all 21 comments

[–]magnora7 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

A true democracy would let the people vote on actual bills, instead of just representatives.

But it would definitely have more than 2 parties as choices.

[–]fred_red_beans 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You would think in the "information age" we would be moving closer to a direct democracy, but the contrary seems to be true. Instead of actually reading and debating the content of the actual legislation going through both the house and senate, we rant about some talking head's commentary about the implication of the legislation. The bills are certainly available for all to read, a few days before bringing them to the floor while the representative has likely been given the legislation by some lobbyist or think tank that has been working on it for months or years, and it's usually pages and pages long filled with legalese that no single individual has the time to fully digest.

In a direct democracy, there would be no need for representatives or Representative democracy. There's also consensus, which Occupy Wall St utilized (lengthy article, but interesting).

And who is Black Lives Matter?

It certainly doesn't look like any kind of grass roots democracy, it looks like a corporate sponsored entity given the main stream companies that are donating to it:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/11/the-complex-funding-and-ideology-of-black-lives-matter/

[–]Horrux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Switzerland has a direct democracy AND representatives whose job it is to "digest" the texts of the legislature. They make it work beautifully.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well lets not forget, that the accurate discussion of any bill is also diluted by shadow agencies operating on the net to circumvent proper conclusions for many of these conversations. What the hell do you think social media was really about?

In reality, direct democracy and consensus is absolutely beautiful according to an OWS standards. But it shouldn't ever be catered to just the majority of votes, all the facts and rebuttals themselves need to be carefully weighed in favor of newer posits to better reconcile on necessary conclusions. If the 21st century and its Information Technology capabilities could stand for something positive, let it be the learning process from all complaints/grievances/inputs and votes to move towards 100% satisfaction through a curricula of formulae and correction of outdated phenomenon. Such a thing would go to battle against the very forces of scarcity or artificially induced stubborn scarcities by ruling parties. But let this opulence of complete consideration to implementation stand as a victor, instead of a foregone compromise in longer term projects, since the latter is necessarily a grievance of the past.

Shadow agencies will seek to circumvent, dilute or interject input within a rogue like manner to erase the voices of the smallest or most credible however, so an honest accountability process should be established at first.

Why not begin with a simulacrum of individuated votes and perhaps even artificial issues, with technological learning capabilities in order to result in that 100% satisfaction down the road much later? Through an implementation process reconciled within this reality? Like a VR democracy at first. where the people actually vote and their vote is considered/reconciled within that platform. Maybe even a complaint department? The super-structure influences the base as they say and vice-versa.

Anyways, I'll start on police brutality: Those cops should have had a bola gun or something to restrain their victims but the military industrial complex stands somewhat unoriginal at tackling inherent issues plaguing the geopolitical spectrum. That is all.

[–]beermeem 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Dictatorship of the majority. That's never been a bad idea. /s

[–]magnora7 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Better than the aristocracy we have right now that is driving quality of life for the average American in to the ground

[–]beermeem 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Debatable. A society requires some level of certainty to function on a day to day basis.

People voting on laws would be like living in the stock market. Up one day down the next, based purely off sentiment, while someone skims off the top. As we've all seen, the crowd is easily manipulated and changes its mind often.

Now, what MIGHT be interesting is some type of citizen jury type concept. Somewhat randomly decided and vetted people are put in a sequestered situation and asked to come to a reasonable conclusion about a specific topic. People often step up in these types of situations and they'd specifically be given time to consider things, instead of just reading FB or watching the news.

People going about their busy lives, living off sound bites, simply don't put anywhere near the thought that people like you or I put into these things.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes, I'm aware that the greatest President in the history of America, Richard M. Nixon, signed the orders to take the US off the gold standard in 1971. Now your petty insults make sense.

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

petty insults

Where did I insult you?

[–]RenLuna 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you think direct democracy is a good idea look at California

[–]ctvzbuxr 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I mean yes, it isn't freedom. The system is horrible, and we shouldn't have anyone ruling over us in an ideal world. Problem is, the system is in place. It's not going to go away in the next 4 years, because there are too many people believing that choosing the guy who rules you is freedom. And that brings me to my point: This is a very important election, because while the system does suck, there are still much better and worse options when it comes to who is going to rule you. Not only in the next 4 years - if Democrats get in, immigration and censorship might prevent them from losing an election ever again. You cannot create a free society if you import poeple from cultures hostile to freedom faster than you can possibly convert people to freedom.

[–]NoahWebstersGhost 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

who is going to rule you.

"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool can follow it." - Thoreau

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

It's really not that important of an election. It's a coronation, really.

Trump is going to crush. And the more Cali and Minni go off the deep end, the more he's going to crush. Michigan? Pennsylvania? Ohio? North Carolina? Can you imagine how insane eliminating police departments must sound to people in those states? I can because I have friends there. Everybody gonna be running to big daddy Trump's arms.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Everybody gonna be running to big daddy Trump's arms.

Bio-shock muthafuka!

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That wasn’t a bad game.

[–]iraelmossadreddit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

DEHUMANIZING!

[–]theoracle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(it's not freedom) It's also not democratic.

We live in representative democracies, that are neither representative nor democratic. Solve either of these (not necessarily both) and you will solve it all I think!

The vast majority of people do not vote (or vote at all) for the candidate that is supposedly representing them. Candidates consistently win with only maybe 15 to 30% support.... Dividing people based on location is very bad, and acts to dilute their voice. People should be divided on ideas. You should vote for a party based on it's ideals and history of voting etc, not necessarily a person! The total number of votes a party receives should then entitle it to a certain number of seats in whatever house the vote is for.

This gives the benefit that you as a voter can research and decide long before an election who suits you best. It will also mean that the majority of people who are unrepresented will then be represented. It would also be democratic, because there will be choices you actually want and that will actually gain from your vote.

Honestly ask yourself and others are you represented? Why not? ^ ^ ^

[–]blowininthewind 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

what's that word marxists used, bent consciousness?

[–]donald_trump 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When it comes to great steaks, I've just raised the stakes.

[–]m68k 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You DO have other choices besides the big two, though not anywhere as popular. Not to mention, you can "write in" one as well.