Thinking about a more Direct Democracy. - by Nicker
Nicker on 15/2/2018 at 20:39
In light of my unfortunate interjection of unrelated optimism in the Trump Dump thread, a few weeks ago, I thought we might discuss prospects for real and meaningful new ways to select and operate our governments.
With each new technology our methods have evolved and now we have the internet, with the ability to instantly engage individuals or groups (for good or ill), on any scale, from local to global.
It's easy to black hat new ideas and there are rafts of reasons why real-time, direct democracy should fail but let's try and be a bit more positive in this thread and pretend it could work - pretend that humans can find the mindfulness, compassion, imagination and dedication needed to make it work.
What would it look like? How would it function?
EDIT: Given that specific points are expected to be made and replied to, Quote Storming is permitted in this thread.
Nicker on 15/2/2018 at 20:40
I'll get it started.
I offer "sortition" as one method for sampling the public mood and collecting public input, online.
Sortition was practiced by the progenitors of democracy, the Athenian Greeks. They used it to select officers for key positions. It was thought to deter corruption because it randomised the selection of officials. This was thought to assuage the ego and to reduce the likelihood they could be bought, at least ahead of time.
While it is unlikely that people would agree with this method to select city, state and national leaders (at this time, anyway) it could be useful to establish "citizen juries" to oversee elected officials between elections, assuring that they execute their office honestly, effectively and in accordance with the mandate they were given.
Pollsters recognise that the accuracy of simple polls plateaus around 1,000 participants. Larger sample sizes do not offer greater benefits for the additional effort. Random selection, coupled with a large sample size, should make buying off such a "jury" very difficult, if not impossible.
A large sample size might also help to reduce the effect of individual incompetence and indifference.
demagogue on 16/2/2018 at 05:57
Direct democracy? You want these people to have even more direct power than they already have!?
I mean I think it could be made to work just fine, technology! and all, but when public opinion is so malleable in such radically illiberal directions in our era, it would lead to catastrophic decisions IMO. I worry even more about mass incompetence than the individual sort.
Sulphur on 16/2/2018 at 06:08
I used to be optimistic about the capacity of the masses to make well-considered decisions given enough time. The last two and a half years have given that view a thorough drubbing.
Nicker on 16/2/2018 at 06:13
OK - well this is off to an optimistic start.
Remember that the USA isn't the whole world and only 1/3 of the voters created the mess there.
So imagining for the moment that people also have a good side...
Sulphur on 16/2/2018 at 06:16
I'm in India, bub. We voted someone into office who was at least indirectly responsible for one of the worst communal riots in the land's history 16 years ago. You also have Brexit to consider. Nationalistic fervour's coming back into style like some long forgotten trend dusted off from a stack of old Macy's catalogues.
But yeah, as a thought experiment, why not, I guess. I doubt I'll have much to contribute to this in terms of ad hoc'ing a fool-proof system but do continue.
Kolya on 16/2/2018 at 08:26
Can we for once acknowledge that being a full-time politician is a very difficult and demanding job that requires a lot of experience and the ability to negotiate compromises at its core? Not well meaning idealism, purity of heart and unchanging pigheadedness.
You wouldn't find much can-do optimism in the idea to randomly elect people to act as doctors, architects or teachers. The decisions of politicians affect many people in very basic ways.
I want professionals to do that job - not amateurs. And I want them to be paid more than similar positions in the industry, so we get the better people for the more important tasks.
Tommyph1208 on 16/2/2018 at 09:00
Kolya has it absolutely right here... For things to work and move along in a reasonable time, you have to have professionals working with it.
Being a politician is a job, a demanding one at that, and one where you are constantly in the line of fire from all directions. Will it ever be perfect? No... And would a system like the one in the US benefit more from election campaigns being driven more by actual politics and reason than money? Certainly.
icemann on 16/2/2018 at 12:10
Reminds me of an old Colin Baker episode of Doctor Who. Each time the president (of an Earth colony) had reforms or important things that he wanted to put forward, he'd be hooked up to an electric chair and a public vote (via yes and no buttons on their TVs) would be done, potentially leading to the death of the president by public vote. They'd usually survive a few shocks (3-4) so a few big no votes was survivable, but too many and that would mean an early death.
One way of doing things I guess. Though even in Doctor Who it was seen as barbaric and got removed by the end of the episode.
demagogue on 16/2/2018 at 13:21
Ok, I'll try to give you the most optimistic scenario I can muster.
My undergrad university (U. Texas) in my old department (Government) was known for its program of educated polling. They'd take a random sample of the public, poll them as soon as they walked in the door, and then they'd give them an entire week or two long course on all of the major political issues, the technical issues involved, why things were done the way they were, and then they'd poll them again at the end.
Some opinions stayed about the same, but on a lot of issues there were very dramatic changes because the training was able to dispel a lot of the more ridiculous myths from people's heads... They got to actually talk to single mothers on welfare and see how they were already holding down two jobs and still struggling, or they got to see what international aid was actually being spent on and how US interests were so much better fulfilled when nations don't collapse into roving bands of terrorists, etc. People were still definably left or right or whatever; it didn't brainwash them or change their core beliefs or values. It just got them to think more critically and dispel the obvious falsehoods and crackpot conspiracies.
So... I would have a lot more confidence in direct democracy decision-making if they came after these kinds of educational sessions. That pushes against the limits of feasibility possibly beyond what one could realistically hope for, but if you're going to do it at all, that's what I'd argue is the most necessary prerequisite to have it actually work to make good decisions.
