3 ms·
Outside of my above hyperbolics that I was pushing for the sake of discussion: That doesn't terrify me, it makes me question why have them then? I don't need a
by ianbutler 3y ago
Outside of my above hyperbolics that I was pushing for the sake of discussion:
That doesn't terrify me, it makes me question why have them then? I don't need a paper pusher with a loud voice, I want leaders who can solve problems their constituents think are important and take on responsibility of figuring these things out.
If you gave me time to devote to it, a staff, authority, and the right bipartisanship climate I could figure it out.
I don't have an answer, because I spent less than an hour thinking about this problem, and most of that hour was spent starting to understand the nuances involved from a half assed answer I threw out into the void because I could and I was curious to see what people would say, not because I couldn't arrive at an actual solution given the time and resources. I remain convinced this problem is tractable even if its not through legislative means.
I'm not invested in this problem enough to take action though, I'd rather go back to working on my side projects. I am however, invested enough to spend an hour shooting the shit on a message board.
- danielmarkbruce 3y agoHistorically because it was impossible to have everyone vote on everything all the time. Nowadays you still have the problem in some sense due to trust in voting systems, but theoretically you could run many of the functions of congress via calling a vote to the general population and they could do it on their smart phone or something. Auth would be hard(ish) from a practical perspective. Knowing enough about a topic could be easily resolved via allowing voters to appoint a proxy on certain bills or writ large.