4 ms·
So, because the comments here are busy fighting over patriotism and tone rather than the substance of the article, here's a list of salient bits: > When 24 mil
by saraid216 13y ago
So, because the comments here are busy fighting over patriotism and tone rather than the substance of the article, here's a list of salient bits:
> When 24 military officers and civilians were given a single week to craft a constitution for occupied Japan in 1946, they turned to England. The Westminster-style parliament they installed in Tokyo, like its British forebear, has two houses. But unlike Congress, one is clearly more powerful than the other and can override the less powerful one during an impasse.
> "No democratic principle exists to resolve disputes between the executive and the legislature about which of the two actually represents the will of the people," Linz wrote.
> Most parliamentary systems, which unify the executive and legislative branches, have this sort of fail-safe mechanism. If a budget or other must-pass bill can't get passed, or a prime minister can't be chosen, then funding levels are placed on autopilot and new elections are called to resolve things. The people decide.
> The Senate, he says, should be expanded to give more populous states at least a bit more representation, and it should also include "national senators"—all former presidents and vice presidents, maybe others—whose job it is to guard national interests over parochial ones. Sabato's plan would also double the size of the House (to make representatives closer to the people) and enforces a nonpartisan redistricting process to end gerrymandering. Elections for president, Senate, and House, in Sabato's vision, are rescheduled to coincide more often, while presidents would serve a single, six-year term (the idea is to make their governing less political, while giving them enough time to implement change).
> Instead, Lessig, along with fellow Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and many others, proposes a bottom-up form of public financing where voters get a voucher of, say, $50 off their taxes, which they can use to donate to candidates.
> If Americans managed to convoke a constitutional convention, they could draw on hundreds of possible tweaks with text already written, available online thanks to the Google-funded Comparative Constitutions Project. After hundreds of tries, we (humans) have gotten so good at chartering governments that we've developed a set of best practices.
> instant-runoff voting has become increasingly popular because it allows voters to rank multiple choices instead of picking just one.
> Germany's Pirate Party advocates something called "liquid democracy." A cross between New England-style town meetings and Facebook, this model of delegative democracy leverages social relationships and expertise on an open-source software platform for collaborative decision-making.
> Clay Shirky, a futurist at New York University, advocated for a "distributed version control democracy" in a recent TED talk. The New York state Legislature is already experimenting with this on its OpenLegislation platform, while the OpenGov Foundation, a nonprofit organization cofounded by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is doing something similar on the federal level, allowing anyone to comment on and annotate legislation pending before the House.
- rayiner 13y agoI love the "liquid democracy" bit. Sounds like a Silicon Valley startup pitch. Catchy name, tons of buzzwords, and totally incomprehensible.
- saraid216 13y agoBut also arguably disruptive, curve-jumping, and paradigm-shifting if it scales and gets wide adoption. If. :P
- andrewfong 13y agoIt's pretty simple actually. Imagine direct democracy, but with the option to delegate your vote to someone else, who can delegate their votes to another person, and so on. At the end of the day, the major powers aren't based on traditional parties but on layers of delegation. The obvious danger here is its tension with the secret ballot. Currently, your boss can put all sorts of pressure on you to vote a particular way (even if it is illegal), but he ultimately can't step into the voting both with you. In contrast, with "liquid democracy", the chain of delegation may afford all sorts of ways to decide how someone "voted".
- gametheoretic 13y agoAside: Compare and contrast the results of nation-state democracy before and after mandatory secret ballots.
- jacques_chester 13y agoIt's a bad idea. 1. It will worsen, and not improve, the effect of populism and demagoguery. 2. The complexity of overlapping and differently drafted proxy statements will cause legal nightmares. There will be ceaseless litigation to sort out questions of which proxies count, which proxies supersede which other proxies etc etc.