|
The big problem with direct democracy is that most people would not really be knowledgeable about the necessary decisions. How about a system where the voters can put people in charge who are sort of experts in certain relevant fields? That sounds like something which might work. Honestly, Swiss democracy sucks and gets racist about every topic. cant cook creole bream fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jun 16, 2020 |
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
DrSunshine posted:It sounds a lot like representative democracy to me. Is that so? How peculiar.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:Direct democracy loving blows. California has a limited form of it and they voted to ban gay marriage twice. This demonstrates the problem with direct democracy quiet well. On avarage, a single voter is only for the things which benefit them personally. This leads to a form of mob thinking. Since there are considerably less gay than straight people, it's a bit more likely for such a law to fail in that system. It would be even less even if it was an example where the majority would actually set themselves in a worse situation, rather than just "devaluing the holy concept of marriage." But if you look at a system with an elected leader, in theory that person would be interested in passing laws to pander to some smaller, but significant voting blocks. For example, some governor might present himself as gay friendly and allow gay marriage because he things homosexual people will help his reellection, while most straight people won't care in a significant negative way. This way, representative election can help to bring power to otherwise insignificant minorities. The problem is that this is directly opposed to the idea of one person one vote, since voting blocks would be worth more than the sum of their parts. Also, many politicians prefer to pander to one infinitesimal, but incredibly relevant voting minority. Billionaire.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Desdinova posted:We can learn about the effects of things (if we don't already) and if it was more than a LEAVE EU YES OR NO vote than we would have been able to vote on what we wanted to get out of potentially leaving the EU. As it stood, people had to decide on whether on the whole the EU was worth staying with or not, rather than this part of the EU I agree with, this part I don't. With an Online Direct Democracy we would be able to vote for (or against) freedom of entry to EU nationals, inspection of food at border arrival etc. If this would have taken place it seems we would have remained in the EU, on our terms, with the majority still having their way. If the people have no interest, they don't vote, their loss. Yeah no, this is not true at all. Part of the problem with Brexit was exactly that. People were thinking you could just cherry pick the parts of the EU you like and discard the rest. In such a theoretical specific vote, the Britons would have overwhelmingly voted against any payment to the EU, and would have denied freedom of movement, any sort of EU regulations and would have insisted to stay in the trade union. I.e. exactly the kind of unicorn dream Brexit Boris was preaching all along. You can't just have an internal vote on specific agreements which involve another side. The Brexit negotiations between the EU and Great Britain are running along awfully and it looks like the country is running against a hard wall at the end of the year. Imagine how well that would go, if there was not even a person in between and each trade offer had to go through a process of a public vote and somehow each proposed change as well, until Britain has a new proposal which suits their majority internally. The only way Britains would agree with a new proposal would be if it again heavily favors them. But such a deal would be ridiculous bad for the EU and they'd throw it away within seconds. The concept of direct democracy is incredibly bad and inefficient in negotiations. you basically need some intermediate who could broker an agreement, which could then be voted on. But then British voters would complain that this negotiator has to much power and that their specific idea of Brexit (All the good things, none of the bad) did not even make it to public vote. And that example still assumes that the EU has competent leadership. A negotiation between two sides with a government of mob mentalities would absolutely go to war, rather than ever having a chance to find an agreement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2020 06:41
|
|
|
Powerful people lying to the mob to fill their own pockets is like the central essence of direct democracy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2020 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
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
|
|