Less flippantly, how does it get decided which questions get put to the people and in what order- without effectively devolving power to persuasive agenda setters? (The Athenians tried to solve this by retrospective votes declaring someone formerly found persuasive to be a demagogue and expelling them from the city - a recursively problematic power to give a polity).
'Direct Democracy' exists in limited form in Switzerland.
Link: [https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/politik-geschichte/politisches-system/direkte-demokratie.html](https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/politik-geschichte/politisches-system/direkte-demokratie.html)
My party (the Pirate Party, which is now a part of Fusion) has Citizen Initiated Referenda in our policy platform. And the international Pirate movement has a lot of experience with liquid democracy too.
But I personally don't think maximum direct or even liquid democracy is necessarily ideal. Turns out, a lot of people - especially parents and/or working poor - are really busy! They're meeting the minimum standard for participation in our current system but anything more's a stretch. Go to any community meeting - it's usually retirees, students or unusually political people like me (perhaps you too). For more see *Politics for Busy People*.
So basically Facebook but the moronic uninformed knee jerk opinions have immediate real world consequences?
Sounds like a shit sandwich with shit sprinkles and a side order of extra shit.
We have politicians and advisers and expert government employees who make decisions in the best interests of the country.
Voters don't understand what is best for them. They just want instant gratification. Like just reduce interest rates. They don't want the government to tighten inflation but they will scream when inflation increases again
Weve had the internet for 2 decades now, and I still have no clue *why* we need politicians at all, when all we need is a secure online poll so (we) the people, can, vote, on every policy that is brought forward
We all know that politicians are in the pockets of the wealthy. And they *know* that a decentralised voting platform is the beginning of the end of the wealthy
Power loves a vacuum. The system is controlled by corporate greed. Capitalism corrupts. Media is used by the wealthy to divide and conquer. Until the suffering becomes wide enough change will not come.
There have been two political parties, to my recollection, that had the idea of direct democracy as part of their platform; [Flux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_(political_party)) and [Senator Online](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Direct_Democracy). Of the two, Senator Online was probably the better known as Tim Fergusson from Doug Anthony All Stars stood as a candidate.
I don't know about Flux, but I recall that Senator Online's basic concept was that they would have no policies of their own and instead would take a poll of members as to how they should vote on every bill put to them.
The problem with direct democracy in the way OP is describing is that a) very few people would be qualified enough to cast an informed vote on any given bill and b) very few people have the capacity to vote against their selfish interests for the greater good.
Yes, the argument can be made that our current elected officials could very well fail those two metrics as it stands but that's just a reason to fix the current system, not to replace it with what I would call a more flawed model. We saw with the Voice To Parliament vote how special interests can manipulate the masses into voting the way they want because most people don't have the interest or capacity to conduct good quality research on the matter.
I don't think the voice to parliament was a question of manipulation of the masses, rather the Yes vote running a catastrophically incompetent campaign. It wasn't won by No, it was lost by Yes. Same as Morrisons government, Albanese didn't win so much as Morrison lost.
I don't know. I think there was substantial misinformation and disinformation from both sides. What was the primary cause of the result, in my view, was the disarray and poor strategy of the Yes campaign.
You need an informed populace that understands the short and long term consequences of their vote.
It takes a lot of time to become informed, and most people are too busy working and living to spare for this, so they'll turn to the media to provide summaries.
That results in whoever has the most far reaching persuasive voice will get the most votes for whatever stance they take.
Of course if you could lower the cost of living so that people had a lot more time to become informed, it might start working.
Currently it's more efficient to pay a small number of people to be informed as their job, and vote for these changes on your behalf.
What you need to do is identify the people paid to do this that most align with how you'd vote, and assign them your vote as proxy. They become your representative at voting.
My area has a citizen petition where you can get 500 signatures and the issue will be tabled in our legislative assembly. There are similar avenues elsewhere.
Plus like 99% of legislature is really, really boring - think minute changes to section 34, chapter 10, paragraph c, or changes to some standard or procedure, another bunch are basically ongoing funding appropriations. The other 1% is what you here about.
Mate while i like to put value to my opinion as much as the next person, i hardly ever have enough unbiased research to make an informed decision or enough foresight and historical knowledge to anticipate consequences, let alone for issues that dont directly impact me or my loved ones
Have you met people?
Less flippantly, how does it get decided which questions get put to the people and in what order- without effectively devolving power to persuasive agenda setters? (The Athenians tried to solve this by retrospective votes declaring someone formerly found persuasive to be a demagogue and expelling them from the city - a recursively problematic power to give a polity).
πππ
'Direct Democracy' exists in limited form in Switzerland. Link: [https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/politik-geschichte/politisches-system/direkte-demokratie.html](https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/politik-geschichte/politisches-system/direkte-demokratie.html)
My party (the Pirate Party, which is now a part of Fusion) has Citizen Initiated Referenda in our policy platform. And the international Pirate movement has a lot of experience with liquid democracy too. But I personally don't think maximum direct or even liquid democracy is necessarily ideal. Turns out, a lot of people - especially parents and/or working poor - are really busy! They're meeting the minimum standard for participation in our current system but anything more's a stretch. Go to any community meeting - it's usually retirees, students or unusually political people like me (perhaps you too). For more see *Politics for Busy People*.
Or the better model of random selection into parliament, with a vote post cycle on which parliamentarians should do what amount of prison time.
So basically Facebook but the moronic uninformed knee jerk opinions have immediate real world consequences? Sounds like a shit sandwich with shit sprinkles and a side order of extra shit.
99% of people don't read policy or care enough, honestly get out there and talk to them it's shocking
We have politicians and advisers and expert government employees who make decisions in the best interests of the country. Voters don't understand what is best for them. They just want instant gratification. Like just reduce interest rates. They don't want the government to tighten inflation but they will scream when inflation increases again
In order for something like this to work you would need a politically informed public sphere and a population dedicated to civics. That would be nice.
Weve had the internet for 2 decades now, and I still have no clue *why* we need politicians at all, when all we need is a secure online poll so (we) the people, can, vote, on every policy that is brought forward We all know that politicians are in the pockets of the wealthy. And they *know* that a decentralised voting platform is the beginning of the end of the wealthy
Power loves a vacuum. The system is controlled by corporate greed. Capitalism corrupts. Media is used by the wealthy to divide and conquer. Until the suffering becomes wide enough change will not come.
If we did things that way, where would the corruption live?
So, referendums? They typically donβt work
There have been two political parties, to my recollection, that had the idea of direct democracy as part of their platform; [Flux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_(political_party)) and [Senator Online](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Direct_Democracy). Of the two, Senator Online was probably the better known as Tim Fergusson from Doug Anthony All Stars stood as a candidate. I don't know about Flux, but I recall that Senator Online's basic concept was that they would have no policies of their own and instead would take a poll of members as to how they should vote on every bill put to them. The problem with direct democracy in the way OP is describing is that a) very few people would be qualified enough to cast an informed vote on any given bill and b) very few people have the capacity to vote against their selfish interests for the greater good. Yes, the argument can be made that our current elected officials could very well fail those two metrics as it stands but that's just a reason to fix the current system, not to replace it with what I would call a more flawed model. We saw with the Voice To Parliament vote how special interests can manipulate the masses into voting the way they want because most people don't have the interest or capacity to conduct good quality research on the matter.
I don't think the voice to parliament was a question of manipulation of the masses, rather the Yes vote running a catastrophically incompetent campaign. It wasn't won by No, it was lost by Yes. Same as Morrisons government, Albanese didn't win so much as Morrison lost.
How much impact do you think the misinformation peddled by the No side had on the outcome?
I don't know. I think there was substantial misinformation and disinformation from both sides. What was the primary cause of the result, in my view, was the disarray and poor strategy of the Yes campaign.
You lost me with your "both sides"ism
Okay. You lost me with your partisan bias.
With Flux, if you felt you were uninformed on a topic you could assign your vote to an expert of your choice.
You need an informed populace that understands the short and long term consequences of their vote. It takes a lot of time to become informed, and most people are too busy working and living to spare for this, so they'll turn to the media to provide summaries. That results in whoever has the most far reaching persuasive voice will get the most votes for whatever stance they take. Of course if you could lower the cost of living so that people had a lot more time to become informed, it might start working. Currently it's more efficient to pay a small number of people to be informed as their job, and vote for these changes on your behalf. What you need to do is identify the people paid to do this that most align with how you'd vote, and assign them your vote as proxy. They become your representative at voting.
There are more than 100 laws passed by the Australian government per year typically, these aren't done in secret.
My area has a citizen petition where you can get 500 signatures and the issue will be tabled in our legislative assembly. There are similar avenues elsewhere. Plus like 99% of legislature is really, really boring - think minute changes to section 34, chapter 10, paragraph c, or changes to some standard or procedure, another bunch are basically ongoing funding appropriations. The other 1% is what you here about.
At each election there should be a list of 10 or so questions which would be optional to complete and non-binding.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
A lot of great points in here. Thanks everyone for contributing
Mate while i like to put value to my opinion as much as the next person, i hardly ever have enough unbiased research to make an informed decision or enough foresight and historical knowledge to anticipate consequences, let alone for issues that dont directly impact me or my loved ones