4 ms·
An idea (would love some reasoned arguments against): so much of our policy-making (around the world, I'm UK based) is based on electing someone on a bunch of p
by heeton 13y ago
An idea (would love some reasoned arguments against): so much of our policy-making (around the world, I'm UK based) is based on electing someone on a bunch of promises and then letting them get on with it.
We have to kick up a HUGE fuss to get anything changes (see SOPA etc.), but there are platforms beginning to emerge, like the whitehouse petitions.
How far are we from a system whereby major referendums can be held relatively frequently, mainly online? People can be given a brief for/against argument of some proposed change, they can research as much as they feel they have to, and then can vote?
Do we exclude too many non-technical people that way? Can we assume people even give enough of a crap to do this?
- dragonwriter 13y agoI'd rather have a more effectively accountable representative democracy (which, compared to the US, most established democracies have) than use vastly expanded direct democracy as an attempt to work around poorly accountable representatives on a national scale the way California already -- without online voting -- has done for quite a while on the state level.