6 ms·

Fair point, but direct democracy is also subject to the passions of the masses overriding the concerns of experts. Faster isn't always better. E.g. by individu

by ethbr0 3y ago

Fair point, but direct democracy is also subject to the passions of the masses overriding the concerns of experts. Faster isn't always better. E.g. by individually-benefit-but-mass-cost initiatives ("Vote yes if you want $1"), exploiting insufficient education ("To enshrine wildlife management into our constitution" that actually permits nature exploitation), or overly emotional issues-of-the-day ("Increase national security powers" after a terrorist attack). Though it seems like the sheer organizational barrier to ballot inclusion (i.e. mass signature collection) limit the worst excesses of the above. In modern times, direct ballot initiatives definitely have their place in a functioning democracy, although perhaps with high barriers to listing, maximum numbers per ballot, and cool-down periods ("Will be on the ballot X years from now").

nvahalik 3y ago
> but direct democracy is also subject to the passions of the masses overriding the concerns of experts And likewise, sometimes the "experts" installed within the bureaucratic system are not representative of the needs of the society.
- ethbr0 3y ago
  Indeed! Which is why counterbalance and dampening of oscillation are desirable features in a system of government. But you over-emphasize that, and you get a government incapable of action.
shw1n 3y ago
Very eloquently stated
anigbrowl 3y ago
passions of the masses overriding the concerns of experts That is an issue, but I wasn't advocating for the inherent superiority of referenda over legislative process, only that it's more practical to get something done. It's probably faster to get yourself elected than it is to lobby elected officials on some abstract or distributed issue where there isn't an obvious coalition. I don't disagree with your other ideas, except for the cool-down period. While that can certainly be abused, asking people to sign up for something that can't be manifested for several years into the future is an instant demotivator to any action. Having said that, I think the entire election machinery and so on could usefully be replaced by digital voting, and managed on an ongoing basis rather than at infrequent intervals; a wikiocracy, so to speak. It will have flaws, limitations, and be subject to abuse, but representative democracy as practiced in most places is a 16th-18th century political technology that is manifestly inadequate for 21st century polities.
rgbgraph 3y ago
I'm not being snarky, but this can all be reductively boiled down to "we shouldn't let people self-govern, because they don't know what's good for them." I posit an opposing viewpoint: people know what they want; why get in their way -- you're not their parents. Take care of your intimates and close ones, but let other people live their lives in their enclaves, bubbles, and so on -- self-governing as they please. Will they do and believe in things that you personally wouldn't? Yes. Will some of those things end up being terribly offensive to your sensibilities (morals/ethics/beliefs, what have you)? Most likely. Under direct voting, if you see something that you believe to be terribly bad being brought out onto the floor, you are free to organize amongst your community to strike it down (or do the reverse, and bring forth an initiative you believe to be good). But that also opens up the possibility that no one will want what you want, and your initiatives will fail. At that point, you can either accept it, and go on with your life, or -- in these globalized times -- move somewhere else with people that share your views. Generally, if you don't completely disintegrate the community through various means (as is popular in the U.S., see: globalized workforce), they can self-govern in a way that is sustainable and that fulfills their best interests. This is how humanity has survived for countless thousands of years. Better yet, give back to the people the means for self-sufficiency, and you will soon see that national/federal power wanes, as there is little need for external forces to keep a community alive and thriving. "Vote yes if you want $1 (fine-print: by also giving us logging rights to your forests)" is easily prevented by: a close-knit and cohesive community with a group "mind." Your community leaders will tell you it's a swindle, and to drive out anyone that comes with such a proposition. Of course, that would lessen the amount of exploitation the individual receives by higher powers -- thereby "shorting" these same powers of their self-justified right over the individual (and his resources). I.e. a lot of powerful people's plans and careers and goals will be upended -- and that's a no-no.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Before I lived in California, I probably would have agreed with you. However, ballot propositions in CA have been a mess. Maybe California is too large of a community, but (as a general rule) larger entities will devour smaller entities when allowed to do so.

by ethbr0 3y ago

nvahalik 3y ago

> but direct democracy is also subject to the passions of the masses overriding the concerns of experts And likewise, sometimes the "experts" installed within the bureaucratic system are not representative of the needs of the society.

ethbr0 3y ago
Indeed! Which is why counterbalance and dampening of oscillation are desirable features in a system of government. But you over-emphasize that, and you get a government incapable of action.

shw1n 3y ago

Very eloquently stated

anigbrowl 3y ago

passions of the masses overriding the concerns of experts That is an issue, but I wasn't advocating for the inherent superiority of referenda over legislative process, only that it's more practical to get something done. It's probably faster to get yourself elected than it is to lobby elected officials on some abstract or distributed issue where there isn't an obvious coalition. I don't disagree with your other ideas, except for the cool-down period. While that can certainly be abused, asking people to sign up for something that can't be manifested for several years into the future is an instant demotivator to any action. Having said that, I think the entire election machinery and so on could usefully be replaced by digital voting, and managed on an ongoing basis rather than at infrequent intervals; a wikiocracy, so to speak. It will have flaws, limitations, and be subject to abuse, but representative democracy as practiced in most places is a 16th-18th century political technology that is manifestly inadequate for 21st century polities.

rgbgraph 3y ago

I'm not being snarky, but this can all be reductively boiled down to "we shouldn't let people self-govern, because they don't know what's good for them." I posit an opposing viewpoint: people know what they want; why get in their way -- you're not their parents. Take care of your intimates and close ones, but let other people live their lives in their enclaves, bubbles, and so on -- self-governing as they please. Will they do and believe in things that you personally wouldn't? Yes. Will some of those things end up being terribly offensive to your sensibilities (morals/ethics/beliefs, what have you)? Most likely. Under direct voting, if you see something that you believe to be terribly bad being brought out onto the floor, you are free to organize amongst your community to strike it down (or do the reverse, and bring forth an initiative you believe to be good). But that also opens up the possibility that no one will want what you want, and your initiatives will fail. At that point, you can either accept it, and go on with your life, or -- in these globalized times -- move somewhere else with people that share your views. Generally, if you don't completely disintegrate the community through various means (as is popular in the U.S., see: globalized workforce), they can self-govern in a way that is sustainable and that fulfills their best interests. This is how humanity has survived for countless thousands of years. Better yet, give back to the people the means for self-sufficiency, and you will soon see that national/federal power wanes, as there is little need for external forces to keep a community alive and thriving. "Vote yes if you want $1 (fine-print: by also giving us logging rights to your forests)" is easily prevented by: a close-knit and cohesive community with a group "mind." Your community leaders will tell you it's a swindle, and to drive out anyone that comes with such a proposition. Of course, that would lessen the amount of exploitation the individual receives by higher powers -- thereby "shorting" these same powers of their self-justified right over the individual (and his resources). I.e. a lot of powerful people's plans and careers and goals will be upended -- and that's a no-no.

aidenn0 3y ago
Before I lived in California, I probably would have agreed with you. However, ballot propositions in CA have been a mess. Maybe California is too large of a community, but (as a general rule) larger entities will devour smaller entities when allowed to do so.