- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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.
Ironically as libertarian (not capitalist) I guess I want BIGGEST government.
Ew. I almost clicked a Reddit link. 🤮
Mostly /s. Kinda.
My sincere apologies.
Tumblr source: https://ahoyuniverse.com/
Doing the lord’s work. Thank you
