Direct Democracy

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Direct Democracy

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

Desdinova posted:

There would be quick, efficent change

Have you ever tried to get 10 people to agree on what to eat?

# ¿ Jun 16, 2020 05:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 09:23

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

Desdinova posted:

If the people could debate with themselves how to deal with Brexit, with a back and forth between the EU and a British Direct Democracy (or Online Direct Democracy, or ODD) we would have negotiated after debating things like "hey, maybe we should pay in to our larger than national system to get back a benefit from a group collective, but X euros is a bit much considering how beneficial we are to other countries"

I feel like you are looking at debate forums (including this one) with, at most, hundreds of users and active moderation, and acting as though a debate involving millions would proceed in the same way. A meaningful debate among millions would be impossible. I don't mean difficult, I mean literally impossible.

Desdinova posted:

People do this all the time, regardless of the political system. If we have a direct democracy, people can repeat the propoganda they've been fed, and when it comes to the discussion stage they are shot down by the evidence that shows it to be what it is - propoganda designed to promote an emotionally negative response.
e.g.
Voter 1 motions: "The Daily Mail says Pakis come here to eat our swans! Ban all Pakis!"

Voters 2 - 9804985078: "There are no recorded instances of Pakistani people trying to gain access to Britain to consume swans.

Motion is denied.

People do not change their beliefs in response to evidence. They manufacture their own evidence, or find excuses to distrust the producer of that evidence.

Desdinova posted:

Millions of people, in various circumstances would still be able to debate an issue healthily within an Online Direct Democracy. Most people who vote Labour or Conservative, Democrats or Republicans, don't want troops in Afghanistan, therefore after some small discussion, the troops get pulled out, rather than doing so after thousands of deaths and business deals enacted.

Please explain your reasoning here. How would a million people have a healthy debate about when to pull troops from Afghanistan? How do the 10 experts who are loudly proclaiming "if you pull out overnight, the government will fall" sufficiently respond to the other 999,990 individuals in the discussion?

Desdinova posted:

Edit: Been reading a few Direct Democracy reddits and a lot of people are supporting Liquid Democracy, which is basically the same but you can choose to delegate your vote on certain issues to someone who you think represents your viewpoints in issues where you have either little interest, little knowledge, or little effort to be spared upon the topic.
Haven't decided if delegates are preferred or not but gonna keep on reading and learning until the best answer arises.

You are describing representational democracy.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2020 17:54

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

OwlFancier posted:

I feel like perhaps a more relevant question to ask would be whether it would be possible to invade afghanistan to begin with with a more distributed political system.

88% of Americans supported a war in Afghanistan in October 2001, so unless I'm missing your point, I'd say the answer is a resounding "yes."

However, that's really not a more relevant question, because you can sub "removing troops from Afghanistan" for any other action that would have severe and long-lasting knock-on effects.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2020 18:55

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

silence_kit posted:

I'm a little surprised that posters here are so gung-ho about direct democracy, given that the party-line SA politics poster political opinions are not that popular in the United States.

There�s the OP and one(?) other person. Why are you talking as if there�s some overwhelming consensus?

# ¿ Jun 21, 2020 13:40

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

White Rock posted:

I think a good and intresting model for direct democracy is the one found in "Towards a new socialism" by W. Paul Cockshott(nice) and Allin F. Cottrell.

The book rejects representative democracy as inherently undemocratic. Instead, the authors describe a mix between councils and direct vote. Councils would be created for mainstay day to day work but it would work like Jury duty. You might be drafted into "local water management council" or "board of state road infrastructure" and have to sit there for 6-12 months. Along with the people drafted from the general public, experts will be drafted who assist with the process: Health care professionals for the medical system council, engineers for infrastructure.

This is some serious "What if the best ruler is the one who doesn't want to rule" bullshit. You're taking folks with little interest in a topic and forcing them to engage with it on a part-time basis for a comically short period of time. At best, they'll be rubber stamping the efforts of the professionals who actually work in the departments they oversee. At worst, you'll have a mess of shifting priorities, corporate influence, and grift that will halt progress in its tracks.

And yeah, I'm sure someone is gonna quote that last line and lay some sick burn about how that's the state of the country today. "Yes it sucks, but so does X" isn't a very strong argument in favor of direct democracy. I want a representative government run by professional legislators who use full-time support staff to seek out the best information from experts in order to make informed decisions. In turn, I want well-funded government agencies that rely on the combined experience of their staff to carry out those decisions.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2020 15:15

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

VitalSigns posted:

So instead we should deliberately put the people who are there for the grift in charge, rather than sometimes getting one by random chance

That is where reforms to our current system come in: Publicly-funded, ranked-choice elections where folks with a serious interest in public service promote their agenda to a reasonably-sized district, with the winners of those elections then subject to strict standards upheld by a strong oversight agency.

If you insist on framing it this way, however, I would ask if you have ever trusted anyone to act on your behalf? Do you have a bank? Have you ever used an accountant? Have you ever sent a college or employer private information, including your SSN? Do you perhaps work at a company that trusts you with funds, equipment, or product with a value that is far in excess of what they pay you? Each of use trusts dozens if not hundreds of individuals to act on our behalf throughout our lives. A worthwhile cooperative system can't exist without trust. The best we can do is reduce the drivers of graft and other violations of the social contract, (primarily inequity, but also out-sized opportunity and improper oversight) and ensure adequate consequences are in place for those who take advantage of that trust.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2020 17:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 09:23

Baronash: Feb 29, 2012; So what do you want to be called?

Desdinova posted:

How about having the experts post their views and recommendations to a public forum where those interested debate and vote on it, rather than the potentially much more easily corruptable politicians? You can't bribe everybody, right?

You keep coming back to this despite everyone telling you the million reasons it wouldn�t work. Experts are not going to spend their lives responding to every inane point made by some rando on the Internet. Even if they did, large companies/industries are just going to flood your system with their own �experts� pushing their brand of junk science.
Forget the experts for a moment, it�s almost laughable to think that a meaningful debate could happen between (potentially) tens of thousands of individuals. D&D is hard enough to remain on top of, and there are probably only a couple hundred regular posters here with active moderation.

But this has been stated before, which leads me to wonder if you are actually bothering to read your own thread.

Desdinova posted:

Paying people to be on a council of transport or health for six months or so is quite the improvement over the current representative system, especially if it allows voluntary members to join in or leave at any time.

In what way is it an improvement? You�re putting folks with little to no experience into a position, then hamstringing them with a term limit that prevents them from actually getting good at the job they�re being asked to do.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2020 03:18

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Direct Democracy