[quote=Darcs]Yes. Systems can evolve and change with the times, the people and the resources. Unless you think countries today were run the exact same way 100 years ago?[/quote] No, but you seemed to completely miss my point. I was not saying that systems can't evolve, I was saying the exact opposite. That systems do evolve. And that you are suggesting an outdated system, a already tried and exhausted system we have already built, improved and adapted on according to our current situation. So by saying "This system to bad, lets use this ancient one" you are essentially suggesting de-evolution, evolving backwards in other words. Now, is our current system perfect? No, not by a long shot. But we fix that by updating and improving according to our current situation and foreseeable future. Not by running back to the past and missing the (quite barbaric) old days. [quote=Darcs]Except that's not true at all, why does any country need to be as big as it is? What I'm proposing is the equivalent of just giving states, counties, and towns/cities the power federal governments currently have.[/quote] o.O Last I checked places such as United States, UK, Japan, Canada, Australia etc. exist. Or has my town of Oakville now become it's own nation and I simply didn't get the memo? So not, that is infact true. We don't live in small isolated communities, we live where big countries exist. And countries got big as communities got big. Societies got big, more connections and alliances were made. And unless if you want to divide into small isolated families, limit the amount of offspring produced and deny anyone from joining the community you will see the same happen. Society evolved, it got bigger, it gained the ability to encompass more people. +By giving cities federal power (which is not all you're proposing. Or municipal governments would simply become federal ones. Citizens would still just vote for the government and be done with it for 4 years) you are essentially dividing the country. With no big overall leadership, there is nothing keeping them together or united. You break up giant communities, many connections. It is quite literally, downgrading society in order to simplify it. [quote=Darcs]Well, there were the three times a president was elected by the Electoral College despite not winning the majority of the population. I somehow see this as worse than no one turning out to the polls.[/quote] Not Majority of votes =/= Not highest number of votes The way voting works is whatever option has the highest number of votes wins. So if you have more than 2 candidates, you can have the most votes without having more than half of the votes. And unless if your proposed system is always going to limit voting to 2 options, you will see the same thing happen in your system. [quote=Darcs]That's just something you can't avoid. You can't demand that people vote, it's their prerogative if they don't want too, they should, especially when their vote means more, but they DON'T have to. That's just how freedom do. Also, how is answering some yes or no questions once or twice a week a constant bombardment of votes?[/quote] I never said it could be avoided. I said it was a problem that your system possesses. I get that's how freedom works, but if your system requires constant involvement, involvement you have no way to try to keep at a healthy level then your system has a problem. And these are not simple yes or no questions such as "Do you want pizza for dinner?". These are big, complex questions. Those that take time to think through, decide, make a stance on etc. At least those taking matters affecting the community seriously. And I trust I don't need to explain why it's important for people to take it seriously? Plus, it's not a simple "I'll text my vote" you need to go to specialized locations to log it in. A rather sizable chunk of your day has to be invested, on a constant basis, plus any time spent sitting around thinking on said issues. [quote=Darcs]Technology and science progress, it's slow, but we are making the transition.[/quote] But as technology evolves so do the users. So does the technology used to hack/take advantage of it. So when it comes to something as serious as voting, you don't want to trust it to something that someone can easily hack and rig by pretending to be someone else. This is an issue where no matter how much it evolves the opposition will also evolve. [quote=Darcs]You can't ever expect everyone to be honorable to the system, you just need enough. Also, faith is how most governments, as well as the global economy work.[/quote] Yes, but you have no measures in place to try to make sure it does go and hoped. It is being based on blind trust. There are laws in place to regulate government. There are laws in place so only qualified people can make decisions on important matters, such as road safety or performing surgery. It's not based on a blind faith of "Oh, well I trust that the people building our roads know what they're doing". [quote=Darcs]They're citizens. But a majority seem too far removed from the populations they claim to represent to all vote in their favor. That isn't okay.[/quote] It's an issue yes. But one your system isn't fixing. You will have your council of experts, and they being focused on leading will also become removed from society. Or, they spend so little time leading, they aren't even doing their jobs as leading. [quote=Darcs]Communication? Greater emphasis on these things in school? I think it's worth experimentation, and acknowledging that it won't happen over night.[/quote] Then experiment, test it, prove it and then come back and try it. Don't make the assumption it will already work. [quote=Darcs]Call me Socratic, but I don't think you can actually 'know' anything. We live in an incredibly subjective world where, ultimately, truth relies entirely on perspective. Everything is arguable, nothing is black or white. The only thing, I believe, that you can really know, is that you are yourself, and that you know nothing for sure. 'Knowledge' then, isn't really knowing, but the motivation to pursue information and experience despite the uncertainty. I think the two go hand in hand.[/quote] You require a life saving surgery, your heart has ruptured and needs to be stitched. There are two people in the room who can try to perform the operation. One is a doctor, a surgeon who has been trained and educated in surgery. The other, is your mother. Hysterically crying, willing to do anything to save you, but knows nothing about surgery or human anatomy. I dare you to say you would pick your mother to perform the operation. [quote=Darcs]Man, I love David Wong, but he sure does love to cherry pick his arguments. He's presenting the information in a way that confirms his own hypothesis, is it impossible for him to believe MAYBE the guy CAN help your girlfriend out? Even ignoring that, the example is unrealistic and has ZERO context. Where did she get shot? Why did she get shot? Hell-- what time of day is it? To your "Motivated Guy/Girl" claim, I'd argue voting is different from removing a gun with a pocket knife on the street, but that's just me. Motivation+Knowledge are ideal, but you can't control a population to be perfectly ideal.[/quote] The guy even when asked constantly never gives any sort of knowledge or proof that he is trained as surgeon. All he says is that he's a nice guy, and expects this to be enough to remove the bullet. And it's a hypothetical, meant to illustrate skilled vs not skilled. What exactly do you hope to argue or prove in regards to where, why or when she was shot? That has nothing to do with the argument, which is that one must know what they're doing to be able to do it. One must have understanding of something, to be able to make a proper decision on it. And when you plan on making all government matters votable by the masses, it's not even that different from the bullet case. Cases involving everything will come up, road safety, medical practices, what's taught in schools, how schools teach, how to grow food, food health standards, vaccination laws etc. Cases where if the wrong choice is made, can cost many lives. Cases, that hold too many lives in the balance to entrust to people who do not understand the effects of the decision they are being asked to make. [quote=Darcs]So then expand the arguing panel to those it effects and those who you may consider 'experts' It is only a theory, but being able to be fluid is vital for success in practice.[/quote] I can agree there. Bringing in expert consultation is always good. But then it goes back to what was being debated above, why are we then allowing the choice to be made by people who do not even understand the issue, rather than those professionally trained to handle said issues? [quote=Darcs]Yes. That's how things improve, you take the ideas of your ancestors, and tray and make them better.[/quote] So you do agree that we must build on what we have and move forward? Good. So then why are arguing we ignore 2000 years of said 'moving forward' by going back to a more ancient government system? [quote=Darcs][Correlation != Causation][/quote] o.O What exactly are even arguing this at? That flaws cause people to get hurt when they are ignored? You do know the definition of the word flaw, right? flaw1 [flaw] Spell Syllables Synonyms Examples Word Origin noun 1. a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault: beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan. 2. a defect impairing legal soundness or validity. 3. a crack, break, breach, or rent. verb (used with object) 4. to produce a flaw in. verb (used without object) 5. to contract a flaw; become cracked or defective. Flaws are bad elements/features. For example, a flaw with our current system is government being too disattached from society. We you then guilty of correlation = causation by arguing that it's a problem and causes issues? Judging by the fact you were able to identify a flaw with a system and recognize it as bad suggests you recognize this concept. So why is the second the flaw is in something you're suggest you are quick to accuse it of being a logical fallacy that it isn't? [quote=Darcs]Nah, current system is bloated and experiences a disconnect between the representatives and citizens. I feel like smaller spheres of influence would help with that.[/quote] It isn't the size of the communities causing that. It's their exposure to everyday life. If you take a small community, pick a council and then shove them away doing council stuff by themselves all day they will be just as disconnected. Being disconnected is not something that magically happens by growing in size. [quote=Darcs]Sure, but when you begin excluding people because they aren't "fit" to make a decision regarding where they live, that's when you start becoming fascist. It's better for the unfit people to make a shitty decision, than strip them of that freedom altogether. Just because by some standardized measurement they aren't knowledgeable or informed enough.[/quote] Do you let children choose to cross the street when it's busy on their own? Do you let people perform surgery on their own without training? Do you let people drive cars before getting a license? By your logic, if you don't let someone do any of these you are apparently being a fascist. It is not better to let unfit people make shitty decisions, if said decisions will get themselves and everyone around them hurt. [quote=Darcs]#subjective[/quote] Is performing an operation subjective? Is wiring a house subjective? Is building a house subjective? Is building a road subjective? Is landing a ship on a comet (which wearing an awesome shirt) subjective? Is creating a vaccine for a deadly illness subjective? [quote=Darcs]You find it bizarre that people who live in a place get to make decisions regarding that place that they live?[/quote] No, I find it bizarre that people are allowed to make decisions that can seriously impact the lives of others while having no understanding about said decision. [quote=Darcs]It kind of is, though. That, and using that fancy paper to make more green paper. The fancy paper wouldn't exist if people did it purely out of the joy of learning about a thing they like-- and I would argue, especially now, in the 'digital age' there are more experts than ever WITHOUT that fancy paper who train and educate themselves, for themselves.[/quote] Yes there is a money motivation. But education is not simple money investment. It gives knowledge, skills. It equips people to tackle jobs, roles and responsibilities they lacked the ability to handle before hand. And it acts as proof and evidence that they know what they're doing. So you don't have someone perform surgery, who doesn't even know how to hold a scalpel. Yes there are more fields opening that may not require a degree. But it's stuff such as some business, artists, game developers. People who offer a service, that a consumer willingly agrees to purchase, that does not post a safety hazard to said consumer. If it does, then degrees are required. And even then, most things such as apprenticeships still require some class time and quizzes in order to confirm you understand certain concepts.