- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Ew. I almost clicked a Reddit link. 🤮
Mostly /s. Kinda.
Honestly with the way the internet exists now, we might feasibly be able to do something closer to direct democracy.
But good luck convincing the people in charge to lay down their power.
Perhaps, though I’d be very concerned for mob mentality. Social media is famously reactive.
No doubt. I think an easy way to counter that is to put a “deliberation” time on legislation. I’m spitballing but maybe require two votes 3 months apart, and they must both agree (otherwise there’s a third tiebreaker vote another 3 months later)? That would help kill off the flash fire effect that a viral meme can create and focus more on fixing problems that occur over a longer period of time.
I mean I’m no political scientist so I’d love to hear more about what methods are proven for direct democracy.
Making a second decision mandatory makes it harder to change existing laws. This can be a good thing in some cases, but not always. It increases conservatism (in that it’s harder to change things).
No doubt. The goal is to make it harder for memes to affect the outcome of a decision.
Another way to approach it is if a supermajority votes for something, no secondary confirmation vote is required. Eg. reproductive choice would easily pass with one vote because it has such widespread support.
Was it… the Persians? Maybe? Anyway, they had to make two choices on any decision, once when drunk and again sober a few days later. If rhe choice was the same both times it was deemed a good idea.
I have zero idea if this is fact, but it sounds similar to your idea.
Ooh never heard that but it kinda makes sense
I really hope it’s not some fever dream, or total bullshit, but it kind of makes sense. I’ll see if I can find some facts on it.
Yeah no…as much as our current system sucks, I’d rather have some sort of a buffer before full on mob rule.
People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals…and you know it.
Full on direct democracy sounds like a good idea. Until you realize it’s two wolves and a sheep making dinner plans.
I fail to see how that’s different than the way it currently works, except you get the tyranny of the far right minority instead of tyranny of the majority.
Or another way to look at it, with your analogy, instead of two wolves, you have one professional career wolf who is far more effective at his job.
Nah it’s more like the wolves lawyers and the sheep’s lawyers fight it out. Like a proxy war.
I say liquid democracy would be better
Super earth has my vote for managed democracy! o7
Ironically as libertarian (not capitalist) I guess I want BIGGEST government.
