3 ms·

I think this point is completely fair and correct, if we consider democracy to be one person one vote. Given that definition, "mob rule" is not something to be

I think this point is completely fair and correct, if we consider democracy to be one person one vote. Given that definition, "mob rule" is not something to be prevented, but encouraged. You may prefer some other system, and in many cases another system will likely lead to better outcomes, but that system is not Democracy. To the original poster I say, you've spotted the root flaw in democracy. It does indeed allow everyone to vote, and many remain ignorant of the implications of what they are voting for, or are susceptible to manipulation. You may attempt to fix these attributes in individual people (good luck with that) or you may thought-consider a system that is not democracy. What you can't do is change the system and call it democracy.

ff12wq111 1y ago
You're absolutely right about the definitional clarity - I appreciate that precision. Actually, what we're experimenting with in GistFans tries to bridge this gap. We have a hybrid system: everyone gets basic voting rights (maintaining the democratic principle you describe), but we also have weighted "contribution votes" based on earned influence. So it's not replacing democracy, but adding a parallel track. Basic decisions use equal votes, but for governance and quality decisions, contribution-based weight provides additional input. Think of it as "democracy plus meritocracy" rather than replacing one with the other. But we believe: hybrid democracy is also democracy. Just as representative democracy and direct democracy are both legitimate forms of democratic governance, contribution-weighted democracy can preserve democratic legitimacy while addressing practical concerns about informed participation. This way we preserve the fundamental democratic principle you're defending - everyone has a voice - while creating mechanisms for those most invested in outcomes to have proportional influence. Do you think this hybrid approach maintains democratic legitimacy while addressing some of the practical concerns about informed decision-making?

ff12wq111 1y ago

You're absolutely right about the definitional clarity - I appreciate that precision. Actually, what we're experimenting with in GistFans tries to bridge this gap. We have a hybrid system: everyone gets basic voting rights (maintaining the democratic principle you describe), but we also have weighted "contribution votes" based on earned influence. So it's not replacing democracy, but adding a parallel track. Basic decisions use equal votes, but for governance and quality decisions, contribution-based weight provides additional input. Think of it as "democracy plus meritocracy" rather than replacing one with the other. But we believe: hybrid democracy is also democracy. Just as representative democracy and direct democracy are both legitimate forms of democratic governance, contribution-weighted democracy can preserve democratic legitimacy while addressing practical concerns about informed participation. This way we preserve the fundamental democratic principle you're defending - everyone has a voice - while creating mechanisms for those most invested in outcomes to have proportional influence. Do you think this hybrid approach maintains democratic legitimacy while addressing some of the practical concerns about informed decision-making?