Darcs said
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.
So past systems? Those we grew/evolved out of? Suggesting that there a tried and tested reason for moving on to Democracy.
Mainly for the reason you admit to below, population. We are no longer in the age of small towns and communities, we're in the age of giant cities, giant countries, hell when even have a United Nations.
Humanity has simply grown too large and wide to operate on such small scale systems anymore.
Darcs said
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.
And theoretically we might just not vote for a government or president, but it never happens.
And I don't even see how smaller population is a counter for constant demand. If anything, it makes my constant voting issue an even bigger flaw because now if you don't vote it's much more sizable chunk of the community not being represented. So not only is it far more constant/demanding, but it's far more required now.
And technology get's hacked, get's manipulated. There's a reason voting stations still get set up that you have to go there and vote in person.
If Technology was a viable alternative, we have already made the switch like we did with almost every other field of life.
Plus, keyword = expect.
You expect people to follow through and make it work, but you have nothing helping ensure it will.
Other than some faith that everyone will be loyal and honourable to your system.
Darcs said
Except it totally wouldn't? Voting would be fluid to fit with the population-- especially considering it's RUN by the citizens.
You mean like our current government is run by citizens?
Or do they not count as citizens anymore because they were advanced to a high position of power?
In which case, wouldn't your system be impossible too, because once said citizens start running stuff we stop seeing them as citizens?
Believe it or not, leading a community isn't an easy job. It's not something you can just do on the side while leading another working life.
If you want to lead your people, you need to invest your time into it.
Darcs said
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.
And many wouldn't know, and vote anyways.
Simply going "Well yea, you're perceived flaw will be a thing" doesn't eliminate it as being a flaw, it's actually the reverse.
It confirms my perceived flaw is spot on, in which case ignoring it is the worst thing you can do.
Darcs said
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.
And how do you plan to inform them?
Do you have a method to help make sure everyone is informed.
Or are you just hoping that people will be informed?
Darcs said
Are knowledge and motivation really all that different?
Yes? Is this seriously being asked?
Knowledge is possessing the mental information and know how about something. Experience, expertise, understanding.
Motivation is simply caring or wanting to help.
There's actually an article I find is very relevant to this.Specifically his first point of "The world only cares about what it can get from you". In it, he makes an example of someone on the ground bleeding out.
Let's say that the person you love the most has just been shot. He or she is lying in the street, bleeding and screaming. A guy rushes up and says, "Step aside." He looks over your loved one's bullet wound and pulls out a pocket knife -- he's going to operate right there in the street.
You ask, "Are you a doctor?"
The guy says, "No."
You say, "But you know what you're doing, right? You're an old Army medic, or ..."
At this point the guy becomes annoyed. He tells you that he is a nice guy, he is honest, he is always on time. He tells you that he is a great son to his mother and has a rich life full of fulfilling hobbies, and he boasts that he never uses foul language.
Confused, you say, "How does any of that fucking matter when my [wife/husband/best friend/parent] is lying here bleeding! I need somebody who knows how to operate on bullet wounds! Can you do that or not?!?"
Now the man becomes agitated -- why are you being shallow and selfish? Do you not care about any of his other good qualities? Didn't you just hear him say that he always remembers his girlfriend's birthday? In light of all of the good things he does, does it really matter if he knows how to perform surgery?
In that panicked moment, you will take your bloody hands and shake him by the shoulders, screaming, "Yes, I'm saying that none of that other shit matters, because in this specific situation, I just need somebody who can stop the bleeding, you crazy fucking asshole."
Now, the author in this case uses this example in regards to romantic relationships, and how simply being a "Nice Guy/Girl" isn't enough.
But I feel it also applies here, where when voting on specific issues simply being a "Motivated Guy/Girl" isn't enough, you need to actually know what you're making a decision about.
Darcs said
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.
What kind of experts? One engineer? One Doctor? One Teacher?
Some nice, in theory. But in practicality, it basically becomes a matter of most of the experts stay quiet when it's not their field, and then the one expert speaks up when it is their field.
Or the other experts wanting to feel involved speak up, even when they may know nothing of the matter at hand.
There's a reason experts stay in their current fields, and then make the propositions. And why when government decisions are made they find people to advise and make arguments.
Darcs said
Yeah, nothing's going to be without flaw. That's existence for you!
Therefore, we should simply ignore the flaws and bring in any system we feel like?
Yes, flaws are always around. Thats life.
But it's also important recognize the flaws, combat the flaws, minimize the flaws.
Or you get screwed over. That's life.
Otherwise what's stopping us from being Facist? Or Communist?
Sure there's flaws of mass genocide, but nothing is without flaws... right?
Darcs said
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.
You mean, like our current system?
Darcs said
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.
Yes all hold some, this is true.
But it doesn't mean it comes in extremes.
And it doesn't mean it makes everyone viable for every decision.
I find it bizarre how when it comes to certain fields we only trust trained/specialized experts to be making decisions.
But when it comes to making a decision about who is responsible for your country, everyone has a say.
Or with your system, when making a decision about any matter, no matter how complex or serious, everyone has a say.
People go and get trained/educated for a reason. It's not just to have a fancy paper to put up on a wall.
