4 ms·

It would make more sense, to vote on policy by giving priorities and preventing impossible votes (cant have tax reduced while demanding more for services)- and

It would make more sense, to vote on policy by giving priorities and preventing impossible votes (cant have tax reduced while demanding more for services)- and then the policy votes get mapped to the corresponding candidates.

jongjong 1y ago
This is inferior to random selection because this still has the issue that the candidate could claim to hold certain positions, but once voted in, they may not follow through on any of them. The reality of our current democracy is that anyone who manages to even step onto the arena is likely already bought and paid for. There's a candidate with a prepared narrative to appeal to every kind of fool under the sun. With random selection, you'll get average people, their stated positions hardly matter because once all seats of congress and the senate have been filled with random people, their values will almost certainly reflect the true values of average citizens. That's how probability works. With the current approach to voting; all the candidates you get to choose from have already been pre-screened for: 1. Thirst for power and 2. Alignment with the interests of big capital holders (who paid for their campaigns in order to get to this stage). This is a horrible pre-screening process.
- Udo 1y ago
  I think what GP meant was voting on policies directly instead of voting in delegates that promise to implement policies.
  - jongjong 1y ago
    If the candidates are legally bound to follow through on policy then it's slightly better yes but there's still a lot of wiggle-room in terms of implementation. Lobbyists often find ways to sneak in convenient loopholes inside regulations. Policy-based voting won't solve that because the voter isn't going to have time to read the full law; it might be many pages. What will happen is people who don't work and have more time on their hands will be more active politically and will get better representation. I mean, it'd definitely be an improvement though.
vanviegen 1y ago
People in general don't have the time or inclination to properly study the important details of each an every issue, before voting on them. That's why it makes sense to outsource the decision making to a group of people that are being paid to study these issues full-time. Given some balanced (yes, there's a problem) expert advice, I think rando's might make better choices than career politicians focussed on extending their power. The rando's would just return to their old careers afterwards.
- PicassoCTs 1y ago
  People though have studied other people. So, vote-forwarding to those who studied, convinced by life-style or example would allow for the votes to propagate to local experts, who then could make the decision as outlined above. If the expert is wrong, the local personality-cult reveals a fraud, that propagation web of votes would with draw and propagate towards new experts.

jongjong 1y ago

This is inferior to random selection because this still has the issue that the candidate could claim to hold certain positions, but once voted in, they may not follow through on any of them. The reality of our current democracy is that anyone who manages to even step onto the arena is likely already bought and paid for. There's a candidate with a prepared narrative to appeal to every kind of fool under the sun. With random selection, you'll get average people, their stated positions hardly matter because once all seats of congress and the senate have been filled with random people, their values will almost certainly reflect the true values of average citizens. That's how probability works. With the current approach to voting; all the candidates you get to choose from have already been pre-screened for: 1. Thirst for power and 2. Alignment with the interests of big capital holders (who paid for their campaigns in order to get to this stage). This is a horrible pre-screening process.

Udo 1y ago
I think what GP meant was voting on policies directly instead of voting in delegates that promise to implement policies.
- jongjong 1y ago
  If the candidates are legally bound to follow through on policy then it's slightly better yes but there's still a lot of wiggle-room in terms of implementation. Lobbyists often find ways to sneak in convenient loopholes inside regulations. Policy-based voting won't solve that because the voter isn't going to have time to read the full law; it might be many pages. What will happen is people who don't work and have more time on their hands will be more active politically and will get better representation. I mean, it'd definitely be an improvement though.

vanviegen 1y ago

People in general don't have the time or inclination to properly study the important details of each an every issue, before voting on them. That's why it makes sense to outsource the decision making to a group of people that are being paid to study these issues full-time. Given some balanced (yes, there's a problem) expert advice, I think rando's might make better choices than career politicians focussed on extending their power. The rando's would just return to their old careers afterwards.

PicassoCTs 1y ago
People though have studied other people. So, vote-forwarding to those who studied, convinced by life-style or example would allow for the votes to propagate to local experts, who then could make the decision as outlined above. If the expert is wrong, the local personality-cult reveals a fraud, that propagation web of votes would with draw and propagate towards new experts.