# Direct Democracy



## Drengor (Dec 26, 2017)

With the advent of the Internet the dream of Direct Democracy becomes quite a bit more believable, but if we talk through what that would mean I think we'd be eager to come up with something a bit more stable. This is a long one. By no means am I 'right' about this, I've just thought a bit about it and figured I'd throw this out here. If anything this is less of an advocation for a Direct Democracy, and more shinning of a light on all the ugliness it requires, and maybe it will convince people that we should just stick with Representative Democracy, and put our political dreaming towards better things.

The one biggest flaw I find in a democracy is that an uneducated vote is equal to an educated vote. With a thoughtless Direct Democracy popularism would take hold, even stronger than it does today. The rich would still pay 'politicians', expert speech givers, to sway the opinion of the masses. The only difference is the rich wouldn't have to bundle all their issues into digestible packages, but would rather be able to spin a narrative to the mass's liking for each individual issue.

Maybe that would lead to the end of the 'Us and Them' mentality of a two party system, should the masses take it upon themselves not to give in to such hateful motivations in voting and think more personally, critically of their own beliefs about each issue, but this wouldn't be guaranteed. Certainly it would not hold true for every voter. If anything, one of the things those rich people would pay those speech-givers to do would be to fan the flames of the mentality, while also continuously befuddling the line between the sides in an effort to keep the masses passionately indifferent to what they're specifically voting on in each issue, while working to maintain the voting blocks on types of issues.

More close to home, what issues would you like to have Direct control over? International policy? Domestic law? Social policies? There's buckets and buckets of issues out there, all with buckets and buckets of related information. While we all certainly would like to hold a significant vote towards heartfelt issues, or more precisely, the deciding vote, we just as certainly aren't very interested in being forced to have a say in each and every issue. Just think about it, currently having a significant vote towards these issues (congressperson, lets say) is a full time job, with a sizable office of assistants at one's disposal! I know I don't have that kind of time, and so a functional Direct Democracy must be voluntarily participation towards each issue individually. One can have a say on any issue they wish, but is not expected to have a say on every issue, or even most.

Next on our journey to a Direct Democracy is that same fundamental flaw: uneducated and educated voters. One of the few benefits in this regard to a Representational Democracy is that with a concise group of significant voters, we as a society can try our best to surround them with educated opinions and supply them with as many facts as we have at the ready to make the right choice. Imagine if USA's congresspersons made votes immediately after an issue was brought up! No research, no fact checking, no theorizing, no science based policy! Not the future I'm after, and I hope others too. And so our proposed Direct Democracy must cling to some kind of meritocratic minimum of education. Only those citizens who can show a baseline of competence about an issue would be allowed to voluntarily vote on the issue.

That's where the gears start to slow down. That's the biggest step left, in my opinion, though not the last. How do you determine whether someone is competent on an issue? Reading comprehension? At the very least they must be required to read a few paragraphs, a few essays, about the subject. These descriptive essays have to be non-partisan, written from an educators perspective. Facts presented must be true, and reliable. A body of trusted individuals must preside over, create, and distribute these introductions and fact bundles. Naturally we'd vote for these individuals, but you might be scratching your head right now and think "hey, that sound's like we'd still be electing a certain group of people with some impressive power over the significant votes" and you'd be right! We'd still have a group of congresspeople surrounded by the worlds most educated, but instead of us calling them to get them to vote our way, _they'd be calling us_ to make sure we weren't the idiot in this situation! You know, if they cared enough.

What power would this new congress have over the voting masses besides making sure we were educated? Would they themselves get their own one vote each, since they themselves must be educated up to their own standards? What about if an issue that has clearly a scientifically provably best course of action is brought up - would there be someone with the power to simply solve it to that end? Would it be this new congress? Or would we still put such things to a vote, allowing the new congress to do its job of setting the minimum educational requirements for the vote to such a level of all but necessitating the proper vote? That last answer sounds to me the most morally correct, but it's also the most bureaucratically demanding (slowest, most costly) option.

All this while the willfully ignorant put up one hell of a fight about why their voices are being silenced all because they refuse to eat up the fake news. And while individually wrong they'll raise an important potential rebuttal. What if the new congress is corrupted by some rich folks? What if they lie to us in our supposedly true and reliable fact packages? Well for one it won't be any worse off than the current system, and by being such a more involved and bureaucratically demanding system it will naturally be open to more scrutinizing. No longer would congresspeople be able to say they've been educated and not show what their education was when they vote. Their only power would be to show us the very education we seek, in all its documented and sourced nakedness, and anyone with some free time will be able to do their own first-hand research and sound the alarm. Any argument down this rabbit hole dead-ends save for the admittance that a voting population will be unable to discern a lie from the truth if none among them is smart enough in any of these issues. Our only option there is not to call foul to the evil powerful, but to go out and learn enough to be able to discern the lies.

And with education mostly discussed, we can return to our voluntary notion. What do we do when we come to an issue with very few educated volunteers? A quorum must be reached! What is the quorum of the United States? In what lots described as the most passionate presidential election in recent memory, voter turnout _fell_ to some 57%. The city of New York's latest mayoral election had a turnout of less than 22%. I can only imagine these numbers would dwindle on many issues of little importance. How would we get enough citizens to bother voting? Would we demand it as a civil service in a manner akin to jury duty? If an issue has less than a quorum of educated persons, would congress would go around appointing random mandatory voting orders until a quorum is reached? Would voters be compensated for the time this would take out of their day? Would this influence the masses to simply not volunteer at all, and just await until voting orders (and offers of compensation) were offered? Surely an election would still be open to new volunteers willing to prove their education as these ordered voters did their homework! And so it only makes sense that a quorum's worth of voting orders is always given out.

These issues, namely participation and education, would require immense efforts from us, even with our technological advances in communication and cooperation. It's certainly attainable, simply a question of at what time will we decide it worth our tax dollars to pursue this kind of determined, detailed democracy. I wish it were as simple as us engaging some kind of fantasy hive-mind where group consensus could be achieved around the globe at light speed. Alas, things aren't that simple, and some things that seem nice just aren't worth the effort.

I'm think lots of us here dislike the current system of Representational Democracy, and I'd assume lots of those of us would also shy away from Direct Democracy for similar reasons, but if you've got anything to say about what I've said, or about the comparison of the two, or a potential transition from one to the next, let me know!


----------



## Soulutions (Dec 26, 2017)

I read maybe a 1/3 of your post. 
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner( maybe Benjamin Franklin first said this )


----------



## Drengor (Dec 26, 2017)

@malaclypse said so in the thread that spurred me to make this. More realistically it's a handful of wolves and hundreds of sheep. The wolves are content to let the sheep graze in between feedings, knowing it's this very action that lets them come back when next hungry. If the wolves simply killed off all the sheep, or drove them out of the meadow, the wolves themselves would starve.

There's always going to be those who would take from others, and those weaker who get preyed upon. What would you suggest we do to benefit the sheep other than give them a voice towards some attempt at a group consensus?


----------



## Soulutions (Dec 26, 2017)

What needs to happen- a evolution in consciousness ( to Know together )
And people learning natural law, The sacred male and female principles, and probably general psychology

What to do about it- I'm tiered. I think on it and answer tomorrow


----------



## dumpster harpy (Dec 26, 2017)

I suggest we recognize the right of the sheep to shoot wolves in self-defense as needed.


----------



## DrewSTNY (Dec 26, 2017)

My biggest fear, yes, fear of direct democracy as Dregnor said is the uneducated vote. I believe that this will lead to even more marginalization of rural communities. Urban and rural politics are different from my observations. The needs of the urban population basically are the same, but to apply the same rules over the whole population might serve one better than the other and cause friction. I see this happen a lot in NY. Albany passes a law that works great in the cities, like mandatory recycling (for example), but in small, rural communities, the cost of providing recycling pick up service is too expensive for them to maintain without raising property taxes greatly. So people either have to take their recyclables to a collection site or they just put them in with the rest of their trash. People don't want to pay for recycling because it's supposed to be saving money somewhere and they don't necessarily see the value in providing general pick up service.


----------



## Soulutions (Dec 26, 2017)

Drews point is a good one. When something is forced unto a population, it tends not to work efficiently. Hell, equality doesn't even work when it's forced.

What to do about it--
It's my opinion that the human race should eradicate psychopathy from the gene pool and cure, if we can, the secondary psychopaths. That, I believe would be the biggest "first step" in the right direction. But, something as complex and general as that question, should be open sourced. No one person is gonna have all the right answers, methods, or tactics


----------



## salxtina (Dec 26, 2017)

"sacred male and female"
haha gross


----------



## DrewSTNY (Dec 26, 2017)

Soulutions said:


> Drews point is a good one. When something is forced unto a population, it tends not to work efficiently. Hell, equality doesn't even work when it's forced.
> 
> What to do about it--
> It's my opinion that the human race should eradicate psychopathy from the gene pool and cure, if we can, the secondary psychopaths. That, I believe would be the biggest "first step" in the right direction. But, something as complex and general as that question, should be open sourced. No one person is gonna have all the right answers, methods, or tactics



Careful, there. That's the route the eugenics philosophy took. Their line was some people are too stupid to procreate and we should "help" them.


----------



## Soulutions (Dec 26, 2017)

A psychopath is closer to an animal than a human. And it's like 1% of the global population. And with secondary psychopaths, I suggested actually helping or curing them, not the ol eugenics line. 

But I'll take your advice.


----------



## Coywolf (Dec 26, 2017)

Elected officials need to be done away with. Our country has evolved past the need for them.


----------



## Drengor (Dec 26, 2017)

And international affairs? Social policies? Who will develop these?


----------



## Apple Core (Dec 26, 2017)

I like the idea of putting academics (i.e. someone who has studied a particular issue on a scholarly level for an extended period of time) in a position of influence as a method of accurately and un-biasly educating the public. We need a methodology and form of action to combat the global environmental crisis? Ask environmental experts on their point of view and use them to help teach the population on why they have such a view. It's certainly not fool-proof but it's more reliable most of the time and certainly an excellent place to start the discussion. This of course must also include independent research and should be reviewed by peers within the field of study in order to help combat corruption and to help preserve credibility.


----------



## DrewSTNY (Jan 8, 2018)

Roadie said:


> I like the idea of putting academics (i.e. someone who has studied a particular issue on a scholarly level for an extended period of time) in a position of influence as a method of accurately and un-biasly educating the public. We need a methodology and form of action to combat the global environmental crisis? Ask environmental experts on their point of view and use them to help teach the population on why they have such a view. It's certainly not fool-proof but it's more reliable most of the time and certainly an excellent place to start the discussion. This of course must also include independent research and should be reviewed by peers within the field of study in order to help combat corruption and to help preserve credibility.



Academics?

There's an old saying - "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

Never saw an unbiased academic. They are all concerned with keeping their job until they get tenure, so they suck the biggest cock they can to keep funds flowing in.


----------

