3 ms·

You say that sarcastically, but isn't that the very basis of using a republican system rather than a direct democracy, and a well known problem with direct, maj

You say that sarcastically, but isn't that the very basis of using a republican system rather than a direct democracy, and a well known problem with direct, majority-wins democracy?

Ma8ee 12y ago
No, secrecy isn't the basis. The basis of representative democracy is transparency so the citizens can judge how well their elected do their jobs. If the elected do what ever they do in secrecy there can't be any fair elections.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  Part of the basis is that most citizens simply don't have the time to have informed opinions on topics such as this, and hence we'd end up with a lot of ignorant opinions voted in, because the majority don't even really understand what the issues is. In theory, a republican form of government can help with this because the representatives job is to learn about such issues and vote intelligently. Some of the issue with the current US politics is that ignorant people insist that their ignorance is as good as a reasoned opinion, and demand that elected officials vote that way rather than from a reasoned position. I'm not saying the secrecy part is the core, but rather, that officials should make choices that seem counter to the opinions of most voters, because most voters' opinions aren't actually aligned with their interests, purely because not everyone has time to know about every topic and have a reasonable opinion on it. In a republican government, you should vote on your representative based on the method he takes to voting (eg, how well he's doing at becoming educated and translating that in to votes) rather than how well he matches your uninformed opinions. So in cases like a nuclear facility, a republican form of government should probably just ignore the uninformed objections and do it anyway, which is the sentiment that your paraphrasing was based on.
  - Ma8ee 12y ago
    The main issue with American politics is that some representatives think that their ignorance is as good as reasoned opinion. I'm in no way championing direct democracy - I think we agree pretty much about how representative democracy is supposed to work and how voters are supposed to vote. Where we differ is that I think transparency is essential to any functioning democracy. As you say, voters don't have the time or inclination to inform themselves properly about the issues at hand. But instead America has a system where most politicians don't bother to actually form well thought through opinions either, but rather rely on the opinions of the people that fills their campaign coffins. Allowing them to do that in complete secrecy would be the same as giving the power directly to the oil companies and military industrial complex.

You say that sarcastically, but isn't that the very basis of using a republican system rather than a direct democracy, and a well known problem with direct, majority-wins democracy?

Ma8ee 12y ago

No, secrecy isn't the basis. The basis of representative democracy is transparency so the citizens can judge how well their elected do their jobs. If the elected do what ever they do in secrecy there can't be any fair elections.

ObviousScience 12y ago
Part of the basis is that most citizens simply don't have the time to have informed opinions on topics such as this, and hence we'd end up with a lot of ignorant opinions voted in, because the majority don't even really understand what the issues is. In theory, a republican form of government can help with this because the representatives job is to learn about such issues and vote intelligently. Some of the issue with the current US politics is that ignorant people insist that their ignorance is as good as a reasoned opinion, and demand that elected officials vote that way rather than from a reasoned position. I'm not saying the secrecy part is the core, but rather, that officials should make choices that seem counter to the opinions of most voters, because most voters' opinions aren't actually aligned with their interests, purely because not everyone has time to know about every topic and have a reasonable opinion on it. In a republican government, you should vote on your representative based on the method he takes to voting (eg, how well he's doing at becoming educated and translating that in to votes) rather than how well he matches your uninformed opinions. So in cases like a nuclear facility, a republican form of government should probably just ignore the uninformed objections and do it anyway, which is the sentiment that your paraphrasing was based on.
- Ma8ee 12y ago
  The main issue with American politics is that some representatives think that their ignorance is as good as reasoned opinion. I'm in no way championing direct democracy - I think we agree pretty much about how representative democracy is supposed to work and how voters are supposed to vote. Where we differ is that I think transparency is essential to any functioning democracy. As you say, voters don't have the time or inclination to inform themselves properly about the issues at hand. But instead America has a system where most politicians don't bother to actually form well thought through opinions either, but rather rely on the opinions of the people that fills their campaign coffins. Allowing them to do that in complete secrecy would be the same as giving the power directly to the oil companies and military industrial complex.