4 ms·
I have always wanted a more direct democracy, but I think the big problem with this is that a LOT of people just don't care about anything. When I asked a frien
by molmalo 15y ago
I have always wanted a more direct democracy, but I think the big problem with this is that a LOT of people just don't care about anything. When I asked a friend of mine, just before a presidential election, who was he going to vote, he asked me that he didn't care. He said "I don't care about politics or economics". Even when I responded that eventually, that decisions affected him, he still didn't care.
And in the other side of the spectrum, there are very heated subjects, like abortion. If you enable a way to postpone or kill a bill, based on say 3M online votes, I can bet that every church will ask their parishioners to vote. (please, I simply put this as an example) How do you stop that?
On the other hand, I can bet that some corporations are going to put incentives to vote in favor or against some legislation. (e.g.: giving bonuses to the ones who vote the desired option). Everything becomes much more harder to analyze to detect corruption.
- nextparadigms 15y agoYes, this is why asking a national referendum for anything is not the answer. You need a minority group of say 1 million, who is very knowledgeable about the issue to know that it's a terrible bill, and which has the initiative to act against it. But of course this could be easily abused, too, if not done carefully. That's why they shouldn't be able to veto the bill - but only postpone it and force Congress to hold a public debate about it over a number of months. The only threat to this is getting this happening way too often, and making Congress very inefficient (not that it's extremely efficient now) by postponing everything. This is why it needs to be thought through a little bit, and as soon as there are signs of this, the numbers should be altered to balance the law.