4 ms·

I think everyone can agree that having O(100M) people vote on every local initiative is absurd. But a lot of countries are somewhere on the "direct" vs "repres

by dguest 3mo ago

I think everyone can agree that having O(100M) people vote on every local initiative is absurd. But a lot of countries are somewhere on the "direct" vs "representative" spectrum. The US actually abnormally lacking in direct mechanisms, for example. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_by_country

tancop 3mo ago
> The US actually abnormally lacking in direct mechanisms only on a federal level. states like california or texas are more direct than a lot of western europe in some ways. like the fact that ballot props are binding law or sheriffs and state attorneys are elected.
coldtea 3mo ago
>I think everyone can agree that having O(100M) people vote on every local initiative is absurd. I'm one of those everyones, and I don't agree. Except if you mean local initiatives that don't concern 100M people, but e.g. some regional municipality. Of course then just the locals can vote, be they 100K or 1M.
- dguest 3mo ago
  Yes! I meant local issues that don't concern 100M people. Local issues that concern a few thousand people can be (and often are) resolved by direct democracy. I guess I could argue that putting a stop sign at a particular intersection in rural Kansas could concern me, even though I don't live in Kansas, but I think very few people would make that argument in good faith.