Direct democracy - the only true democracy?
- Thread starter Hector
- Start date
True democracy? Democracy failed with the greeks. Republics are more efficient and better at protecting the rights of the minorities.
*minorities - not referencing race, orientation or gender, just simple minorities, the people who are always outvoted by the majority in a democracy and can lose their rights to the majority if the majority wanted to take them.
*minorities - not referencing race, orientation or gender, just simple minorities, the people who are always outvoted by the majority in a democracy and can lose their rights to the majority if the majority wanted to take them.
Switzerland has a population of just over 8 million people, more people live in the city of New York then the entire country of Switzerland.
How did it fail?
So it is better and more natural for a minority to govern the majority such as in a representative "democracy"?
Direct democracy works great for small communities or even small countries.
However, the larger the community is, the more computationally expensive it is to get everyone's opinion, and to have a truly direct democracy you must be able to get literally EVERYONE'S opinion. Not only that but be able to take the time to give it due consideration equal to everyone else. The more people you have, the harder that gets. Eventually you'd spend more time listening to people than doing anything and the citizens might even be liable to change their mind before the last thing they wanted even gets implemented.
In the USA though, we have an interesting case. We have federal and state government which operate quite a bit differently because well, it's actually a union of states. Our laws can differ from state to state and about half our states actually have provisions in place for direct democracy on the state level, and some cities also may use direct democracy.
However, the larger the community is, the more computationally expensive it is to get everyone's opinion, and to have a truly direct democracy you must be able to get literally EVERYONE'S opinion. Not only that but be able to take the time to give it due consideration equal to everyone else. The more people you have, the harder that gets. Eventually you'd spend more time listening to people than doing anything and the citizens might even be liable to change their mind before the last thing they wanted even gets implemented.
In the USA though, we have an interesting case. We have federal and state government which operate quite a bit differently because well, it's actually a union of states. Our laws can differ from state to state and about half our states actually have provisions in place for direct democracy on the state level, and some cities also may use direct democracy.
Yes we need to include everyone in the decision making of their communitieds at every level
As this was implemented the eductaion system would improve, the health system would improve, tax havens would dissapear and the super rich would have nowhere to fell to as more and more countries changed to the new system
The internet offers the means to gather everyones democratic vote
There would be no issue of 'cost' as such a system would eliminate vast amounts of governmental infrastructure thereby saving billions of dollars
As this was implemented the eductaion system would improve, the health system would improve, tax havens would dissapear and the super rich would have nowhere to fell to as more and more countries changed to the new system
The internet offers the means to gather everyones democratic vote
There would be no issue of 'cost' as such a system would eliminate vast amounts of governmental infrastructure thereby saving billions of dollars
Democracy didn't fail with the greeks
That's not to say that tyrants didn't usurp democracy
But democrcay served the greeks well
They had a good system where the towns people gathered in a public assembly and would talk issues out and then vote
This could be done electronically and transparently nowadays with the internet
There is an issue of cost because there's only a finite number willing, able, and trusted enough to gather opinions and then implement them fairly without cheating.
You can have open voting where your name is shown alongside your vote
if people are happy to have open voting then they can go on the website and make sure that the right vote is next to their name
People would also be able to do their own maths and check the votes add up
Low cost and much cheaper than hiring all the gravy train riding politicans, supportive civil servant staff and quangos
I think obamas last presidential campaign was a billion dollars? (all from his corporate sponsors)
Well that money could be taken form those corporate sponsors through a fairer taxation system and who do you think will impose that? Corrupt politicians? No chance! Only the people would
That could be used to violate privacy and might even lead to violent retaliation against certain voters. That is why votes are confidential. You vote whatever way you want and you shouldn't have to defend it.
You cannot count millions of votes by yourself so you can't actually do the math. And if you get the numbers from a site, there's no telling if they're actually real.
You misunderstand what I mean by cost. I don't mean money. I mean the time it takes to give an adequate amount of attention. That is why I said computational cost.
It's like a computer processor. It can only do so many instructions before it becomes overloaded and can't go any faster.
Things would move tool fast for that
Poeple would be voting every day on issues great and small
It would become a part of life
Due to the speed of that there would be no time for PR campaigns to try and sway opinions and there would be no time for retaliations as things trundled along
If everyones name is shown and their vote next to it then they can check it
Journalists covering the repoting of such issues could also keep a watchful eye over matters not to mention amateur bloggers etc (yuo underestimate how incredibly geeky some human biengs are)
Still nothing ompared to the current cost of a growing, blpated and corrupt government machine that is reaching into more and more parts of your life. You think they will stop that process? No they will keep going until they are inside your body (see micrcochips and transhumanist agenda)
We have the technological ability to hold large scale, accurate and transparent votes
All it needs is the will and the ingenuity that always comes when people move on something together
It is a form of anarchy
The people decide what they vote on
In switzerland for example you need to get a certain number of signatories to a petition before it can be decided under referendum (best check but i think it's something like 100,000 signatories)
I don't know wny you think anarchy doesn't work...ultimately it's probably the only thing that can work long term
Because anarchists are basically defenseless unless they form a unified body of some kind and if you have a unified body you basically have a government.
It's like Christiania in Denmark. They're a vaguely anarchist community of 800 or so people and they pretty much only exist because the government ignores them. They have common laws such as no guns, no hard drugs etc. but that's only because people are kind enough to let them be. They're very lucky.
If anarchy worked so well it would be in effect. It depends too much on good natures which are easily upset and destroyed by small but powerful entities.
Not in the modern society it isn't. For example, Iceland's citizens get to participate actively in creating their own Constitution using the benefits which the high speed internet has to offer. The same way people are conducting business these days, identifying themselves with tokens, pin codes, cvv numbers etc. In the future retinal scan or the fingerprint scan will become available to everyday Joe. We live in a modern society hence we are ought to set our mind frames accordingly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
Now, how did the democracy failed the Greeks, cradle of the modern civilisation?
How do you think your country was formed?
The people formed militias
They made their own luck
They have also had their problems from existing within a wider society
This is disregarding all the lessons history tells us
History tells us that there are PSYCHOPATHS in the world who always seek power
Psychopaths are the reasons we keep running into problems
Anarchy is the way to keep power out of the hands of the psychopaths and in the hands of the people
[MENTION=12378]Hector[/MENTION]
The internet and technology only moves information around very fast. That's the easy part.
The hard part is that a human still has to either look at every proposal, or put limits such as having referendums where you need so many signatures to have it considered.
Unless you propose that we have computers govern.
The internet and technology only moves information around very fast. That's the easy part.
The hard part is that a human still has to either look at every proposal, or put limits such as having referendums where you need so many signatures to have it considered.
Unless you propose that we have computers govern.
Only women and helots were not allowed to vote.
Greek democracy was all about equals making decision about their own destiny. Not to say that oratorical skills mixed with dialectical approach couldn't direct the opinion of the majority, but same mechanisms exist today in a form of PR, marketing etc.
Militias still exist today, but today they are commonly known as the national guard..