[quote=Magic Magnum]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And that you are suggesting an outdated system, a already tried and exhausted system we have already built, improved and adapted on according to our current situation.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]
It's an evolutionary step forward, in my mind, if we take underutilized styles of governing that worked in the past and improve upon them with what we know now.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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.[/quote]
I think population growth was instrumental in getting where we are now, as a society. I'm saying, we don't need to continue growing at an exponential rate, 50,000 people isn't a small family, but it'd be much more efficient to micromanage than the needlessly large countries we have today. Communities wouldn't even be isolated, trade and foreign relations wouldn't end-- they may even form confederacies or border deals. 

The point is, the types of large countries you see today exist because of an old world dogmatic view that BIGGER = BETTER. This isn't true, so there's no point in breaking up overextended unions and having governance exist on a smaller level.

[quote=Magic Magnum]+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.[/quote]
What are confederacies? I see no problem with breaking up larger communities if it means the smaller communities can more efficiently govern themselves.

[quote=Magic Magnum]It is quite literally, downgrading society in order to simplify it.[/quote]
Downgrading? Better addressing regional issues is downgrading? A more local focus on education, science and the arts is downgrading? 

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
This isn't even just for what I wish governments generally were, this is just what should be used in any system involving voting: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote]Single Transferable Vote[/url]

[quote=Magic Magnum]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.[/quote]
"constant"

[quote=Magic Magnum]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.[/quote]
Yes. This is place they live, I'd argue they owe it to the place and themselves to devote time to those thoughts.

[quote=Magic Magnum]And I trust I don't need to explain why it's important for people to take it seriously?[/quote]
I don't think it's important for people to do anything.

[quote=Magic Magnum]Plus, it's not a simple "I'll text my vote" [/quote]
Why not? The risk? Negligible, I feel like if enough people want a thing to work, it can and will work with enough effort. People can and do influence votes everywhere today, nothing is perfect. If your argument is that because the administered area is smaller then the corruption from fraud would be more heavily felt, I'd like to remind you that these things do tend to scale with size.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
Seems like people would be driven to become experts on the issues-- Not that they already weren't, since these are things that directly influence them as citizens.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
I won't pretend there aren't people who won't try things like voter fraud, but again, it's negligible. It happens everywhere, and we can try our best to avoid and prevent it, but that's all.

Not trying a potentially good idea because something bad might happen is just kind of silly. 
"Why should I go outside? Ebolachan might get me!"

[quote=Magic Magnum]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.[/quote]
No, there are currently laws in place to regulate citizens.

[quote=Magic Magnum]There are laws in place so only qualified people can make decisions on important matters, such as road safety[/quote] 
Senate is full of road safety experts?

[quote=Magic Magnum]or performing surgery.[/quote] 
I see surgery mentioned a lot in here, are you a doctor by chance?

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
But unless you've seen all their certifications and are just as much of an expert as them and can quiz everyone who claims to be a 'qualified person' then it kind of is a blind faith. That trust you have is based on things you don't know, that's blind faith. The governments and economies of the world are built off of this.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
The thing is, figuring out what a country of 300 million people, the size of America needs, I'm willing to bet, is significantly harder than managing an area the size of Hong Kong with a population of 100,000. Perfect? Maybe not. But a damn good step forward.

[quote=Magic Magnum]Then experiment, test it, prove it and then come back and try it.
Don't make the assumption it will already work.[/quote]
I'm not assuming though. Greater focus on politics in school and the community creates citizens that take a more active interest in their local government, especially if they don't feel ignored by them-- something that'd be a lot easier to simulate in a smaller territory.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
What is it with all the surgery? I'm going to go with, "choosing who should give you a lifesaving surgery isn't the same thing as voting on zoning issues."

(Also, in this example so many assumptions and inferences are made; What if my mother was dead? Is that woman a ghost? Is magic real? Miraculously revived? Does she have magic that can revive me too? What about the doctor? How experienced is he? "trained and educated in surgery" doesn't mean "experienced in surgery" I could be his first case-- what's his record? Have people died under him before? Why does this hospital only have 1 surgeon? What if the surgeon is a racist murderer? What if the machines read my heart condition wrong? Things like this aren't ever black and white)

[quote=Magic Magnum]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.[/quote]
There are always variables, putting an example like that in a nice little void away from context is cherry picking.

And, voting is not surgery. A person voting on a thing is all the expert you need, they live there, they know what's best for themselves and their community.

[quote=Magic Magnum]One must have understanding of something, to be able to make a proper decision on it.[/quote]
Proper's subjective.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
That's the thing though, those are their decisions to make. I'm willing to bet most citizens generally want what's best for them, and know that that involves their neighbors getting what's best for them too, and will vote accordingly.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
Because why are you making the assumption these people are completely clueless? They live there, the issues relate to them, there will be people with understanding.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
Because we aren't going back to that style of government, we're improving upon it, and thousands of other types of governments.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
Literally what?

Correlation does not equal causation. You implied communism and fascism were inherently bad because of their association with genocide. I'm arguing that isn't true, like at all. see: Cuba

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
Sure, it doesn't happen magically. It happens as the large territory is sectioned off, and most of those in power become members of the ruling elite. It happens when members of congress never have to deal with their constituents face to face so they become depersonalized to the people they're supposed to represent and susceptible to being bought to further their own career, because they have no real connection to the people who put them there-- and the people who put them there are so far apart and disconnected, they don't even know who he is. 

Rome, the Mongols, the Arabian empires, the Holy Roman Empire, pretty much all of the European countries trying to colonize everywhere else... Manifest destiny is an antiquated ideal that time and time again leads to the deaths of civilizations.

[quote=Magic Magnum]Do you let children choose to cross the street when it's busy on their own?[/quote]
Babbys are neurologically different from adults.

[quote=Magic Magnum]Do you let people perform surgery on their own without training?[/quote]
More surgeries! Some people would argue yes, since no amount of artificial training will be the same thing as a live body.

[quote=Magic Magnum]Do you let people drive cars before getting a license?[/quote]
I drive without one.

[quote=Magic Magnum]By your logic, if you don't let someone do any of these you are apparently being a fascist.[/quote]
Cherry picking pretty hard. Voting is a right of every citizen, not some random bad decision. 

Not letting a tax paying citizen vote is like not letting them walk on the sidewalk.

[quote=Magic Magnum]It is not better to let unfit people make shitty decisions, if said decisions will get themselves and everyone around them hurt.[/quote]
You're making the assumption that people who didn't go to school to become an officially certified expert are going to make shitty decision that will lead to people getting hurt.

[quote=Magic Magnum]Is performing an operation subjective?[/quote]
:D I was really hoping you'd mention more surgery

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
I'm sure from someone's perspective they are.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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]
Why are you making that assumption? That they have no understanding in regards to the things that impact themselves, their loved ones, and others?

[quote=Magic Magnum]Yes there is a money motivation.
But education is not simple money investment.[/quote]
Education isn't, a college education is.

[quote=Magic Magnum]So you don't have someone perform surgery, who doesn't even know how to hold a scalpel.[/quote]
:D

Sure, but the surgeon doesn't need a DEGREE to be able to do the surgery-- it has nothing to do with the skill and training they've acquired.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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.[/quote]
Games can cause epilepsy, businesses can control hazardous services, nothing is black and white, etc.

[quote=Magic Magnum]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.[/quote]
Right, but there's a danger in assuming anyone with a degree can do what the degree says they can, and that everyone without a degree can't do a certain thing, plenty of competent back alley doctors in Kowloon Walled City. All I'm saying.