3 ms·

All countries still use electoral systems where people are elected to represent the causes and views. And parties to organise those people and views. It’s inef

All countries still use electoral systems where people are elected to represent the causes and views. And parties to organise those people and views. It’s ineffective and prone to corruption and subjectivity of representatives and money interests beginning with influence on elections. Solving of any issue can be delayed indefinitely if representatives don’t feel like it’s urgent. In computer age it’s long overdue to have a modern system with people directly voting for issues and causes and not represented by any middlemen.

hnbad 1y ago
You're describing direct democracy. For an alternative with fewer downsides consider liquid democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy If you like the general idea behind this and would like to see it in a bottom-up organizational structure rather than an established state, consider democratic confederalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_confederalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_confederalism
- yupitsme123 1y ago
  I think referendums and plebiscites on specific issues are always a possibility even without the whole system being a direct democracy. I've always wondered why other countries have used them but the US never has.
  - thayne 1y ago
    I don't know of cases where the US federal government uses them, but it isn't that uncommon for state or local governments to have them. Although the laws around them differ between jurisdictions.
  - stackskipton 1y ago
    Historical reasons, United States has always been uncomfortable with Democracy despite all our cheerleading around it. US Founders had a fear of populist sentiment leading to "rash" decisions and thus United States system has always been setup as bulwark against it. Entire Senate elections and rules serve as bulwark. Electoral College is another bulwark. Constitution Amendment process another bulwark. Our acceptance of leaving many issues up to the court like Abortion, Gay Marriage and Immigration. List goes on and on.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    The US federal government does not, but they are rather common in US states. The US federal government was structured with its direct constituents as states, not citizens, and while that has evolved a bit over the years, it still is reflected strongly in its structures (Constitutional amendments must be ratified by a kind of referendum, but it is a referendum of state legislatures, not citizens.)
TeaBrain 1y ago
>prone to corruption and subjectivity of representatives The political assembly of Venice recognized this, which influenced their decision to introduce randomness via sortitions into the process of selecting both the electors and candidates.
blitzar 1y ago
> people directly voting for issues “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

hnbad 1y ago

You're describing direct democracy. For an alternative with fewer downsides consider liquid democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy If you like the general idea behind this and would like to see it in a bottom-up organizational structure rather than an established state, consider democratic confederalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_confederalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_confederalism

yupitsme123 1y ago
I think referendums and plebiscites on specific issues are always a possibility even without the whole system being a direct democracy. I've always wondered why other countries have used them but the US never has.
- thayne 1y ago
  I don't know of cases where the US federal government uses them, but it isn't that uncommon for state or local governments to have them. Although the laws around them differ between jurisdictions.
- stackskipton 1y ago
  Historical reasons, United States has always been uncomfortable with Democracy despite all our cheerleading around it. US Founders had a fear of populist sentiment leading to "rash" decisions and thus United States system has always been setup as bulwark against it. Entire Senate elections and rules serve as bulwark. Electoral College is another bulwark. Constitution Amendment process another bulwark. Our acceptance of leaving many issues up to the court like Abortion, Gay Marriage and Immigration. List goes on and on.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  The US federal government does not, but they are rather common in US states. The US federal government was structured with its direct constituents as states, not citizens, and while that has evolved a bit over the years, it still is reflected strongly in its structures (Constitutional amendments must be ratified by a kind of referendum, but it is a referendum of state legislatures, not citizens.)

TeaBrain 1y ago

>prone to corruption and subjectivity of representatives The political assembly of Venice recognized this, which influenced their decision to introduce randomness via sortitions into the process of selecting both the electors and candidates.

blitzar 1y ago

> people directly voting for issues “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”