everything. Well sure. As in you can't make literally every single choice of a government by direct democracy. That literally impossible because those are millions and millions of choices every minute. Nothing will solve that problem, in the end of the day you need some people to simply have people doing their job to make these choices based on what was decided on a higher level. So the question is how do these people get in those jobs and then do they select the people that work below them or who does that. In Switzerland we elect a parliament, that parliament elects top level ministers and their choices can be over-written or new laws can be interceded with direct democracy. You can alternatively have a system where instead of the parliament electing top ministers, a liquid democracy system elects those ministers and makes the choices normally made by parliament. The ministers work for the liquid democracy and have to implement the choices made in that system. Or you could go beyond just the ministers and elect a broader set of people. > So these methods tend to converge to some electronic hack instead. No its not some 'electronic hack'. Its just a question about what things should we want to use these systems for and what not. Nobody proposes to use liquid democracy to decide what kind of colors should be used when buying new pens or whatever.

panick21_ 4y ago

In Switzerland we do direct democracy with paper and count the votes in a 1 day. This can be done many times a year. > and you're not going to do country wide elections on everything. Well sure. As in you can't make literally every single choice of a government by direct democracy. That literally impossible because those are millions and millions of choices every minute. Nothing will solve that problem, in the end of the day you need some people to simply have people doing their job to make these choices based on what was decided on a higher level. So the question is how do these people get in those jobs and then do they select the people that work below them or who does that. In Switzerland we elect a parliament, that parliament elects top level ministers and their choices can be over-written or new laws can be interceded with direct democracy. You can alternatively have a system where instead of the parliament electing top ministers, a liquid democracy system elects those ministers and makes the choices normally made by parliament. The ministers work for the liquid democracy and have to implement the choices made in that system. Or you could go beyond just the ministers and elect a broader set of people. > So these methods tend to converge to some electronic hack instead. No its not some 'electronic hack'. Its just a question about what things should we want to use these systems for and what not. Nobody proposes to use liquid democracy to decide what kind of colors should be used when buying new pens or whatever.