this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
81 points (95.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43958 readers
1274 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As kids, we're told only people who go to college/university for politics/economics/law are qualifiable to make/run a country. As adults, we see no nation these "qualified" adults form actually work as a nation, with all manifesto-driven governments failing. Which to me validates the ambitions of all political theorist amateurs, especially as there are higher hopes now that anything an amateur might throw at the wall can stick. Here's my favorite from a friend.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong 31 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I've played around with the idea of a very 'direct' democracy, where effectively, all citizens have an app and are constantly and directly "engaged" in the process. I was imagining it as being a replacement for a local government. If you don't want to be involved, you can transfer your vote to someone you trust in the system (and take it back whenever you like). The discussions would all be open and traceable, but the votes would be pseudo anonymized.

That way if its not your thing or you aren't interested, you can just hand your vote to someone else and let them manage it for you (kind-of like current political parties or representatives), but take it back at will.

I think we suffer from a lack of civil engagement, and I get tired of people who refuse to put in the work blaming "da gubberment" for things. This system would effectively require them to engage at least some level. And if they complain about "the potholes" not getting fixed, well, there is a no excuse for not knowing why they arent getting fixed. I think we all need to take more responsibility for the world we live in.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] TropicalDingdong 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yeah exactly. Like maybe there is some policy on housing I like your position on, so I can delegate my vote to you on this matter. But maybe I have a background in climate and focus on those issues, and hold delegates for that specific domain.

Its like, an actual use case for crypto blockchain (not as money, but as ledger).

Maybe you could organize a company/ cooperative this way?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I feel like that'd just move lobbying from governments to people. So there'd be far more propaganda and garbage. Politicians would be becoming "power delegates", collecting as many people's votes as possible. Then we'd end up with another representative democracy (or whatever it's called to vote for people who then vote for policies)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Except it sounds like there are no elections for these new reps and people would be able to change their delegate at will whenever they want? But if it’s on a crypto-style ledger then it would have to either cost something (to prevent abuse) to change or be free after X period or on an election cycle. Definitely an interesting thought.

[–] VelvetStorm 1 points 3 months ago

And what happens when someone has a ton of votes and a company pays them to use those votes in a way the people don't like?

[–] VelvetStorm 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This sounds good until you think about the reality of it. People will force partners and adult kids who financially depend on them to vote how they want. Then you have the rich and wealthy who will just pay people to vote on something the way they want.

In theory, this sounds great, but the reality of it would be bad.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Don't even need to bring force into it. Can you imagine "I'll give you $20 if you transfer your vote on issue X to me"? Seems like it's basically just handing the government to the billionaire class even more than we already do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Or just hackers/scammers/phishers etc. who would try to compromise accounts and redirect votes.

And that's assuming the population even has an informed opinion on every decision that needs to be made. Many decisions should not be directly democratic, which is (supposed to be) why we elect representatives whose job it is to be informed, consult the relevant experts, and then represent us in a vote.

[–] barsquid 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've been thinking of a similar thing, delegating votes to people you trust. Delegation should be transitive, of course. I think it would also be neat to delegate by category or topic.

I also like the idea of being active with it. I like to imagine someone needs to maintain a certain approval level or be removed, so people have recourse to act if they aren't being listened to.

[–] TropicalDingdong 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah for the short story I write the idea down for was about a high desert town in a western state. no-where in particular, but that gritty, off the grid, sandy desert western culture. somewhere between abbey and le guin, but in a modern context . a story about community having to make real decisions about things like infrastructure.

I put the idea down a couple years ago when I was reading some local politician responding to criticisms about wasting public money and potholes and them basically being like "the budget is public. show me the waste? yall want more done? pay more taxes.", when the reality of managing anything is costs and benefits in the context of limited resources. like the communal management of resources would have come about basically as an app this community was using to keep track of and develop the land they bought to home stead but it evolves from there.

[–] barsquid 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That local politician sounds like an interesting character. I love that response instead of just trying to talk their way around it. I can see why that would inspire a story.

Did you happen to publish that in some format? It sounds like a good read.

[–] TropicalDingdong 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No i have too much writing to do at work to write fiction. I keep a journal of ideas though. Maybe someday.

[–] barsquid 2 points 3 months ago

That's relatable. I get plenty of downtime during the day but not in long enough stretches to focus on something like that. Society is upside-down. We should be working far fewer hours and spending more time doing hobbies.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have been thinking about this idea for some time also but a couple of things have always bugged me-

Firstly, how does this interact with privacy? For vote delegation to work, I think the votes would have to be public, or you can’t make a decision on who to delegate your vote to- someone could claim to have one set of views but vote contrary to that. People could come under pressure to vote one way or another.

Also, who crafts the legislation that is voted on? How do you prevent bill rolling (two unrelated ideas are boiled down to a single binary choice) and splitting (a new service is voted through but the taxes to fund it are not)?

You said local government at least so a national or state government could help craft these things, but what if the proposed legislation doesn’t actually hurt local people, but doesn’t take into account the actual problems they have locally? For example, what if it would help to allow building in a particular area, but the state government doesn’t know that and it never becomes a priority?

[–] TropicalDingdong 1 points 3 months ago

Yeah idk. One reason is why I said 'psuedo-anonymous'. And then there is also an element of trust. If you delegate your vote and they vote against your interests, well thats that I suppose and you wont trust them again. So I do think it could be largely private at least in certain directions (we dont' all get to "know" who your delegates are, even if the system does. But then again, does it need to be private?

In terms of legislation, I was imagining the users of the system themselves do the work of crafting it, and it gets voted on within the system