|
DrSunshine posted:-- Actually the answer, then, is to invent superintelligent AGI and make that our immortal philosopher king. 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. First, we already have thinking machines that can outperform humans. Even a basic four function calculator can perform that specific function more efficiently and with less error than our "best and brightest" humans and certainly better than the average person. But let's leave that point out and assume for the sake of argument that any AGI would come with human biases. So what? It would still make decisions that are vastly superior to the current reasoning process we employ in government and Kahneman explains why. It's true that humans have a lot of things working against us when it comes to making rational unbiased decisions, but this is compounded a billion-fold into a global dumpster-fire of bad choices when we resort to snap judgement heuristics, which is pretty much always. The truth is given enough time, training, and a structured and rigorous methodology humans actually can work our way to pretty solid conclusions based on existing knowledge and evidence gained from design of experiments, but that rarely happens outside of something like Physics or other science research, and certainly not in modern politics. An AGI, inherent human biases included, would be able to make calculations using a database of all human knowledge to reach decisions in the most optimally human way possible, which is also far superior to what's in current use in government. Like, I don't think people realize just how low the bar is right now in terms of Decision Science and Scientific Reasoning within our government, you could practically replace congress with plugged-in toasters and the outcomes would be better than they are now. Or in other words, "It's displacement!" 
-Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Sep 1, 2020 |
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
I suspect a purely rational mind would be so alien to humans that they would reject its conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
WeedlordGoku69 posted: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 What do you think about solidus democracy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:
With regard to strictly scientific topics like global warming which are self-evident from collecting enough data, sure, you could probably get a machine to use that information and make policy recommendations - but I'm not sure what the advantage would be over just hearing from scientists. If anything politicians would be less likely to listen to the machine than to human scientists. When you're talking about a Artificial General Superintelligence, you're talking about a machine that is able to formulate its own goals and strategies for accomplishing those goals. If you want a governance-bot, that necessarily needs to include heuristics for what a good society, or a good process in society, looks like. And that's where the issue with inventor bias comes in. If we take the people working on the most advanced applied technologies at the moment - and I've worked with them before - then they will probably: * Have faith in established institutions (because they've benefited from them in the past), particularly big tech and academia * Be unwilling to make large sweeping changes except in areas where there's overwhelming evidence in support of the advantages (e.g. global warming), because they benefit from the current system * Have a general political compass going from soft-left technocrats to libertarianism If you build that into a governance-bot, then the best-case scenario is a thousand years of DNC rule. Reason itself is delineated by the social environment in which it's located, c.f. Madness and Civilisation, The Archaeology of Knowledge, and The Order of Things. The obvious solution, we might think, is to let an AGI figure out its own heuristics and set its own goals. In fact this kind of strategising is implied by the General Intelligence concept. However: without emotions it's unclear that reason has a purpose, and I've read about research by DeepMind that aims to give 'emotions' to bots for precisely this reason: as Hume said, reason is the slave of the passions. So, it's unclear that a "purely rational" AGI is possible, and even if it were then we probably wouldn't want it. Governance requires a value system to rank different priorities against one another. Do you prioritise funding healthcare or the military in a situation where there are global threats but also abyssmal healthcare at home? Do you want more democratic governance even if it results in worse outcomes? Do you want to limit the ability of large media organisations to propagandise even if this impacts on normal citizens' freedom of speech? I think the temptation of an AGI ruler is that of liberal technocracy: that through reasoning and rigour we can reach the best possible outcome, through enough intellectual application, solve any problem. I used to date a civil servant who was trained to think like this, and it is infuriating to explain to people with a faith in reasonable governance that their masters are motivated by ideology and the passions, not by reason, and therefore their day-to-day work is rationalisation of a political project.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:Direct Democracy as it's been done in the past has failed, and this is largely due to as another poster made - people cba with going to a local meeting to vote on what day the bins get emptied. otoh: https://www.twitter.com
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
Kaal posted: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". That's a excellent point - we could all vote on a case, rather than a selection of 12. Group discussion of evidence, and people whose hobby it is to decipher legalese (if legalese isn't already voted away with) then a fairer trial could take place. If Direct, or Liquid Democracy is unanonymous then there votes would be a matter of record, potentially on a public website in a similar vein to China's, where their vote on "Black man on rape charge obvs guilty" is noted according to them, and the public react accordingly. Purple Prince posted:When you're talking about a Artificial General Superintelligence, you're talking about a machine that is able to formulate its own goals and strategies for accomplishing those goals. If you want a governance-bot, that necessarily needs to include heuristics for what a good society, or a good process in society, looks like. And that's where the issue with inventor bias comes in. If we let the AGI continue to develop it stands to reason that it would evolve beyond it's biases, as some of us do. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:That's a excellent point - we could all vote on a case, rather than a selection of 12. Group discussion of evidence, and people whose hobby it is to decipher legalese (if legalese isn't already voted away with) then a fairer trial could take place. If Direct, or Liquid Democracy is unanonymous then there votes would be a matter of record, potentially on a public website in a similar vein to China's, where their vote on "Black man on rape charge obvs guilty" is noted according to them, and the public react accordingly. I see absolutely nothing that can possibly go wrong with making life-or-death trial outcomes decided by the equivalent of a twitter poll quote:If we let the AGI continue to develop it stands to reason that it would evolve beyond it's biases, as some of us do. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:First, we already have thinking machines that can outperform humans. Even a basic four function calculator can perform that specific function more efficiently and with less error than our "best and brightest" humans and certainly better than the average person. This doesn't make sense because almost all public policy decisions involve some sort of value judgement associated with questions like "what is the end goal, what are we willing to accept towards reaching it, etc." You will always inevitably run into questions of priorities and values that don't have some sort of scientific/rational answer (because the very question "what is an ideal solution?" has moral elements to it). The idea that government would be good if it were run "scientifically" is the sort of thing that vaguely sounds like it makes sense but is actually complete nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
What do you all think of participatory budgeting?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This doesn't make sense because almost all public policy decisions involve some sort of value judgement associated with questions like "what is the end goal, what are we willing to accept towards reaching it, etc." It's not actually vague or complete nonsense. Decision Theory is literally a thing that exists and is used quite often to reach the optimum alternative in complex decision making. Here's a very easy intro book. -Blackadder- fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Sep 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Typo posted:I see absolutely nothing that can possibly go wrong with making life-or-death trial outcomes decided by the equivalent of a twitter poll There could be checks of understanding in place, and weed out troll votes where people shitpost on someone's murder rap, but it could be a lot more in depth thatn *pah* twitter. Some forums work well with all the options they have available. What's the film?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:There could be checks of understanding in place quote:and weed out troll votes where people shitpost on someone's murder rap, but it could be a lot more in depth thatn *pah* twitter. Some forums work well with all the options they have available. This is something which 20 years ago people actually beleived: but a five minute glance at your Twitter and FB feed today will instantly disprove. Not only that but you are proposing getting rid of secret balloting entirely, and explicitly use the threat of popular retribution for voting against whatever the majority opinion is on any given topic to whip dissent into line. Which is to say the mechanism you have for enforcing "good" behavior is basically to automatically doxx everyone the instant they vote for anything. Even if you think this is a good idea for enforcing "correct" political views, it instantly breaks if 51% of FB userbase's political opinion is "wrong" at any given moment and the people on the "right" side of an issue is are now the victims of doxxing. It's rule by Twitter mob: which sounds worse than when the Athenian assembly voted to executed Socrates or their generals after Arginusae. quote:What's the film? Typo fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 19:51
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:What do you all think of participatory budgeting? You're still going to have the participation problem. Related, if you live in Massachusetts, vote for ranked choice voting this year because its a nice analogue for direct democracy and republican forms of government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:You're still going to have the participation problem. But participatory budgeting has been very successful for Porto Alegre and in parts of South Africa. In terms of participation, again, this is something that effects democracy in general and an issue we have right now as most people making under $30,000 a year don't vote. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sashaperigo/status/1305670128621686784?s=20 Ah I love direct democracy! "This industry" here refers to the gig economy, this prop is trying to overturn a bill passed last year requiring Uber, Lyft, etc. to classify their workers as employees. The whole thing is being funded by these same companies, natch. Badger of Basra fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Sep 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
As I said before, changing voting thresholds should be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
I would probably suggest that making workers subject to the arbitrary whims of a legislature and company they cannot change is very much not direct democracy, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Typo posted:So a harsher version of a literacy test A version to test understanding, that could be performed (and passed) by the illiterate. I think a big problem with your suggestion is idea that "group discussions" on the internet produces understanding and good results. This is something which 20 years ago people actually beleived: but a five minute glance at your Twitter and FB feed today will instantly disprove. Not only that but you are proposing getting rid of secret balloting entirely, and explicitly use the threat of popular retribution for voting against whatever the majority opinion is on any given topic to whip dissent into line. Which is to say the mechanism you have for enforcing "good" behavior is basically to automatically doxx everyone the instant they vote for anything. Even if you think this is a good idea for enforcing "correct" political views, it instantly breaks if 51% of FB userbase's political opinion is "wrong" at any given moment and the people on the "right" side of an issue is are now the victims of doxxing. It's rule by Twitter mob: which sounds worse than when the Athenian assembly voted to executed Socrates or their generals after Arginusae. it's ending to deus ex invisible wars [/quote] People on FB and Twitter feeds are trying to score emotional points with their arguments rather than logical ones, in a professional setting brainstorming can produce unprecedented effects. Take a look at [The Wisdom of Crowdshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds] - if people are placed together to solve a problem, many are better than one. Whether votes should be anonymised is a valid issue, not sure what's best at the moment - if you're speaking in public you may be more or less inclined to troll people, depending on the reactions you get. Either way, we get the democracy we deserve by it's constituents. Regarding the 51% issue, one solution could be to require a supermajority on issues rated as high importance. For example. voting on someone's execution (if capital punishment was voted into place  ) Thanks for the reference, that's the only DX apart from the mobile one I haven't tried.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:A version to test understanding, that could be performed (and passed) by the illiterate. how exactly does is this test suppose to work? quote:People on FB and Twitter feeds are trying to score emotional points with their arguments rather than logical ones, in a professional setting brainstorming can produce unprecedented effects. Take a look at [The Wisdom of Crowdshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds] - if people are placed together to solve a problem, many are better than one. quote:Either way, we get the democracy we deserve by it's constituents. Typo fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:Regarding the 51% issue, one solution could be to require a supermajority on issues rated as high importance. For example. voting on someone's execution (if capital punishment was voted into place That wasn't the problem I described: the problem I described is that your mechanism for enforcing "correct" behavior through automatically doxing everyone who votes backfires if the majority have lovely political opinion
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Typo posted:how exactly does is this test suppose to work? There are a number of ways, one would be to have a quick multiple choice 5 question quiz to test undertanding of the issue. Get them right, get to vote. Typo posted:How are you planning to enforce "professional setting" discussions? Who does the enforcement? What is the punishment for "unprofessional" discourse? Well, it hasn't been tried yet, though I feel that people would choose to act more professional when they are choosing how the country is run. "Unprofessional" discourse would be downvoted if not liked by the community that the DD is in place for, so the community would socially enforce behaviours. Social credits could be a better incentive than financial ones. Typo posted:fair enough I guess, although this seems a distinct negative rather than positive I get that, but I think most people get the short end of the stick - people tend to be quite similar creatures in lots of ways and respects.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/880408582310776832 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/880410114456465411
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
Friendly reminder thay societies that practice economic democracy, e.g. co-operatively own and operate enterprises and public assets have significanty higher rates of democratic participation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:Friendly reminder thay societies that practice economic democracy, e.g. co-operatively own and operate enterprises and public assets have significanty higher rates of democratic participation. It's like when you give people more control and power over their own lives they will in turn participate and educate themselves more in order to better their lives and society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
Like you can observe that twitter is often bad but not think that is an argument against direct democracy. For like, any decision making process you need to understand the decision you're making, care about the outcome, and have like a basic ability to reason. Indirect democracy creates problems with all of those because necessarily people don't understand the decisions they're making (because they're actually making a decision about a media personality they want to make decisions for them) they don't care about the outcome (because the governing process is so abstracted from your life that you probably can't even tell how it affects you if you even believe it does at all) and it interferes with people's ability to reason because the first two conditions create an incentive to entirely cut out reason from the process and try to get people to treat politics like some kind of team sport where you just cheer for the people wearing the right colours. And I don't think it's wrong to suggest that all of that is a result of the political structure we have, like that's not just representational politics working badly, that's a pretty logical outgrowth of how representational politics works, you might not want it to do that but it seems to do it regardless in much the same way a ball will roll down a hill however much you might want it not to, it's an effect of the shape of the ball, as our current political dysfunction is an effect of the shape and structure of our politics. And it might also suggest some pretty severe upper limits on the effectiveness of democracy as a political system (as in, it starts to fall apart at the point it becomes indirect, to the extent that it escapes the limits of your knowledge, your care, or your ability to understand.) But I think that it is still a pretty good argument against representative democracy and for the necessity of structuring society to maximise people's ability to have a kind of immediate collective autonomy over their lives, their homes, and their places of work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
There is no problem that direct democracy/referendums/etc "solve" that couldn't also be addressed by making legislative institutions better designed and more representative, and there are several new ones that they introduce. Things like Mixed Member Proportional Representation or improving legislative decision making by giving them better access institutional sources of information may be unsexy and boring, but they've been shown to work. Right now I'm voting on like a dozen different ballot initiatives, it's loving stupid. Some of them are on pretty complex and technical stuff that honestly should be handled by the legislature. A well designed political system should put as few barriers in the way of the electorate being able to translate their views into policy as possible, and having to dig deep into the intricacies of bond financing or whatever to figure out just what the hell I'm voting for is a absolutely an obstacle to that. Crumbskull posted:Friendly reminder thay societies that practice economic democracy, e.g. co-operatively own and operate enterprises and public assets have significanty higher rates of democratic participation. Yeah, but if you're talking about places like Nordic Social Democracies here(which I assume you are because they have much higher rates of public ownership, etc), they do "direct democracy", stuff like referendums, etc. far less often than the US. They have them like once every decade or so on stuff like adopting the Euro, not every election cycle. They also have less elections total than the US, which is likely why they have higher levels of political participation, because you have more consolidated elections every few years rather than having midterms, primaries, off-year state and local elections, etc (To be clear, I think this is good, not bad. Things like off-year elections are basically designed to ensure minimal possible turnout, elections should be as consolidated as possible in order to reduce the amount of time that it takes for people to participate in the political process). Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Sep 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
The larger proportion of the population you require to pander to in order to hold the top office the better off your society will be. At a certain point you have to start delivering good policy instead of catering to special interests. The United States is one of the most dysfunctional democratic nations precisely because of the emphasis on representative democracy and dumb traditions like the electoral college and senate seat allocations, which means even before you factor in party politics you only need to cater to a dedicated minority of voters that are positioned in key states and can ignore everyone else and things like not poo poo policies. It’s a lot easier to bribe a few hundred representatives then it is half the nation. I say the United States is “democratic” but really it’s an oligarchy and the gap between the public’s preferences and actual law is comparable to many dictatorships.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2020 07:10
|
|
|
SpaceSDoorGunner posted:
How about liquid democracy? The goal is to take power from politicians right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2020 12:41
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Right now I'm voting on like a dozen different ballot initiatives, it's loving stupid. Some of them are on pretty complex and technical stuff that honestly should be handled by the legislature. A well designed political system should put as few barriers in the way of the electorate being able to translate their views into policy as possible, and having to dig deep into the intricacies of bond financing or whatever to figure out just what the hell I'm voting for is a absolutely an obstacle to that. DRWN posted:How about liquid democracy? The goal is to take power from politicians right? As DRWN mentions, liquid democracy would ensure that we can put our voting powers to those in the know on the sorts of ballots you mention, where the layperson wouldn't know what the hell (or care, probably) what bond financing is, but could vote for their favourite economist to vote on those matters. Sure, some people would still choose to give all their votes in all their voting areas to...let's see, who's popular with the youth of today...Morgan Freeman but that would still be better if good ol' Freeman chose to pass his votes on to an economist for economic matters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Yeah, but if you're talking about places like Nordic Social Democracies here(which I assume you are because they have much higher rates of public ownership, etc), they do "direct democracy", stuff like referendums, etc. far less often than the US. They have them like once every decade or so on stuff like adopting the Euro, not every election cycle. They also have less elections total than the US, which is likely why they have higher levels of political participation, because you have more consolidated elections every few years rather than having midterms, primaries, off-year state and local elections, etc (To be clear, I think this is good, not bad. Things like off-year elections are basically designed to ensure minimal possible turnout, elections should be as consolidated as possible in order to reduce the amount of time that it takes for people to participate in the political process). I'm talking about literally everywhere there is high levels of cooperstive ownership incl. Nicarauga, Chiapas, Basque Spain, Reggio Emillio, New Zealand etc. I dont actually know much about the state of the movement in Scandanavia, outside of Finlanf I guess. Also, I would argue that direct democracy becomes less neccessary the more widespread and diffuse democratic decision making is going on in general. The studies controlled for things like 'elections less often' and etc. But I don't have access to my hard drics with my Zotero save at the moment so I can't actually give you the citation. Pretty sure the UN did it back in the 'year of the co-operative' in 2012 or whenever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
IGD had a pretty good long-form interview with someone from Cherán (which is in Mexico but not in Chiapas): https://itsgoingdown.org/rebellion-autonomy-communal-government-cheran/ Nine years ago, they basically threw out the government and the police and established local autonomous rule using a direct council system. Lot of really interesting tidbits in there on a lot of subjects that come up frequently when horizontally organized governance is discussed. quote:When everything started during those days in April 2011, we also say that within Cherán a reencounter began among the inhabitants of Cherán. A kind of union, of meeting one another as neighbors, something that we didn’t do before. And from resisting in the streets, in the bonfires that were created. The bonfire is this space created around the fire, around the burning wood, that generally in our homes has always functioned as the companion of dialog among families. But now, because Cherán is very cold and using this pretext to fend of the night’s cold, it moved to the streets. We could see the fires on nearly every block of Cherán and the people there, sharing, talking about their concerns, their fears, all that came up as a result of being in a process such as this, with a lot of fear that fortunately was transforming into this ability to dialog and to create. A space where a lot of attention was given to listening to the elders, to the grandparents, to those who had knowledge. Here we say, if the elders share something with you, it is because they have done it through trial and error, and it is something that works. So, we need to stay with this knowledge to continue advancing as a community. From there is where the examples they had lived during the trajectory of their lives began to be valued, the examples they gave of how the community organized itself before. Really interesting read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
Crumbskull posted:I'm talking about literally everywhere there is high levels of cooperstive ownership incl. Nicarauga, Chiapas, Basque Spain, Reggio Emillio, New Zealand etc. I dont actually know much about the state of the movement in Scandanavia, outside of Finlanf I guess. Also, I would argue that direct democracy becomes less neccessary the more widespread and diffuse democratic decision making is going on in general. The studies controlled for things like 'elections less often' and etc. But I don't have access to my hard drics with my Zotero save at the moment so I can't actually give you the citation. Pretty sure the UN did it back in the 'year of the co-operative' in 2012 or whenever. Things like co-determination (with unions having seats on boards of directors), employee owned businesses, or state owned enterprises (when done right) are all good and cool, and if you said that they made the economy, or even society in general, meaninfully more democratic, I wouldn't disagree with you. But that's conceptually separate from the idea of direct democracy, which is generally understood to be the electorate voting directly on policy that effects the polity as a whole. I don't actually think we really disagree, we're just using different terms. I think it's good for workers to have a vote in how their employer conducts business, whether through the mechanism of union board members or the business being directly owned by them. But that's codetermination or syndicalism. Direct democracy is me having to vote on poo poo like bond financing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Things like co-determination (with unions having seats on boards of directors), employee owned businesses, or state owned enterprises (when done right) are all good and cool, and if you said that they made the economy, or even society in general, meaninfully more democratic, I wouldn't disagree with you. But that's conceptually separate from the idea of direct democracy, which is generally understood to be the electorate voting directly on policy that effects the polity as a whole. Yes, sorry I am saying civic participation period, not drawing a correlation to direct democracy specifically. (as someome who sits on the board for anco-operstive whose staff collective of 100+ uses full consensus decision making I would be highly resistant to the idea of direct democracy for decisions at any level higher than the neighborhood probably lol)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Direct democracy is me having to vote on poo poo like bond financing. If we used Liquid Democracy instead of Direct, then you could choose a finance person to vote on all the finance stuff that you aren't knowledgable/interested in. This also means we have more of a meritocracy, so experts (decided by the public) would be able to have a larger voice in the decision making process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 12:11
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:If we used Liquid Democracy instead of Direct, then you could choose a finance person to vote on all the finance stuff that you aren't knowledgable/interested in. How would I as a random person know who would be a capable finance person? Rightfully judging ones competence is even harder than becoming competent yourself. Most people would simply chose whoever the media or Foxnews suggest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:How would I as a random person know who would be a capable finance person? Rightfully judging ones competence is even harder than becoming competent yourself. Most people would simply chose whoever the media or Foxnews suggest.  , for example I think this is highly accurate even though I'm completely uneducated in psychology, political or social sciences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 12:38
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Badger of Basra posted:Ah I love direct democracy! Prop 22 is pretty much the same type of failure, obvious immediate direct benefit at the cost of screwing things up badly in a way that's way more visible to people whose job it is to make policy. And the 7/8 voting threshold is stupid, but you have to remember that voters see tying the legislature's hands as a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
Couldn't the threshold on prop 22 be removed with a subsequent prop?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Disnesquick posted:Couldn't the threshold on prop 22 be removed with a subsequent prop? Sure if you have $250 million laying around to pay for the campaign
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Direct democracy is a tool to be used specifically against the enshrinement of a corrupt political class; if it does more than ensure that elected delegates continue to represent the wishes of those who empower them, you invite further avenues to corruption.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 16:59
|
|
