The way that it is now is that a minority decides where the next land fill is.
Not a minority. The representatives of a majority. Glib, but silly.
What about the problem with a majority voting to strip away the minorities rights? For example denying gays the right to the political process by referendum?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
I thought that this conversation qualified as political opinion but we can start a new thread if need be.
Who is allowed to vote?
No change. The same people who are allowed to vote for their representative now.
Which laws would be the purview of the federal, state, or county level? Would all decisions be nationwide?
No change. Those divisions remain as they are. Change them later if you like.
What level of detail would such voting comprise?
As much as is necessary. You start by allowing the people to vote directly on any issue that comes to a vote before the congress, legislature or town council. Once you are up and running you can create the infrastructure and process that allows people to begin to directly influence the issues that are to be voted on. Eventually, the members of congress et al can disappear completely. We would be left with employees doing as they are told.
Who would be empowered to write the actual wording of each referendum bought before the people at large?
Anybody I suppose. Vote on the propositions that you are going to vote on. Create the mechanism and let the ideas matriculate. The cream will rise.
Would this replace all functions, executive, legislative, and judicial -- or would the judgement of guilt or innocence be exempt from the popular will of those unfamiliar with the details of each particular case?
The rule of law is essential to any egalitarian society. The function of an impartial judge is essential and works well. Our laws are so convoluted that they demand the skills of a professional to interpret them. This wouldn't change very quickly. I would not vote to mess with the judicial system apart from being able to vote for my judges up here. I can see the need for some restrictions. Voting thresholds set appropriately to avoid too much disruptive change. We would have to search for these limits but they would become apparent.
Again, you don't throw out those things that work. Take professional advice where it is necessary and give precedence to it where required. So we let the Drs vote on which vaccines to recommend and let the people vote on making them mandatory or not.
I question the idea of minorities being at risk. Take a look at the index of polls from the link in msg 1. Do you see any results there that would indicate that the majority were ready to abuse the minority? edit; apart from the one on drone use but we are already abusing that minority.
What about the problem with a majority voting to strip away the minorities rights? For example denying gays the right to the political process by referendum?
Well look at prop 8. It didn't make it through the courts. Those protections are in place at a national level and would require a national vote to overturn. Do you think that the country is ready to overturn the 14th amendment?
Yeah, that's another problem with direct democracy. You'll get the cream of voters, the ones who are educated enough and informed enough to understand the detailed issues. Few enough people vote when the issue is low taxes versus good services. Fewer would vote if the issue was x dollars for A and y dollars for B versus z dollars for C and w dollars for D. It's a recipe for oligarchy.
OK, I think we are off to a reasonable discussion that could be quite informative, if not enlightening.
For a start, I would like to point out that several states in the US west of the Mississippi have a referendum process whereby to some degree, at least in regard to state law, there is a form of direct democracy. It may not be as immediate as possible in the internet age (nor given temporary passions, should it be to some extent IMHO), however it is what it is, a form of direct democracy.
For the breakdown of states that allow the majority of citizens to overturn the consensus of their elected representatives concerning either the state amendments or their state statutes or both -- here it is.
Considering this is actual evidence for or against the effectiveness of direct democracy, perhaps the historical data concerning each state where it has been implemented should be deeply examined.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
As much as is necessary. You start by allowing the people to vote directly on any issue that comes to a vote before the congress, legislature or town council. Once you are up and running you can create the infrastructure and process that allows people to begin to directly influence the issues that are to be voted on. Eventually, the members of congress et al can disappear completely. We would be left with employees doing as they are told.
Who would be empowered to write the actual wording of each referendum bought before the people at large?
Anybody I suppose. Vote on the propositions that you are going to vote on. Create the mechanism and let the ideas matriculate. The cream will rise.
OK. We'd only need about 7,344 hours per day to get all the reading and voting done.
Maybe on Planet Mercury, if not Planet Reebok?
...We would be left with employees doing as they are told.....
Yeah - like that would ever happen. Your future is, essentially, a bunch of slaves?
Green Party on domestic policy, environmental, social, economic, healthcare, and foreign policy issues. 91%
Democrats on domestic policy, economic, healthcare, foreign policy, and education issues. 90%
Socialist on social, economic, and foreign policy issues. 69%
Libertarians; no major issues. 41%
Republicans; no major issues. 20%
Parties I side with by issue:
Education - Democrats
Healthcare - Green Party
Domestic Policy - Democrats
The Environment - Green Party
The Economy - Democrats
Social Issues - Green Party
Immigration - Green Party & Democrats
Foreign Policy - Green Party
So, it appears that I do not agree with Republicans or Libertarians on any issues at all, which does not surprise me in the least even though I am anti-mandatory GMO labeling (which I thought would definitely be a Repub answer).
The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
Not a minority. The representatives of a majority.
Wait a minute. On the one hand you are raising doubts about the will of the majority and then on the other you are defending the will of the majority when it is condensed into the hands of a few representatives. What is it about the filtering of peoples opinions that makes them safer?
How do you figure? It is exactly the opposite of that. Do you think that voters would be less interested as they become more empowered? I don't see it. I think that the quality or awareness of the voter will increase as they become more used to the authority.
I think that what will soon become apparent is the need for a better informed electorate and the need for an increase in the free flow of information.
Considering this is actual evidence for or against the effectiveness of direct democracy, perhaps the historical data concerning each state where it has been implemented should be deeply examined.
Who has time for that? ( )
The whole argument can be made this way. Democracy is the best form of government that we have found and therefore more democracy is better than less democracy.
We'd only need about 7,344 hours per day to get all the reading and voting done.
Nonsense. The issues can be refined. I suggest that the mechanisms for doing so would spontaneously arise. Consolidators and evaluators would show up in no time to offer their professional opinions about the matter at hand. So if a budget issue comes up then the voter could go to the sources that they choose to trust and make their decisions.
How informed are our representatives now on the issues that they vote on? Isn't it mostly a case of voting the party line? How many members of congress actually read the patriot act before voting for it?
Do you think that voters would be less interested as they become more empowered?
As I said, they would become less interested as the level of detail increased. Only those who were interested in the details would participate. Ultimately, government would be by a small group of people, only they'd be people that we wouldn't get to choose.
ProtoTypical writes:
I think that what will soon become apparent is the need for a better informed electorate and the need for an increase in the free flow of information.
We've needed that for centuries. I'm not holding my breath.
As I said, they would become less interested as the level of detail increased. Only those who were interested in the details would participate. ...
We already have instances of representatives voting on bills they haven't read, so I don't really think that would stop some people from doing so. They would just rely on Faux Noise to tell them how to vote ...
... as the level of detail increased. ...
One question is why does the level of detail increase? Because it is written by lawyers, to include loop-holes for special interests or because it is necessary to describe the whole concept.
Take healthcare for an example: the bill is huge even by average bill size standards.
A simple(r) bill would be
A more complex version would have it phase in over a period of years, say by lowering the eligibility age every year.
Or it could be passed as an amendment to Medicare ... building on previous legislation rather than re-inventing it.
ProtoTypical writes:
I think that what will soon become apparent is the need for a better informed electorate and the need for an increase in the free flow of information.
We've needed that for centuries. I'm not holding my breath.
What you could have would be a debate on the internet with facilitators trained to work towards a consilience of opinions. People could follow and then decide on the merits of the arguments.
Take minimum wage ... the majority of people support it. There can be a simple bill:
Or income tax
The advantage of simple bills is no loopholes and "clean" bills.
We already have instances of representatives voting on bills they haven't read, so I don't really think that would stop some people from doing so.
No doubt. I'm suggesting that that would not be an improvement.
RAZD writes:
One question is why does the level of detail increase? Because it is written by lawyers, to include loop-holes for special interests or because it is necessary to describe the whole concept.
Both. And because life is complicated.
RAZD writes:
The advantage of simple bills is no loopholes and "clean" bills.
I suspect that simplifying bills in one place would only necessitate complicating them in other places.
)
™ Version 4.2
