8 ms·

Better article than this. The sad thing is we’re probably trivially close to the tech needed for direct democracy, but the powers that be use tech to confuse a

by ianai 4y ago

Better article than this. The sad thing is we’re probably trivially close to the tech needed for direct democracy, but the powers that be use tech to confuse and supplant democratic institutions and propose their authoritarian rule.

baremetal 4y ago
Direct democracy with full vote transparency for every voter.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  That's what the USSR had. Didn't work so well. A secret ballot is a major requirement for democracy.
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    There was one option on the ballot, I think that was more the problem. Having choice and not having someone with a gun escort you to the ballot box are bigger requirements. If there were no repercussions, voting could totally be open, don't you think?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Do you really want the thug in power to know you didn't vote for him?
      - barbazoo 4y ago
        That's exactly my point, it's a problem because there is a "thug in power". That's the problem, not open voting.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Even the nicest people become thugs when in power. Power corrupts.
        dette 4y ago
        Most, perhaps yes! But not always. You seem to often have so binary thoughts xD Do you work with programming or something?
        barbazoo 4y ago
        I don't know, in my experience most governments aren't run by "thugs" but YMMV.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        The only reason for open ballots is to hold individuals "accountable" for their votes.
    - suddenclarity 4y ago
      There will always be repercussions. Sweden have been doing public voting for decades by forcing you to pick the ballot out in the open, before going into a booth and putting the public ballot into an envelope. Your family, friends and the whole neighborhood will know whomever voted for the wrong party and will treat you thereafter. EU and election authorities have demanded change to make it private but the previously ruling party didn't want to. Now we got a new government a few months ago and this was one of their first tasks, so it might be changed in time for the election in 2026.
      - barbazoo 4y ago
        > There will always be repercussions. > Your family, friends and the whole neighborhood will know whomever voted for the wrong party and will treat you thereafter. "Repercussions" from family or neighbours, sure, but not from whoever has the monopoly on violence. I haven't heard of the Swedish government going after people that "voted wrong".
- whatshisface 4y ago
  I don't what you mean by vote transparency, but I definitely do not want to be accountable to my boss for voting against his political opinions.
  - ianai 4y ago
    Point is, whatever option is agreeable wouldn’t require the kind of build out to get us here-wiring up the internet, researching and scaling smartphone tech, etc. direct democracy seems like a pretty obvious max for logistical problems to governance and modern tech would make it possible. So anything below it possible too.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      They have direct democracy in Switzerland and they don't need the internet for that.
      - barbazoo 4y ago
        > Popular votes can be held up to four times a year. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-democracy-explained/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-de... At some point you need technology, otherwise it would just get too expensive.
      - basementcat 4y ago
        Many states in the USA have had ballot propositions for over one hundred years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_...
        snovv_crash 4y ago
        Yes but not once every 4 months. People keeping a check on the actions of their representatives needs to happen more than once per election cycle otherwise once the politician gets in they just do whatever they want.
- moremetadata 4y ago
  Why do you feel the need to hand over your decision making to someone else? I've seen no evidence that the democracy model employed across large parts of the western world and elsewhere, is anything other than criminal. Its like watching a punch and judy show where the public get to chose their puppets, but the shadowy puppeteers are lurking in the background, mainly wearing or have worn fancy dress.
  - baremetal 4y ago
    what do you suggest?
sidlls 4y ago
I don't want direct democracy: the problem of voting shenanigans and corruption just expands from a known set of elected officials who vote on laws to...everyone. Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.
- htag 4y ago
  The argument that people aren't to be trusted with a more direct democracy always falls flat to me. The alternative is power concentrated to a few people which introduces a risk for developing a ruling class, an aristocracy, or plutocracy. Arguing against direct democracy feels elitist, like only certain people should be trusted with actual power. The truth is half of the population is dumber than the average, but the other half is smarter than average. Groups of people are susceptible to bias just like individuals. At least when people vote we know they are considering their own interests.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    I don’t want direct democracy deciding specific environmental regulations. Some things need to be done by appointed experts. Yes it’s “elitist”, but it’s the equivalent of expecting someone qualified to perform a heart surgery rather than a rando off the street.
    - vintermann 4y ago
      A "direct" democracy should be perfectly capable of calling in expert opinion, if they decide that a question isn't really political. But which questions are political, is itself a political question. (You do need the random lottery version of DD, sortition, rather than the everyone gets to vote on everything type).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - vintermann 4y ago
tbrownaw 4y ago
> tech needed for direct democracy Tech isn't the issue, making everyone find time to stay sufficiently informed is. I already have one full-time job, I don't need 2-3 more (city and county which might be part-time, state, maybe federal).
- fsflover 4y ago
  There doesn't seem to be such a problem in Switzerland.

by ianai 4y ago

baremetal 4y ago

Direct democracy with full vote transparency for every voter.

WalterBright 4y ago
That's what the USSR had. Didn't work so well. A secret ballot is a major requirement for democracy.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  There was one option on the ballot, I think that was more the problem. Having choice and not having someone with a gun escort you to the ballot box are bigger requirements. If there were no repercussions, voting could totally be open, don't you think?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Do you really want the thug in power to know you didn't vote for him?
    - barbazoo 4y ago
      That's exactly my point, it's a problem because there is a "thug in power". That's the problem, not open voting.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Even the nicest people become thugs when in power. Power corrupts.
        dette 4y ago
        Most, perhaps yes! But not always. You seem to often have so binary thoughts xD Do you work with programming or something?
        barbazoo 4y ago
        I don't know, in my experience most governments aren't run by "thugs" but YMMV.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        The only reason for open ballots is to hold individuals "accountable" for their votes.
  - suddenclarity 4y ago
    There will always be repercussions. Sweden have been doing public voting for decades by forcing you to pick the ballot out in the open, before going into a booth and putting the public ballot into an envelope. Your family, friends and the whole neighborhood will know whomever voted for the wrong party and will treat you thereafter. EU and election authorities have demanded change to make it private but the previously ruling party didn't want to. Now we got a new government a few months ago and this was one of their first tasks, so it might be changed in time for the election in 2026.
    - barbazoo 4y ago
      > There will always be repercussions. > Your family, friends and the whole neighborhood will know whomever voted for the wrong party and will treat you thereafter. "Repercussions" from family or neighbours, sure, but not from whoever has the monopoly on violence. I haven't heard of the Swedish government going after people that "voted wrong".
whatshisface 4y ago
I don't what you mean by vote transparency, but I definitely do not want to be accountable to my boss for voting against his political opinions.
- ianai 4y ago
  Point is, whatever option is agreeable wouldn’t require the kind of build out to get us here-wiring up the internet, researching and scaling smartphone tech, etc. direct democracy seems like a pretty obvious max for logistical problems to governance and modern tech would make it possible. So anything below it possible too.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    They have direct democracy in Switzerland and they don't need the internet for that.
    - barbazoo 4y ago
      > Popular votes can be held up to four times a year. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-democracy-explained/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/07/switzerland-direct-de... At some point you need technology, otherwise it would just get too expensive.
    - basementcat 4y ago
      Many states in the USA have had ballot propositions for over one hundred years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_...
      - snovv_crash 4y ago
        Yes but not once every 4 months. People keeping a check on the actions of their representatives needs to happen more than once per election cycle otherwise once the politician gets in they just do whatever they want.
moremetadata 4y ago
Why do you feel the need to hand over your decision making to someone else? I've seen no evidence that the democracy model employed across large parts of the western world and elsewhere, is anything other than criminal. Its like watching a punch and judy show where the public get to chose their puppets, but the shadowy puppeteers are lurking in the background, mainly wearing or have worn fancy dress.
- baremetal 4y ago
  what do you suggest?

sidlls 4y ago

I don't want direct democracy: the problem of voting shenanigans and corruption just expands from a known set of elected officials who vote on laws to...everyone. Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.

htag 4y ago
The argument that people aren't to be trusted with a more direct democracy always falls flat to me. The alternative is power concentrated to a few people which introduces a risk for developing a ruling class, an aristocracy, or plutocracy. Arguing against direct democracy feels elitist, like only certain people should be trusted with actual power. The truth is half of the population is dumber than the average, but the other half is smarter than average. Groups of people are susceptible to bias just like individuals. At least when people vote we know they are considering their own interests.
- kortilla 4y ago
  I don’t want direct democracy deciding specific environmental regulations. Some things need to be done by appointed experts. Yes it’s “elitist”, but it’s the equivalent of expecting someone qualified to perform a heart surgery rather than a rando off the street.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    A "direct" democracy should be perfectly capable of calling in expert opinion, if they decide that a question isn't really political. But which questions are political, is itself a political question. (You do need the random lottery version of DD, sortition, rather than the everyone gets to vote on everything type).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- vintermann 4y ago

tbrownaw 4y ago

> tech needed for direct democracy Tech isn't the issue, making everyone find time to stay sufficiently informed is. I already have one full-time job, I don't need 2-3 more (city and county which might be part-time, state, maybe federal).

fsflover 4y ago
There doesn't seem to be such a problem in Switzerland.