4 ms·

They don’t represent the people’s will, but unfortunately many people believe in censorship, so even if they were true direct democracies we may still see some.

• troupo 6d ago
  > if they were true direct democracies we may still see some. I think we would see more.
  • pennomi 6d ago
    With modern technology, we might be in the first era where direct democracy is truly viable. Frankly I think the people should have direct veto power on any legislation.
    • troupo 6d ago
      > Frankly I think the people should have direct veto power on any legislation. Counterpoint: see any NIMBY meetings where they shut down any and all proposals and legislations, even the obviously beneficial common sense ones. Rule by mob has rarely been productive.
      • mitxela 6d ago
        The same principle would have also shot down the need for any legislation before building a thing.
      • econ 6d ago
        The normal approach is to compromise across topics. Maybe one should have a finite number of winning votes in a period. Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on. I think that would reduce the sense of urgency where there is non, equalize involvement, foster debate with the barely involved and ofc create a focus on things one wants rather than things one doesn't want. Who knows, maybe one should be able to spend more than one vote per topic.
        • troupo 6d ago
          > . Then the majority might want something (or not want) but wouldn't consider it important enough to spend their vote on. Rule of the thumb: everyone will not 'just' [1] The majority is not a single person that will somehow behave like a rational being that will count their votes and vote only for "things that matter". People view very different things as "things that matter", and the system is easily gamed. Run a few popular, but pointless votes, exhaust available winning votes for the period, then try to pass a meaningful legislation. You will have riots form people who have spent their votes, but still want to vote for something truly important. And that's before we start talking about whether people should directly vote on removing building code regulations for example. Or whether or not measles vaccines should be mandatory. [1] https://www.tumblr.com/squareallworthy/163790039847/everyone-will-not-just https://www.tumblr.com/squareallworthy/163790039847/everyone...
          • econ 6d ago
            I'm just playing with the puzzle. It's not like I deeply thought about it and this was my conclusion. Votes per period might not work. You could in stead accumulate votes over time. Of course the proposals could repeatedly go against a specific group. Not sure if you could create a unit of accounting for it or have some kind of independent jury examine the gaming. I also wondered if the price could scale with the % victory. Like, if 100% votes A it costs zero votes. 51% would be the most expensive. Maybe give the proposal makers a bunch of tokens, filling a proposal costs x, each vote against it costs y. The core thought is basically, if people are overly attached to something they will get it but will have reduced influence on everything else.
            • troupo 6d ago
              Any time you introduce any type of cost, you create a system where it is extremely easy to disadvantage a group of people.
              • econ 6d ago
                Do you think improvement is possible?
    • ShadowOfThePit 5d ago
      Well, that's already viable in Switzerland. Any proposed law can be forced into a national vote by collecting 50'000 signatures for a Referendum.