A better form of democracy

[Hygro]

Have you read about this? I had the key point articulated to me a while back and it immediately clicked:

The entire national legislative process is done by a representative direct democracy. What this means is, all the citizens get randomly assigned to one issue, and then that random sample votes on that issue. There could be a national veto override. The voting would be done electronically. The issues would not be large super bills but citizen sponsored bills with enough signatures or similar that would then go on the docket to be voted on by the random selection.

This would statistically represent the direct will of the people without encumbering or burdening the people too much. It would also handle issues quickly. We know, as frustrating as large portions of the population are, on most issues the general will (lower case) is on the better side of things. In the US even red meat conservatives are more progressive than most "centrist" democratic politicians when the issues are phrased in plain, unpartisan language (on environmental or economic issues especially).

What say you?

 

[Zack]

This might work for social issues, but it seems ruinous for the economy.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

The will of the people must be moderated by some means. Elsewise, we get mob rule that tramples minorities and the weak.

Black people make up about 12% of the US population. Using them as an example; under such a system they, voting a block, could never win on any issue. They could not barter with other groups to get things they want. They would not win 12% of the votes.

 

[Evie]

Moreover, while there are lots of isues with lawmakers not being knowledgeable about the topics upon which they vote...use randomly sampled people and those issues are massively over-magnified.

 

[Mise]

Well we can say goodbye to the scourge of minarets at least.

 

[gay_Aleks]

In a real democracy, we wouldn't need to ban minarets, because we would already, as people, have decided to trash them!

 

[Tee Kay]

Let's trial it.

Get a large enough pool of people to participate, correct for biases, and run a few test cases?

Make it a proper virtual micronation project even. Between us CFCers there are probably enough people who know about coding and data and modelling to set it up; at the lower end of the scale it could be as complex as a Civ or Paradox mod. Get a website with some fancy-not-too-fancy graphics, spread the word via social media, and voila.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Unfortunately, in comparison to the entirety of CFC and it's modding group, CFC OT is "those creepy guys constantly rambling about communism or something".

Unless, of course, for you, CFC OT is CFC.

 

[Tee Kay]

Unless, of course, for you, CFC OT is CFC.

Naw, I lurk in NES occasionally.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I guess then it would be even worse. "These people who took all the attention!".

 

[warpus]

I don't like it, most people don't know enough about anything to be making decisions on important matters like the economy.

Mind you the people in charge right now don't know anything about any of that either, so I say let's do it! If a guy who thinks evolution didn't happen can be in charge of science and a guy who thinks that internet packets travel through tubes can sit on a technology panel, or whatever, then we might as well put my neighbour Pete the bumbling fool who doesn't wear pants in charge of Wall street.

 

[Borachio]

I think a possible modification is to randomly select a large group of people and then give them a short multiple choice questionnaire to weed out the people who simply have no understanding about the basic issue.

Not ideal, I know. Since the wording of the questionnaire would be open to abuse or interpretation. It might still be an improvement over the current system, though.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think this stands and falls with the right implementation. If it worked - that would be pretty glorious. But as said, all a matter of weather several issues can be overcome with the right implementation.

That people are laymen is not really the problem. For that you can have professional advisers. That just as it works with politicans, after all. Most politicans seem to not know much, as warpus correctly identified. But that depends on an aparatus which can guarantee that advice.
Bad crops can be weeded out by sufficient many duty legislators.

Where I see the real problem - how do you get such people sufficiently motivated? A job with such responsibility will suck up all their time and energy if they want to do it right, if it is only for a relatively short time and regarding one issue. But they may just want to get back to their actual jobs, or they may just lay back and enjoy the ride.

How to deal with this?

Perhaps that also can be compensated by a big enough number of voters....though


There is also another huge problem. We don't really know what would happen.
And it is not nice to not know. So we have tropes....

The will of the people must be moderated by some means. Elsewise, we get mob rule that tramples minorities and the weak.

And here we go again with the standard American trope of the evil tyranny of the majority. It really is marvelous how they indoctrinate you over there. Just marvelous.

And we have bad instances of direct democracy we can highlight

Well we can say goodbye to the scourge of minarets at least.

and then we of course have the general issues people may like to uphold.

And then - many just seem to love to jump to the conclusion that it can not work - because then they know! And it is so much better to know...

@taillesskangaru

Just two problems with such a trial is that
a) it would lack the necessary (and expensive) infrastructure of resources available to actual duty-legislators
b) only people would be be available who are more or less hot for the idea to begin with

I don't think we could get much out of it. We may learn how to improve things. But not about its principle viability. In model conditions you can make pretty much anything work or fail... :shrug:



Anyway...

The more I think about it, the more I like it.

Say for instance for a nation as big as the US... 10k duty legislated would be assigned to one case... That is a big enough sample methniks to account for rough problems... the ability to only focus one that one issue would make them IMO more knowledge than most politicians when voting on issues!

I like it, It took a while, but now I really like it.

Though still, it seems crucial how this will actually be implemented.
It could also be a chaotic mess.

This might work for social issues, but it seems ruinous for the economy.

How?
I don't see it.

 

[Tahuti]

'The will of the people' is an illusion, because ultimately the will of the people is transplanted into the people by those that control the media.

 

[Zack]

How?
I don't see it.

How educated do you think the majority of people are concerning the economy? What percentage of the public has taken even one economics class? How many people understand how to write and pass legislation? How many people want to pay taxes? etc.

And no, "well congressmen don't know any of that either, hurr durr" is not a legitimate counter.

 

[uppi]

So, essentially the proposal is to make opinion polls legally binding?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

How educated do you think the majority of people are concerning the economy? What percentage of the public has taken even one economics class? How many people understand how to write and pass legislation? How many people want to pay taxes? etc.

Well obviously, all those things would have to be covered by a well-equipped and extensive staff of advisers.

How many people want to pay taxes?

I don't think people are as totally irresponsible and short-sighted as you apparently like to insinuate here. And if they are... they soon will learn not to be.

And once this system got rolling, people would be even a lot less, I can promise you that.

So, essentially the proposal is to make opinion polls legally binding?

Since the proposal is not to just ask random people on the street and just go with the answers.... no. That is not the essence of it. At all. Really that is a fracking question.. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Zack]

Well obviously, all those things would have to be covered by a well-equipped and extensive staff of advisers.

Why not have the advisers vote, then? I thought the whole point of this was to cut out the middleman, not send in a substitute.

 

[jackelgull]

i actually don't believe a direct democracy as the one proposed would be disastrous. it is only in representative democracy that populism can be dangerous, because when elected representatives execute the will of the people, or give people what they want, they may not do it in the way that people imagine them doing it.

 

[Zack]

I should note that I don't consider myself any better than the average voter. I am incredibly uneducated on a lot of issues.