While pointing out that the public at large is just wildly ill-suited to be making policy decisions on many topics which absolutely need to be regulated, lest companies cheap out on worker safety and get people killed, you’re missing the far more pressing matter with this idea. This level on granularity is just absurd for direct democracy. The sheer number of votes such a system would entail would rapidly induce voter fatigue. Besides, even if it’s just opening an app and clicking a button, how many voters have the time to stay informed on relevant developments related to upcoming matters to be voted on to actually have an informed opinion on the topic, and of those, how many would actually turn up to vote for the thing? NY had 39.6% of eligible voters not cast a vote in the 2024 presidential election, slightly below the national average of 36.1%. Last year alone, Governor Hochul pardoned 24 people, according to her site’s press releases, 11 of which were the day before New Year’s Eve, smack in the middle of the winter holidays. You folks really think you’re going to get meaningful voter participation in 24+ elections a year (ignoring how many elections Trump would trigger with his presidential pardons, because this number is already unreasonable enough), when nearly 40% of eligible voters sat out the most heated presidential election in decades?
You can have direct democracy to an extent, but for the most part, you’d still need to leave the politicians and technocrats to do their jobs. Sure, there ought to be mechanisms for either the people or the government to trigger a popular referendum on a given matter (say, voters strongly feel that none of the politicians or governing bodies are reflecting their will on a matter, or a broadly popular policy is being blocked by obstinate opposition factions in a closely divided legislature, for example), but they really ought to remain exceptional incidents. Otherwise, you’re doomed to get bogged down by rule by committee under a different name, and nothing is ever going to get done.
The discussion is about liquid democracy. It is only form of democracy that doesn’t result in zionazi oligarchist corporatist supremacism, but generally, the privilege of voting on every pardon is not the main appeal.
My, bestest, form of liquid democracy is that you have the option to delegate your vote on any silo of topics/legislation to anyone who can delegate all the votes they “control” to anyone else too. So voter fatigue is not a real argument. You’re not obligated to vote. If you had delegated your vote to someone who voted for pardon in OP, you might be pissed off at them, and “recall” your support immediately.
Digital ID is only reasonable under guarantee of a non evil state. Liquid democracy is both a great use of Digital ID, and only permitted imposition of it.
It is only form of democracy that doesn’t result in zionazi oligarchist corporatist supremacism
That’s just wishful thinking.
Voter fatigue + lack of time to actually read the laws they’re voting on means it would be even easier for “zionazi oligarchist corporations” to just have a group of couple of hundred employees whose only job would be to vote along the “zionazi oligarchist corporation’s” line.
My, bestest, form of liquid democracy is that you have the option to delegate your vote on any silo of topics/legislation to anyone who can delegate all the votes they “control” to anyone else too
What do you do if you delegate your vote to X, X delegates their votes to Y, Y delegates them to Z and you realise that Z goes completely against your views?
Anyway, that’s just representative democracy with extra steps. We already have this.
You can have a pardon committee which isn’t uncommon then you only would expect a vote if the governor pardons someone outside that in violation of norms.
While pointing out that the public at large is just wildly ill-suited to be making policy decisions on many topics which absolutely need to be regulated, lest companies cheap out on worker safety and get people killed, you’re missing the far more pressing matter with this idea. This level on granularity is just absurd for direct democracy. The sheer number of votes such a system would entail would rapidly induce voter fatigue. Besides, even if it’s just opening an app and clicking a button, how many voters have the time to stay informed on relevant developments related to upcoming matters to be voted on to actually have an informed opinion on the topic, and of those, how many would actually turn up to vote for the thing? NY had 39.6% of eligible voters not cast a vote in the 2024 presidential election, slightly below the national average of 36.1%. Last year alone, Governor Hochul pardoned 24 people, according to her site’s press releases, 11 of which were the day before New Year’s Eve, smack in the middle of the winter holidays. You folks really think you’re going to get meaningful voter participation in 24+ elections a year (ignoring how many elections Trump would trigger with his presidential pardons, because this number is already unreasonable enough), when nearly 40% of eligible voters sat out the most heated presidential election in decades?
You can have direct democracy to an extent, but for the most part, you’d still need to leave the politicians and technocrats to do their jobs. Sure, there ought to be mechanisms for either the people or the government to trigger a popular referendum on a given matter (say, voters strongly feel that none of the politicians or governing bodies are reflecting their will on a matter, or a broadly popular policy is being blocked by obstinate opposition factions in a closely divided legislature, for example), but they really ought to remain exceptional incidents. Otherwise, you’re doomed to get bogged down by rule by committee under a different name, and nothing is ever going to get done.
I wasn’t missing it. I was just wondering what the other guy’s solutions to all the other problems would’ve been before addressing the main blocker.
Assuming voters would go through 500+ pages of laws multiple times a week (because city voting, state voting, federal voting…) is just silly.
The discussion is about liquid democracy. It is only form of democracy that doesn’t result in zionazi oligarchist corporatist supremacism, but generally, the privilege of voting on every pardon is not the main appeal.
My, bestest, form of liquid democracy is that you have the option to delegate your vote on any silo of topics/legislation to anyone who can delegate all the votes they “control” to anyone else too. So voter fatigue is not a real argument. You’re not obligated to vote. If you had delegated your vote to someone who voted for pardon in OP, you might be pissed off at them, and “recall” your support immediately.
Digital ID is only reasonable under guarantee of a non evil state. Liquid democracy is both a great use of Digital ID, and only permitted imposition of it.
That’s just wishful thinking.
Voter fatigue + lack of time to actually read the laws they’re voting on means it would be even easier for “zionazi oligarchist corporations” to just have a group of couple of hundred employees whose only job would be to vote along the “zionazi oligarchist corporation’s” line.
What do you do if you delegate your vote to X, X delegates their votes to Y, Y delegates them to Z and you realise that Z goes completely against your views?
Anyway, that’s just representative democracy with extra steps. We already have this.
You can have a pardon committee which isn’t uncommon then you only would expect a vote if the governor pardons someone outside that in violation of norms.