Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[shadenight123]

Say what you want about politicians, but direct democracy is a far worse idea. They may all have agendas, but at least they're informed ones. I shudder to think what would happen if the American public at large were given that much control, regardless of how "secure" the system supposedly was.

for this you need future thinking.
sure, american youth is right now made of uninformed people, but you could grow them up informed by strength of democracy.
and i mean, by cutting down government expense, to use that money for political courses and coming to understanding what else there is, except mcdonalds.
or sixteen and pregnant.
there is nothing in the world, except death, that cannot be changed.

[DJ]

I still think the majority of people are moderates, they're just not as loud as extremists. Make it require a percentage of eligible voters rather than percentage of people who actually vote and I don't see a problem. Nutjobs will have high percentage of votes every time, but they'll never have the quorum.

[Willfor]

Technical reasons it can't work aside, I also see a massive problem with "majority rules" scenarios.

isn't democracy all about majority rule though?

Yes, which is why I don't like democracy. I'm a supporter of the Parliamentary Republic. It's slightly less bad than a Democracy.

Honestly, I have no faith in the ability for humans to rule themselves, or for machines to do it for us. So I like to put as many points of due process in front of the "lets do something" part of politics as possible, and then try to carry on with my own life.

[ChairmanPoo]

They may all have agendas, but at least they're informed ones.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[shadenight123]

I still think the majority of people are moderates, they're just not as loud as extremists. Make it require a percentage of eligible voters rather than percentage of people who actually vote and I don't see a problem. Nutjobs will have high percentage of votes every time, but they'll never have the quorum.

this gave me another brilliant idea.
you divide voters per their jobs.
or degrees.
than while EVERYONE may vote to reach the quorum, unless there is a specific amount of the ones inside that category the law doesn't pass.
To say, you want to remove compulsory education?
you need the 75% quorum, BUT also a 75% quorum of ALL the teachers/degree for teaching/apprendist teachers, and so on.
So unless also the teacher population is fine with it, you can't.
you want to build a road from america to russia?
you ask 75% of people to vote, and among them there has to be 75% of the total workers/industrials.
only exception:
religious matters can only be discussed by atheists.

[kaijyuu]

Can't have those unwashed masses participating in government, can we?

Politicians are no less stupid, impressionable, or prone to following mob mentality than anyone else. I'll concede that politicians tend to have more knowledge of law and government than most people, but it's not like that's on the job requirement. Being elected is the only job requirement.



Anywho, the best way to avoid the "two wolves and a sheep" issue is 1) transparency, and 2) time. The wolves voting on eating the sheep should be quite well known and obvious as it is taking place, not hidden away. Also there needs to be time for people to speak up about it.

I'm not of the opinion that most people are sociopaths or only care about the people in their personal monkey sphere, so provided information is flowing about what exactly is happening, we're not going to have any holocausts or recession of civil rights.


Obviously there's plenty of ways to abuse democracy those who are dedicated and have the money. Easiest way would be to get in the way of "information flowing about what exactly is happening" through propaganda. I still don't think politicians are less prone to that than the general public, though; it's called lobbying.

[Truean]

Well hell, I'm biased, but if you only have doctors making decisions about medicine, then maybe you should have lawyers making decisions about law?

Like, you have to be a lawyer to be elected? Hell, if you're going to make law, you should understand it.... Also, perhaps be subject to disbarment if you really screw up. A la, Clinton, who was in trouble for the lying as an attorney.

[shadenight123]

the direct voting thing i was speaking of involves no "elections" because it's simply the people and the government, government intended as the "ensemble of laws" that make others go around their daily functions.
in a certain way, everyone becomes a parlament member AND a senate member AND the president.
everyone is equal, yet different when it comes to it's own area of expertise.

[Gatleos]

I just have a problem with

Code: [Select]

spread lies and propaganda -> brainwashed masses elect your candidate -> candidate tries to further your agendabeing shortened to

Code: [Select]

spread lies and propaganda -> brainwashed masses write the laws
I'm sure you can see the problem.

[DJ]

The way I see it, you tick a box next to a law on the voting site. You can tick it or untick it at any time. A law stands as long as it has over 50% ticks from the total eligible voter base. Well, maybe make it 55% to go in effect and 45% to cease, so it doesn't rapidly flip-flop at certain points in time.

[Truean]

The way I see it, you tick a box next to a law on the voting site. You can tick it or untick it at any time. A law stands as long as it has over 50% ticks from the total eligible voter base. Well, maybe make it 55% to go in effect and 45% to cease, so it doesn't rapidly flip-flop at certain points in time.

And the laws which are unpopular but necessary?

[Bauglir]

Well hell, I'm biased, but if you only have doctors making decisions about medicine, then maybe you should have lawyers making decisions about law?

Like, you have to be a lawyer to be elected? Hell, if you're going to make law, you should understand it.... Also, perhaps be subject to disbarment if you really screw up. A la, Clinton, who was in trouble for the lying as an attorney.

I've actually been thinking about that lately for some reason. My own thoughts lean toward requiring whatever the law school equivalent of a 3.5 GPA would be (possibly the same thing, I don't know) and setting up large amounts of public assistance for law school to prevent it from become a trick to bias things significantly toward the wealthy. Then probably something about experience working in government-related areas of law and demonstration of acceptably ethical practices, and maybe if you can figure out sufficient guidelines for what would qualify as exemplary professional behavior let that override the school requirements so that you're not forever shackled to a single number that can't be changed. And don't grandfather in current office-holders, but have a 10 year delay between passage and the system going into effect.

This is, of course, completely implausible, and no doubt full of unforeseen consequences and general dumbness. Still, fantasy scenarios are nice sometimes.

[RedKing]

I always think of the Adams-Jefferson letters when discussing voting and the construction of the US government. To wit:

Thomas Jefferson had faith that the electorate were common sense, thoughtful individuals.
John Adams thought most people were ignorant and easily swayed by demagogues and popular passions.

Adams to Jefferson 30 June 1813
… You never felt the terrorism of Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts. I believe you never felt the terrorism of Gallatin’s Insurrection in Pennsylvania. … You certainly never felt the terrorism excited by Genet in 1793, when ten thousand people in the streets of Philadelphia, day after day, threatened to drag Washington out of his house and effect a revolution in the government, or compel it to declare war in favor of the French Revolution and against England. The coolest and the firmest minds, even among the Quakers in Philadelphia, have given their opinions to me that nothing but the yellow fever … could have saved the United States from a total revolution of government. I have no doubt you was fast asleep in philosophical tranquility when ten thousand people, and perhaps many more, were parading the streets of Philadelphia on the evening of my Fast Day [25 April 1799]; when Governor Mifflin himself thought it his duty to order a patrol of horse and foot to preserve the peace; when Market Street was as full as men could stand by one another, and even before my door; when some of my domestics, in frenzy, determined to sacrifice their lives in my defense; when all were ready to make a desperate sally among the multitude and others were with difficulty and danger dragged back by the others; when I myself judged it prudent and necessary to order chests of arms from the War Office to be brought through bylanes and back doors, determined to defend my house at the expense of my life and the lives of the few, very few, domestics and friends within it. What think you of terrorism, Mr. Jefferson?

Madison too, was wary of direct democracy, noting that democratic Athens wavered between ineffectual argument and periods of self-imposed tyranny before finally collapsing, while Republican Rome lasted for centuries, even after it became Imperial Rome.

[shadenight123]

yes, only problem would be that there are people who are far harder to brainwash than others.

let's make this theory:
there are 100 people.
5 are Master Phds, 25 are university degree students who finished but without spectacular results , 30 are high schoolers who finished compulsory and went out in the world and 40 are in-bred hillbillies.

now let's consider you can actually brainwash the 40 hillbillies, and the 30 high schooler, and let's think that you can also brainwash 8 of the university degree students to vote your resolution concerning "let's give all the money to uber rich industry"
problem is, even though you have the 75% of majority, you haven't counted on those who have the master phds, and the other university degree students who know their stuff. So, since what is required to make this law pass is majority AND knowledge in the area, like "industrial engineering" unless there is also a 75% of vote from all the "industrial engineer" this law does not pass.
problem solved.
you need hillbillies, but you also need the smart ones.
and smart ones should be harder to brainwash.

The way I see it, you tick a box next to a law on the voting site. You can tick it or untick it at any time. A law stands as long as it has over 50% ticks from the total eligible voter base. Well, maybe make it 55% to go in effect and 45% to cease, so it doesn't rapidly flip-flop at certain points in time.

only problem with this (i thought of it too) is that sometimes, a good thing isn't necessarily a thing the people like.
to say, "we should welcome immigrants, and feed them, because it's the right thing to do to other human beings"= money cost. increased taxation. slight risk of patriotism over-the-edge aka nationalism.
you manage to get the 55% in the beginning, because people say "we have to be good".
then you hear that one of the "human being" killed somebody, or murdered somebody, or raped somebody, it was just one, but there you have the hillbillies suddenly and drastically changing their votes against keeping them.
you lose the needed amount and reach the 45% now you have to forcefully remove the immigrants by mean of force, since it's obvious the "people" overall do not want them.
and this can happen in a single day.
because with modernization, it doesn't require more than a day to move over a million people.
the chaos which would ensue is enough to make people change their minds again, then again, and again.
solution is simply: accept the law, and if faulty, there is the time needed to re-change it/fix it while you gather the opposite votes, which still require time, since 75% of a countries population is quite...a lot.

[DJ]

The way I see it, you tick a box next to a law on the voting site. You can tick it or untick it at any time. A law stands as long as it has over 50% ticks from the total eligible voter base. Well, maybe make it 55% to go in effect and 45% to cease, so it doesn't rapidly flip-flop at certain points in time.

And the laws which are unpopular but necessary?

You convince the voters that they're necessary, and point out the them the bad things that are occurring because these laws are not in place.