|
Desdinova posted:How about having the experts post their views and recommendations to a public forum where those interested debate and vote on it, rather than the potentially much more easily corruptable politicians? You can't bribe everybody, right? While it may be appealing to simply blame "bad politicians" for America's ills, reality is a lot more complicated. At the end of the day, the issues with American politics don't really come down to personal bribes. They're systemic problems that typically have very little to do with individual graft or virtue. As a result, a jury democracy doesn't really serve a purpose. It would, however, so fundamentally weaken the political system that corporate influence would finally be able to "drown it in the bathtub". Consider a courtroom without a judge or a legislative body to enact laws. Both the prosecution and defense provide experts to testify. The lay jury may review precedent, but makes their decision independently and without any particular insight. Perhaps they render a just verdict, or perhaps the outcome is seen as incompetent or even malevolent - the jury is unaccountable regardless. Either way, the case can usually be appealed before a new jury. Where is the legitimacy here? What are the merits of this system? Certainly there is little about it that seems fair or democratic.
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:13 |
|
|
The central problem with alternative vote schemes or representation setups it they all rely on a fundamental assumption of democracy: the will of the majority is always correct. This is verifiably false. It doesn't matter if you implement ~the fairest, most majority accurate~ voting system of them all and the candidates best perform to majority expectations in office, if the majority is wrong about a major issue or issues (like climate change, race, economics, foreign relations, etc...), then the government will be wrong and thus immoral. Chuds are extremely wrong. Centrists are slightly less wrong. Leftists are correct. But even in a "more fair" vote scheme, democracy says the average of the two wrong groups should be the ruling philosophy of the government for everyone, as long as they can agree enough on what candidates they like. And especially on something with a hard time limit built in like climate change, we do not have time to pussyfoot around with this "winning hearts and votes" bullshit. If democracy prevents the correct people from running society, especially if not doing so is tantamount to existential suicide, then democracy is fundamentally morally wrong, and needs to be dismantled. My preference? Replace representative democracy in America by an unchecked dictatorship of BIPOC for the next five centuries, minimum. Can't possibly be worse than the same when the WASPs were in that position.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 10:13
|
|
|
The pressing issues of our time don't provide us with 500 years to try and invent "autocracy but good this time". Democracy provides a system that is both legitimate and stable - key foundational qualities for addressing global needs. There are plenty of countries where democracy continues to serve them perfectly well; America's political failures are altogether American in nature.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
Obviously the answer is not dictatorship, because whatever problems democracy has with the fallibility of individual voters or representatives is exponentially increased by restricting power to even smaller groups of Joe Schmoes. Do you really think that your hypothetical leftist benevolent god-king is any more intelligent or less prone to making mistakes, or rational, or vulnerable to cognitive biases than anyone else? If you do then I have a bridge to sell you! -- Actually the answer, then, is to invent superintelligent AGI and make that our immortal philosopher king.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 15:28
|
|
|
I see what the problem is here: the fact voting, for whatever reason, is seen as a right: that no matter how reckless you are with it, no matter how many bad decisions you make that endanger other people's lives with it, you get to keep doing it, no questions asked. We need to reframe voting, the ability to make choices that affect other people, as a privilege, like having the ability to drive. And like driving, your voter card needs a points system: too many infractions, too many bad decisions on your part endangering others with it, you get that privilege revoked. Want it back? Mandatory civics course and public service to remind you of the stakes involved, followed by board review of your case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
SalamInsurrection posted:I see what the problem is here: the fact voting, for whatever reason, is seen as a right: that no matter how reckless you are with it, no matter how many bad decisions you make that endanger other people's lives with it, you get to keep doing it, no questions asked. How do you do this without the possibility that this will be used to punish and marginalize minority groups, the disenfranchised, and the disadvantaged?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:How do you do this without the possibility that this will be used to punish and marginalize minority groups, the disenfranchised, and the disadvantaged? Blanket revoke it from all of the majority oppressors (white people) first: if any "good ones" actually exist, they can earn it back. And if they can't, who gives a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
There's no legitimacy in a system without universal enfranchisement, and the idea that a nominal progressive wants to bring back Jim Crow literacy tests is loving awful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:You could have just typed Reddit How do you determine who is an expert? And since you can't reasonably have every single expert post something in the forum, how do you decide which experts make the posts? As long as the companies bribe the people who ask those questions, they can effectively control the public. Once again, because the public lacks the expertise to accurately evaluate issues themselves, a direct democracy puts the real power in the hands of whoever controls the flow of information that the public is exposed to. This isn't an issue unique to direct democracy, of course - there's been some notable cases of leaders (both representatives and autocrats) where the real power behind the throne was their secretary or chief of staff, who could effectively control what information reached the leader. But an effective leader can counteract and avoid this effect to some extent, while a leaderless society basically just has to hope the system is too big to corrupt (which isn't a bet I'd take considering the sheer size of wealth inequality these days). SalamInsurrection posted:I see what the problem is here: the fact voting, for whatever reason, is seen as a right: that no matter how reckless you are with it, no matter how many bad decisions you make that endanger other people's lives with it, you get to keep doing it, no questions asked. In this case, the person who really controls the system is whoever has the authority to control whose voting rights get revoked. During Jim Crow, this exact logic was used by white supremacists to disenfranchise minority voters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 20:03
|
|
|
I personally would suggest that electing our preferred big brave Leader to fight the entrenched power of wealth and information control isn't exactly a very good system in the long run. Or even an accurate description of how we live now. More useful I think to view elected representatives, the media, and capital as different arms of the same system, wealth controls media, media controls votes, votes control representation, representation protects wealth. And the activity of voting and consuming media and working and spending and supporting parties all serves to give people the appearance of power, and to serve as a release valve for discontent in a way that stands minimal chance of disrupting the power structure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:In this case, the person who really controls the system is whoever has the authority to control whose voting rights get revoked. During Jim Crow, this exact logic was used by white supremacists to disenfranchise minority voters. Of course it being used by white supremacists to disenfranchise minorities was abhorrent, everyone agrees on that point. But if it's used by the minorities to disenfranchise the white supremacists instead, I don't see any moral issues. I consider the who it was used by and against the problem, not the method itself. You may not call it fair, but it would be just, which is much more important for a healthy society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
SalamInsurrection posted:Of course it being used by white supremacists to disenfranchise minorities was abhorrent, everyone agrees on that point. But if it's used by the minorities to disenfranchise the white supremacists instead, I don't see any moral issues. I consider the who it was used by and against the problem, not the method itself. You may not call it fair, but it would be just, which is much more important for a healthy society. I think the point is that if it were possible to do that then it would necessarily not be minorities doing it, as the ability to disenfranchise others is sort of a litmus test for whether you are on the giving or receiving end of the power disparity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
Baronash posted:You keep coming back to this despite everyone telling you the million reasons it wouldn’t work. Experts are not going to spend their lives responding to every inane point made by some rando on the Internet. Even if they did, large companies/industries are just going to flood your system with their own “experts” pushing their brand of junk science. The people who are voted upon to be experts in their chosen field would respond to a popular voted point upon an issue, and would be responded to. Industry shills with their paid for viewpoints would be disagreed with by unbribed others, people would be free to choose what seems correct to them given the evidence and reasoning. A debate between millions of people can happen when the same points are condensed into a measured whole, with the stronger points argued for and against by everyone and voted by anyone who cares to vote. Rather than the current format of reading a thread, we could respond to a point made by tens of thousands of people and have that responded to. In this way, experts (and anyone else in the scheme) would be responding to the favoured points, according to an Athenian democracy, in an online reformation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:The people who are voted upon to be experts in their chosen field would respond to a popular voted point upon an issue, and would be responded to. Industry shills with their paid for viewpoints would be disagreed with by unbribed others, people would be free to choose what seems correct to them given the evidence and reasoning. This sounds like a nightmare. No one would want to participate in this system besides crazy people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
If the choice is between Twitterbot democracy and "just hand America back to the Windsors", the latter is clearly both better and probably more just.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 05:28
|
|
|
Democracy producing objectively bad outcomes for the majority of people, being captured by special interest groups, and so on isn't really a bug in democracy that can be corrected through Doing Democracy Directly; it's a feature. Democratic systems' main purpose is to provide legitimacy to leaders and hopefully safeguard the processes through which leaders are elected and policies are made. That only guarantees good results if the electorate is wise and informed: therefore Kant and the other enlightenment thinkers who promoted democracy saw public civic education as an ineluctable part of democracy. Now note that what the 20th century conflicts of ideology showed is that more education, wealth and wisdom doesn't lead to moral progress in any sort of direct way: instead it leads to more sophisticated forms of political manipulation and violence. The work on using adtech and social media manipulation to manipulate public opinion in the 21st century is a direct evolution of the governance techniques of 'democracy'. In a direct democracy you're just going to see the equivalent of Instagram influencers, hashtag communities on Twitter and Youtubers becoming the main nexus of political activity: in other words demagoguery writ large and with infinite different special-interest groups. There is no solution to this problem. Either you go for a representative model and try to choose better leaders, which might be possible if the above special-interest groups weren't mobilised against it, or you go for a more autocratic model and try to impose a specific vision of what 'democracy' means on people (this seems to work okay, but it's fragile), or you go full autocrat and risk the people with power being corrupted by it. Political systems are made of people, and people tend to be less-than-perfectly wise and easily corruptible. There is a political system which aims to give power only to people who are wise and incorruptible: it's called aristocracy (in the original sense of aristeia, rule by the best). In times of crisis giving supreme power to a solid, ideologically-consistent dictator is pretty popular, and it's worked out okay for some countries (Salazar in Portugal comes to mind). But dictatorships are... mostly not good for people. Talking about an absolute solution to corruption is like talking about an absolute solution to conflict: it's impossible and the only way to achieve it is by repression in a different form. What you're asking for is for political leaders who are always wise and political processes that are impossible to subvert. You can make leaders more accountable; you can make policies easier to understand and show support of or oppose; you can't make the populace in general make wise decisions. In general therefore the only way to achieve good governance is by having a strong, well-educated set of oligarchs in power; the only way to achieve good legitimacy is to give absolute power to people who probably don't know what they're doing. The two goals are opposed to one another, and are irreconcilable. e: For the American context, one of the least democratically-inclined presidents you had, FDR, who came from an elite political family and was criticised during his presidency and afterwards for doing his best to impose his will on Congress, is in retrospect considered one of the most effective at governing. On the other hand, 'I love bipartisanship' Obama, despite his equally elite education and background to FDR, achieved only a neutered version of one of his main political objectives (Obamacare) and acted in ways directly contradictory to his stated aims in other areas (foreign policy). Democracy and effectiveness are very rarely correlated. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Jul 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 12:25
|
|
|
It seems like we should just delegate all authority to an immortal and incorruptible philosopher god-king. Lacking that, we should therefore make pains to invent it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 14:41
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:It seems like we should just delegate all authority to an immortal and incorruptible philosopher god-king. Lacking that, we should therefore make pains to invent it. The immortal philosopher god-king sounds good: unfortunately we can't invent them because the inventors would bring their own biases to the process. Superman seems like he'd be a pretty good god-king to be honest, and given he's an alien he's not likely to fall prey to the same biases as an AI overlord. Failing that, maybe we should get started on making humanity into a proper superorganism with a hive mind? I think the assumption in the debate is that democracy is perfectible, though, and evidence would suggest that democracy is probably the least-perfectible of all political systems. This is both a strength and a weakness. On the one hand you don't get the benefits of a benevolent dictatorship; on the other you don't get the problems of a genocidal single-party state. So we're arguing how you could improve democracy: I don't think the problem with American democracy is that it lacks points of entry into the process. There's a ton of ways to get involved in democratic processes in the UK and America, and it's pretty easy for any citizen of those countries to 'have a say'. Whether it effects any meaningful change is another story. The problem with both of these countries isn't that politicians don't listen to the people (they do, albeit in a distorted way), the problem is that they listen to the people that mattern to them and don't govern in the interests of the people. An autocratic regime is free to abuse the population, but they're also free to take unpopular and necessary decisions that most people don't understand the rationale behind. Ultimately, what is the goal of a state: to be responsive to the population's wants, or to provide them with what they need?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:The immortal philosopher god-king sounds good: unfortunately we can't invent them because the inventors would bring their own biases to the process. So what do you think we should do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 17:18
|
|
|
I think Rule by SA Politics Posters is the ideal form of government. It won't matter that everybody else has been tricked into having bad political opinions by The Bad Men since they won't be in charge.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Baronash posted:You keep coming back to this despite everyone telling you the million reasons it wouldn’t work. Experts are not going to spend their lives responding to every inane point made by some rando on the Internet. Even if they did, large companies/industries are just going to flood your system with their own “experts” pushing their brand of junk science. I'd push back on that last point because in a society that instituted direct democracy you'd also likely see things like workplace democracy, classriom democracy etc. flourish, and so by the time people got called up to serve they'd already have a lifetimes experience being accultured into governance, so the idea that everyone would have no clue what they were doing to start rings a little false. Studies show, for example, that societies with more co-operative enterprises also have higher rates of democratic participation and civic engagement, I don't think its a stretch to imagine this relationship working both ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:The immortal philosopher god-king sounds good: unfortunately we can't invent them because the inventors would bring their own biases to the process. The problem with American democracy is that all those entry points you mentioned are tunnels painted on the side of a mountain. Our government is responsive to the needs and desires of capital, not individual US citizens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:Now note that what the 20th century conflicts of ideology showed is that more education, wealth and wisdom doesn't lead to moral progress in any sort of direct way: instead it leads to more sophisticated forms of political manipulation and violence. The work on using adtech and social media manipulation to manipulate public opinion in the 21st century is a direct evolution of the governance techniques of 'democracy'. Moral progress is a variable that is subjective, morals change with time. Purple Prince posted:In a direct democracy you're just going to see the equivalent of Instagram influencers, hashtag communities on Twitter and Youtubers becoming the main nexus of political activity: in other words demagoguery writ large and with infinite different special-interest groups. This would still be the case, but with a more direct effect on the system - people having their opinion reflected rather than compromised. Purple Prince posted:There is no solution to this problem. Either you go for a representative model and try to choose better leaders, which might be possible if the above special-interest groups weren't mobilised against it, or you go for a more autocratic model and try to impose a specific vision of what 'democracy' means on people (this seems to work okay, but it's fragile), or you go full autocrat and risk the people with power being corrupted by it. That would be an improvement on current Representative Democracy, but if we have Direct Democracy then people could still follow the shared values they have shared for thousands of years, and if autocratic then people would be harder to corrupt than a minority of lobbyists. Purple Prince posted:You can make leaders more accountable; you can make policies easier to understand and show support of or oppose; you can't make the populace in general make wise decisions. Making policies easier to understand is definitely an objective, yet the people can make wise decisions after becoming informed about an issue - for example reading a concise briefing of the issue, with it's pros and cons before voting on either the issue itself or one of it's pros and cons. Purple Prince posted:e: For the American context, one of the least democratically-inclined presidents you had, FDR, who came from an elite political family and was criticised during his presidency and afterwards for doing his best to impose his will on Congress, is in retrospect considered one of the most effective at governing. On the other hand, 'I love bipartisanship' Obama, despite his equally elite education and background to FDR, achieved only a neutered version of one of his main political objectives (Obamacare) and acted in ways directly contradictory to his stated aims in other areas (foreign policy). Democracy and effectiveness are very rarely correlated. That's one of the problems, one party undoes the previous party's decisions and progress is slowed to a snail's pace - this could be subverted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:So what do you think we should do? In the US context, because I'll sound less extreme there: Introduce something like the Second Bill of Rights to guarantee material security as part of the constitution. Make it possible to sue the government on all levels for failing to provide adequate material security to US citizens; i.e. make the social security net legally binding. Revise free speech so that inciting hatred isn't considered protected speech. In general, adopt a less permissive approach to freedom of speech. In particular, get rid of any corporations' "right" to free speech as US corporate law currently uses it. Reduce intellectual property protections, especially on medicine. Set up a medical board that can override patent protection of drugs in the public interest. Give it teeth. Commission a panel of public health researchers to look at the most effective scheme for healthcare in terms of cost/outcomes (in the US that might be something like nationalised health insurance, rather than a national health service) and introduce it. Systematise the ways people engage with policy formation - make it so that policymakers are explicitly forbidden from meeting representatives of special interest groups, whether those are campaigning groups or lobbyists, outside of public settings. Make breaches of lobbying rules punishable by anything from temporary suspension from office to impeachment, and introduce a review board that's staffed by career civil servants. Limit campaign funding to a much lower figure and make campaigns for general elections last only 6 months. Make public forums where people can heckle their representatives mandatory. Make the election of Congress proportional to votes in each state, rather than being tied to districts. Make access to voting legally enforceable and get rid of voter ID requirements. Get rid of the political appointments process for ambassadorships and other non-cabinet-level federal posts; make them controlled by appointment by career civil servants. Abolish the police. Replace them with community governance of crime with federal oversight. Look at land ownership and who profits from it. Break up land monopolies and redistribute them in the interests of the country and citizens. Aim to provide every citizen with adequate housing through a federal public works program to build social housing. Break up the big tech companies. Fund alternative platforms which are designed for the public interest rather than to get ad dollars. For that matter, introduce restrictions on how advertising is done, including targeting and manipulative programming. Make higher education free and curtail the private sector in education. Devise and introduce an overall industrial strategy for the US economy, and use the mechanisms of the state to ensure that the private sector falls in line with national strategic priorities. Do this by reference to the material needs of citizens rather than mere consultation with industry leaders. Introduce mandatory national service, either in the civil service or the military, and make that national service focused on providing real benefits to other citizens, not just pointless make-work. Reason being that it prevents the military being dominated by right-wingers, and helps create a sense of solidarity between Americans of wildly different economic backgrounds, which has largely been dismantled by neoliberalism. --- Generally, change the key institutions of the state to make them act in the material interests of the people, and put the state back in control of the private sector rather than vice versa. Make the institutions of the state not merely liberal democratic, but rather social democratic mechanisms that are prepared to intervene frequently to ensure people enjoy basic rights. Once all that's done, maybe you need to start talking about how you can revise the democratic processes. Until then you're just going to empower fascists by giving them an even louder voice. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jul 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Direct democracy loving blows. California has a limited form of it and they voted to ban gay marriage twice. Direct democracy is also what legalized gay marriage in most states, and weed as well. And regained felons the right to vote in Florida. It can be a powerful tool to override a corrupt congress if done well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
I will say living in Massachusetts, the town meeting model is loaded with problems not least of which is that it favors older white men to make decisions for the town despite being the cloest analogue to direct democracy in the United States. Sure in theory everyone can come and vote on town issues but realistically given that meetings are at night after work and goes on for hours closes decision making to most people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 13:59
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I will say living in Massachusetts, the town meeting model is loaded with problems not least of which is that it favors older white men to make decisions for the town despite being the cloest analogue to direct democracy in the United States. Sure in theory everyone can come and vote on town issues but realistically given that meetings are at night after work and goes on for hours closes decision making to most people. Has the Age of Covid changed any of this? So many meetings which once were in person are now on Zoom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Has the Age of Covid changed any of this? So many meetings which once were in person are now on Zoom. Not this summer at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I will say living in Massachusetts, the town meeting model is loaded with problems not least of which is that it favors older white men to make decisions for the town despite being the cloest analogue to direct democracy in the United States. Sure in theory everyone can come and vote on town issues but realistically given that meetings are at night after work and goes on for hours closes decision making to most people. To be fair this is an issues with regular elections as well. In the digital age these things should be more feasible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Direct democracy is also what legalized gay marriage in most states, and weed as well. And regained felons the right to vote in Florida. It can be a powerful tool to override a corrupt congress if done well. What states legalized gay marriage via a direct referendum?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 17:40
|
|
|
karthun posted:What states legalized gay marriage via a direct referendum? Maine, Maryland, and Washington. Admittedly "most" was an extremely poor use of wording but pretty much anything positive that has come out of politics over the past fifteen years has been due to referendums. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Aug 31, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 18:00
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Maine, Maryland, and Washington. More states passed bans of gay marriage via direct referendum then legalization of it. Are you considering legislation passed by state legislatures to be direct democracy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
karthun posted:More states passed bans of gay marriage via direct referendum then legalization of it. Are you considering legislation passed by state legislatures to be direct democracy? I edited my post above. To add on to it. The issue with direct democracy is just like with democracy, it's a double edge sword in how much you can get people active in positive change. There is clearly a hunger for it as so many elections result in "why do bad people keep getting elected if good referendums pass?" Such as the minimum wage increases and voting rights reforms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:To be fair this is an issues with regular elections as well. In the digital age these things should be more feasible. Sure but at least elections are 12 hours long and have alternative ways of voting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Sure but at least elections are 12 hours long and have alternative ways of voting. Why can't direct democracy adopt this? Not everything has to go by Roberts Rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I edited my post above. You are only looking at recent referendums if you think that "good" ones are the ones that pass. Prop 13, TABOR, Right to Work referendums have all been incredibly harmful. The State of Washington has a hosed up tax system because of a hosed up constitutional amendment passed 90 years ago. I honestly think that all of "67% to raise taxes, 50% +1 to lower them" initiatives/laws/amendments are an existential threat to citizens of the State and the only way those are getting passed is through direct democracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
karthun posted:You are only looking at recent referendums if you think that "good" ones are the ones that pass. Prop 13, TABOR, Right to Work referendums have all been incredibly harmful. The State of Washington has a hosed up tax system because of a hosed up constitutional amendment passed 90 years ago. I honestly think that all of "67% to raise taxes, 50% +1 to lower them" initiatives/laws/amendments are an existential threat to citizens of the State and the only way those are getting passed is through direct democracy. Making it that you have to have more support in order to raise taxes than to lower them is inherently undemocratic. Direct Democracy is just that, democracy. There are positive and negatives outcomes just like with representative aspects of democracy. I could bring up how in Oregon referendums were recently used for tax increases, or how local and state governments are constantly passing harmful corporate legislation due to ALEC and other corporate interests. The issue is that the left isn't pushing for referendums like card checks, home zoning, and other aspects. The heart of America's political problems is the lack of political action from the left which has only recently started to gradually rectify.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Making it that you have to have more support in order to raise taxes than to lower them is inherently undemocratic. Direct Democracy is just that, democracy. There are positive and negatives outcomes just like with representative aspects of democracy. I could bring up how in Oregon referendums were recently used for tax increases, or how local and state governments are constantly passing harmful corporate legislation due to ALEC and other corporate interests. The issue is that the left isn't pushing for referendums like card checks, home zoning, and other aspects. The heart of America's political problems is the lack of political action from the left which has only recently started to gradually rectify. Your example on the Oregon referendum brings up my point perfectly. Measure 79 was an expression of direct democracy and removed the power of the State to fund itself in effective ways. I am concerned that now you feel that the voters needing to authorize new taxes as a healthy expression of direct democracy. It is the exact opposite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
karthun posted:Your example on the Oregon referendum brings up my point perfectly. Measure 79 was an expression of direct democracy and removed the power of the State to fund itself in effective ways. I am concerned that now you feel that the voters needing to authorize new taxes as a healthy expression of direct democracy. It is the exact opposite. Again you can say the exact same thing about representative democracy. People constantly vote for politicians who enact harmful policies to them just to elect those later in an attempt (that typically fails) to fix those problems said initial politicians created. The issue is that the left in Oregon has to continue working as they are to overturn the measure of vote for something new to replace it that is even more effective.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:13 |
|
|
My problem with the whole "liquid democracy" idea is that it'd inevitably get all the recessive genes and develop a bizarre undying hatred of its brother, solid democracy
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2020 23:54
|
|
