So Boerd said
Nobody actually believes in democracy.
[citation needed]
I am an anarchist and I totally believe in democracy.
So Boerd said
Would you want to live in a system where 51% of people could vote the other 49% should be shot, and the whole apparatus of government would be obligated to carry out the grisly mandate?
You're cherry picking a possible outcome based on little evidence.
Why would a council suggesting issues to be voted on bring up the issue of killing 49% of the population? In fact, typically in history mass genocide only happens within the governments run by dictators.
So Boerd said
If you tried to accomplish that in the United States even in its current lawless state, the government would not carry it out. And that's why governments are instituted among men.
How pessimistic.
How did the hunter-gather societies survive? Or the small agricultural communities that came about because the advent of farming? Or the Paris commune? Or the Spanish Civil war era Catalonia? Or any other instance of successful communes? Slab city today?
So Boerd said
Not to "get stuff done", or to give you stuff, but to stop me from clobbering you over the head and absconding with your phone. Any government which cannot do that should be altered or abolished.
"Getting stuff done" is exactly why governments were created, to help organize the will of the people into an efficient manner. The government isn't some nanny-- it's a worker that's supposed to be hired by the people for the people.
And as it stands, current governments are very bad at this job. We should try a different strategy.
So Boerd said
You only need more than half, a la Julius Caesar. Or less, if people are apathetic.
That's why we take size into account.
Also, we don't allow someone to try and seize full control and strike needless fear and corruption in his wake and quest for more land and power.
Magic Magnum said
Ah I see what you mean.
Don't hold an overall election, just vote on each issue as it pops up.
Once again, great on paper.
And in practice, see: North America pre-colonization, Australia-pre-colonization, the first few million years of human history, City states: (Hong Kong, Macau, etc.), tiny countries and thriving island nations, Catalonia, Paris, other experimental societies.
Magic Magnum said
But it holds two main flaws that I can think of from the top of my head.
1) It requires constant voting
It demands constant attention and focus, which can have one of two (most likely both) effects.
This is bad? I'm asking you to consider size of the population and the state as a significant factor in the success of this. So no, it wouldn't be the American population, consider the population of a town, exclude children, and remember to take into account that this voting would be voluntary, so theoretically no one could vote-- this would just mean that nothing changes.
If you'd like to argue about population sizes, I think it's safe to say the level of technology we posses is sufficient to allow relative ease when voting on this. These are issues that directly effect the population, so yes, they should be expected to deal with them.
Magic Magnum said
a) People invest large portions of their day into voting. This can lead to time taken away from work, family or simply relaxing before the next day of work. Thereby helping to contribute to more stress build up, thereby more burn-outs, and reduced performance in all aspects of life.
Except it totally wouldn't? Voting would be fluid to fit with the population-- especially considering it's RUN by the citizens.
Magic Magnum said
b) A lot of people might just say "screw it". Voting is demanding and time intensive. Yes, this does help fix the "Unmotivated/caring citizens vote" issue that typical democracy might hold. But it doesn't address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing" from voting. Cause Knowledge and motivation are two very different things. Which is fine, great even if you're in school and learning about something. But disastrous when expected to help make a decision on a matter you know nothing about.
These are issues DIRECTLY affecting the population, education on these issues is expected to be a community precedent. They'd either know what they were voting about, or they wouldn't, that's par for the course-- the only issue I see is people with mental illnesses, and then it simply becomes an issue of better understanding the type of mental illness and their limitations in regards to decision making.
Magic Magnum said
But it doesn't address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing" from voting. Cause Knowledge and motivation are two very different things.
I wouldn't want to address the "Those who have no clue what they're doing are voting," issue. If they're citizens and they're of age and they want too, they have a right to vote. The goal is to get as many people informed as possible.
Are knowledge and motivation really all that different?
Magic Magnum said
2) It essentially rules out the expert/advisors.
Granted, the government is hardly experts on most matters. But they do tend to consults experts and advisors when making decisions. But would most citizens? Probably not.
Who do you think is suggesting the voting in the public forums? It's syncretic, so it could vary and differ based on what the citizens want, but what I see as the ideal scenario is a council of elected representatives who would be "experts" viewing problems and organizing the votes on what citizens request and what needs to be fixed.
Magic Magnum said
And this is on top of democracies current problems with stuff such as "Majority rules".
Where people might vote for something like "All people must pray in schools" even if it violates the rights of those not religious, or of a different religion.
Just because most people agree with an issue, doesn't mean that's the right answer/opinion to be having.
There is no "right" or "wrong" opinion to have. Never was, never will be.
Magic Magnum said
Now, could I just be overly negative? That's rather likely.
I do honestly rather like the idea of voting on specific matters, it can host some benefits such as people potentially only voting on stuff they know about.
But it's still something that needs to have it's flaws pointed out early. And just because some people might use it right, doesn't mean all people will
Yeah, nothing's going to be without flaw. That's existence for you!
Magic Magnum said
And instead you have a gridlock of citizens.
Citizens in a gridlock about things that directly effect them-- they'll either figure it out for the greater good, or remain gridlocked and experience the direct effects of that.
Magic Magnum said
It is because you get people who may enter an election with a sole focus.
Some self centered such as "Mah Guns" or "Mah God must be forced on all the children".
Some based on certain feelings/prejudices "Gays shouldn't marry", "Screw the Cops! Treat them like they're all assholes!".
Some more selfless such as "Will the government help my autistic son?".
And will focus on said issue at the exclusion/neglect of all others.
Or you may get people who vote for whatever their friend says.
Or those who pay zero attention to the election or candidates and simply go "Hmm. Liberals? Yea, I'm a Liberal. I don't care what they say. I vote for them".
Essentially our current system allows for people to vote based on biases, prejudices, or worse yet people who could not care about it in the slightest.
I'd much prefer these people be allowed to vote than there being some awful standard of "passion" or "political knowledge" implemented. Bias, prejudice and apathy are jest as legitimate as whatever label you put on why you vote-- no only that, they're pretty much human nature. We all have a little of them all, more or less.
kapuchu