The two-party system is a cartel if you think about it. The Republican and Democrat corporations made an alliance, agreed to lobby for anti-competition laws (concerning ballot access and the debate stage). In a free market of political parties, new parties would fall and get replaced all the time. The two parties we have only exist because they made competition a thing of the past. That's the definition of "cartel."
50.1% of the people telling the other 49.9% of the people what to do is not what I want to be a part of, especially when the people are so fickle. Leave that shit for American Idol style shows.
Or why not have 100% of individuals deciding for themselves what they do in their day to day lives instead of a government threatening to kill them if they don’t comply.
In Democracy, the majority can decide you have no rights at all, and the only authority is that their gang is bigger.
I hear that argument a lot, but I genuinely do not understand how that is better than having the 1% of the population (the politicians) "deciding that you have no rights". Even in a federalized society, it is the same (if not worse in my opinion) as having the majority of the elected officials deciding that you have no rights. This whole argument also ignores the existence of the constitution. Please forgive me if I sound like I am criticizing your argument, but could you please explain your side of things on how that would prevent "one portion of the population from deciding that the other portion of the population has no rights"?
In the case of this and other Western "democracies" the system has turned into a means of legalized looting as the entitled-class continually asks for more and more "free" stuff, and the politicriminals keep giving it to them to buy votes. After all, it's not their money.
Look, this may be hard to swallow, but democracy is not the opposite of tyranny. Democracy is another flavor of tyranny.
The best thing is to treat ALL government as poison, then decide how much poison is necessary to tolerate. My ancap friends say none, my minarchist friends say just as much as is necessary to guarantee rights.
But just because a gang rules you doesn't mean you are free.
I agree with you and I think the whole world needs to have direct democracy.
I think it eventually will, as this system is the best and will beat every other systems.
Did you watch Tom Scott's videos about online voting problems?
The main problem, he says, that we can't veryfy is voting counting was fair, not riggered.
He states that blockchain won't help, as we need to be sure that proper data goes into blockchain in the first place.
I think this problem is generally solvable, won't go into details now.
Direct democracy is not the best at all. Especially with us having a large portion of the population on the welfare state. Those that don’t acquire welfare apart from vets (because they put in their own skin into the game) shouldn’t have a vote as they rely on the state while the others pay for them to suck on the government teet.
Why should the people who don’t rely on the states welfare be dictated through policies passed by those who rely on the government to get by?
If people do not VOTE, you are correct. Should they get motivated to VOTE, then, people can effect change. Now, whether that change is the difference between COKE and PEPSI is another discussion. However, you will NEVER lose money banking on the stupidity of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Too lazy to VOTE. Too STUPID to VOTE in their own interests. Can I get an Amen?
The best part about direct democracy is that the most evil person you know gets to convince the dumbest 5 people you know to vote against everyone’s best interests in favor of their own.
Then when they get their way, they claim you consented to the result of the vote by participating, if you don’t participate then they claim your silence is proof of consent, and if you vocally dissent then they tell to vote. In such a manner they justify any and all tyranny they can conceive of and call it freedom. It’s easier to hold one tyrant accountable than a plurality of the entire population.
One of the best direct democracy system we have is capitalism. You vote with your dollars. Every time you spend money, you send the signal that you approve of the product or service you are getting.
I don't care about democracy, the world is better today in spite of governments of any kind, not because of them, and I'm a libertarian specifically because I don't want to be told what to do on most anything, and I don't want to tell anyone else what to do. I want to be left alone and to leave others alone.
I certainly don't want to enable or empower the busy bodies who are so passionate about voting on anything even more than they already are. To hell with them.
The things that have improved life more than anything never came from any government body or edict. Technology is responsible for human progress, and even so, governments abuse of technology still holds it back.
Majority affirmation of a law at 51% of the populous is tyranny against the other 49 and thus cannot represent “We the people.” — Something closer to a 90+% or full consensus better represents the People. Also the constitution must have rules that prevent the populace from dumb things like voting to borrow money to pay operational expenses. I do align with much libertarian philosophy.
The whole premise of mob rule is flawed. It presumes the majority will act ethically and responsibly. More often than not, it's just an angry gang with pitchforks and torches waiting to lynch some scapegoat they envy.
We’re not doing any better with .1% of the population doing whatever the fuck they want and hoping that the courts will side with the constitution. Just look at how many states keep passing obviously unconstitutional gun laws that take years to get struck down. Look at how Trump as been running as a dictator and is basically unchecked on any major issues.
Our Constitution does not give us a representative democracy, it lays out a democratic republic. It's a system that us supposed to protect the rights of the minority while allowing fir the majority to run the country. A democracy is basically majority rule, the mob makes the rules.
So the house was capped at 435 representatives in about 1929? And originally way back then and before 1 representative represented about 30 000 people, now it's around an average of 700 000 people per representative because the rules haven't been updated to accommodate population growth.
If we were to have a system where 1 Rep = +/- 30000 people like back then, we would need about 11 000 memebers in the house and I see that as a plus because we would have fire debates and the fights will be wild and if nothing ever gets done? Fine cos they've done enough already.
I strongly support the idea of ballot measures, single issue bills and we the people get to decide because we do have the tech to do that now. In any case what's important is that these conversations start happening in high places, perhaps smarter people than us could even come up with a better system than what we are proposing.
Unfortunately, with the advent of Gerrymandering, I don’t think it would matter what the ratio of voters to representatives is, they are still not going to be representing the people in any equable sense.
I agree with your overall point. Democracy is overrated and since WWII, has shown it is easily corruptible.
A couple counters to your post:
Governments have become so powerful and corrupt that even direct democracy (ballot questions) can be thrown out and ignored. Example: in my state, Massachusetts, a ballot question passed with 72% of the vote that the state auditor could audit the state legislator. The house has basically just said "uhhh... No, we're not going to do that". No audit has taken place nor is it scheduled.
Also, I don't agree with your statement that the average voter isn't stupid. We still have people voting for socialism and against liberty. Maybe they are just uninformed but that's just as bad as being stupid. I mean, Mamdani got elected and Massie got ousted. Two totally different places, cultures, political ideologies and they both voted for the worse option.
Governments have become so powerful and corrupt that even direct democracy (ballot questions) can be thrown out and ignored
Look at Canada and the ability of a province to secede. After Quebec nearly voted to do so, they changed the rules that it needed to be a "clear majority" in favor. But the federal government (House of Commons) gets to decide, after the fact, what constitutes a "clear majority".
"Clear Majority" is never defined. This was likely intentional so they can say that 50%+1 is not a "clear majority". Or 60/40 is not "clear" even 75/25 may not be a "clear majority" since there is a major population set who disapproves of it.
You assume the hivemind of macroscopic traits of the general populous is any better. Any deeply thought out positions are drowned out by the emotions of mobs.
I'd argue those that want to pay higher taxes should be able to vote, those that don't want higher taxes for themselves individually, can cast away their social privilege to vote.
How many times do we have to tell you people that democracy is NOT a good thing? Instead of a pos politician forcing bad ,harmful policy on me, i have the pos public forcing bad and harmful policy onto me. Thats not an improvement, thats a side-grade at best.
I'm going to use a car analogy. Some people want to know every detail about how a car works. Others only want to know how to drive and nothing more, even if it means they don't know about important maintenance.
Government is the same way. Some people simply do not care to know at a level required to perform important maintenance. I think involving those people via a direct democracy would be counterproductive.
REMOVED: due to a large amount of brigading, we are temporarily restricting posts from drive-by users. If you are unfamiliar with our beliefs or ideology, take some time to lurk, or do some research. Do not message the mod team, this will be reviewed when we have time. Messaging the mod team asking us to approve this will result in an automatic denial and potential ban as we will assume you are a clanker sending automated messages.
PW_stars@reddit
The two-party system is a cartel if you think about it. The Republican and Democrat corporations made an alliance, agreed to lobby for anti-competition laws (concerning ballot access and the debate stage). In a free market of political parties, new parties would fall and get replaced all the time. The two parties we have only exist because they made competition a thing of the past. That's the definition of "cartel."
Max_284@reddit
50.1% of the people telling the other 49.9% of the people what to do is not what I want to be a part of, especially when the people are so fickle. Leave that shit for American Idol style shows.
Glittering_Owl1920@reddit (OP)
Better than 1% of the population telling the other 99% what to do
Olieskio@reddit
Or why not have 100% of individuals deciding for themselves what they do in their day to day lives instead of a government threatening to kill them if they don’t comply.
LamantinoReddit@reddit
"But that 1% is the smart people! Not dump 51%!"
breezemachine666@reddit
That's why we have a constitution. It sets the ground rules for what laws can be passed, or at least it was supposed to.
NietzschesAneurysm@reddit
How many votes did it take to condemn Socrates to death for the crime of asking annoying questions?
In Democracy, the majority can decide you have no rights at all, and the only authority is that their gang is bigger.
You don't want to live in a democracy, trust me.
ThunderMuffin233@reddit
I hear that argument a lot, but I genuinely do not understand how that is better than having the 1% of the population (the politicians) "deciding that you have no rights". Even in a federalized society, it is the same (if not worse in my opinion) as having the majority of the elected officials deciding that you have no rights. This whole argument also ignores the existence of the constitution. Please forgive me if I sound like I am criticizing your argument, but could you please explain your side of things on how that would prevent "one portion of the population from deciding that the other portion of the population has no rights"?
BringBackUsenet@reddit
In the case of this and other Western "democracies" the system has turned into a means of legalized looting as the entitled-class continually asks for more and more "free" stuff, and the politicriminals keep giving it to them to buy votes. After all, it's not their money.
LamantinoReddit@reddit
But in non-democraty you can get killed by Stalin or some kind of mac-nuke
NietzschesAneurysm@reddit
Look, this may be hard to swallow, but democracy is not the opposite of tyranny. Democracy is another flavor of tyranny.
The best thing is to treat ALL government as poison, then decide how much poison is necessary to tolerate. My ancap friends say none, my minarchist friends say just as much as is necessary to guarantee rights.
But just because a gang rules you doesn't mean you are free.
LamantinoReddit@reddit
I agree with you and I think the whole world needs to have direct democracy.
I think it eventually will, as this system is the best and will beat every other systems.
Did you watch Tom Scott's videos about online voting problems?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
The main problem, he says, that we can't veryfy is voting counting was fair, not riggered.
He states that blockchain won't help, as we need to be sure that proper data goes into blockchain in the first place.
I think this problem is generally solvable, won't go into details now.
TheKorndawg720@reddit
Direct democracy is not the best at all. Especially with us having a large portion of the population on the welfare state. Those that don’t acquire welfare apart from vets (because they put in their own skin into the game) shouldn’t have a vote as they rely on the state while the others pay for them to suck on the government teet.
Why should the people who don’t rely on the states welfare be dictated through policies passed by those who rely on the government to get by?
fatscottie@reddit
If people do not VOTE, you are correct. Should they get motivated to VOTE, then, people can effect change. Now, whether that change is the difference between COKE and PEPSI is another discussion. However, you will NEVER lose money banking on the stupidity of the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Too lazy to VOTE. Too STUPID to VOTE in their own interests. Can I get an Amen?
BringBackUsenet@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVXekzwkz10
Cadi009@reddit
The best part about direct democracy is that the most evil person you know gets to convince the dumbest 5 people you know to vote against everyone’s best interests in favor of their own.
Then when they get their way, they claim you consented to the result of the vote by participating, if you don’t participate then they claim your silence is proof of consent, and if you vocally dissent then they tell to vote. In such a manner they justify any and all tyranny they can conceive of and call it freedom. It’s easier to hold one tyrant accountable than a plurality of the entire population.
BringBackUsenet@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVXekzwkz10
byesilagac1175@reddit
Abolish democracy now
BringBackUsenet@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZSlVZ1U1jY
remyroy@reddit
One of the best direct democracy system we have is capitalism. You vote with your dollars. Every time you spend money, you send the signal that you approve of the product or service you are getting.
BringBackUsenet@reddit
Yes, and it apportions the decision making among those with the biggest stake in the matter while keeping out those with no skin in the game at all.
Heavy-Bell-2035@reddit
I don't care about democracy, the world is better today in spite of governments of any kind, not because of them, and I'm a libertarian specifically because I don't want to be told what to do on most anything, and I don't want to tell anyone else what to do. I want to be left alone and to leave others alone.
I certainly don't want to enable or empower the busy bodies who are so passionate about voting on anything even more than they already are. To hell with them.
BringBackUsenet@reddit
The things that have improved life more than anything never came from any government body or edict. Technology is responsible for human progress, and even so, governments abuse of technology still holds it back.
Excalbian042@reddit
Majority affirmation of a law at 51% of the populous is tyranny against the other 49 and thus cannot represent “We the people.” — Something closer to a 90+% or full consensus better represents the People. Also the constitution must have rules that prevent the populace from dumb things like voting to borrow money to pay operational expenses. I do align with much libertarian philosophy.
BringBackUsenet@reddit
The whole premise of mob rule is flawed. It presumes the majority will act ethically and responsibly. More often than not, it's just an angry gang with pitchforks and torches waiting to lynch some scapegoat they envy.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
I've thought about a two-tier system:
A law takes about 2/3 of the people to pass it, but if you cannot maintain at least majority support, it gets repealed.
nizerifin@reddit
Also make laws expire after a certain amount of time to force reconsideration.
Live_Taste_7796@reddit
Lots of terrible policy has been passed with a 2/3 vote, you think it would be better to raise it to 3/4 vote, or would their be issues you think?
rafaelrc7@reddit
In the end it always fall in the same philosophical problem of an arbitrarily defined majority imposing their will on the minority.
That being said, on surface level, your idea does sound better than your average simple majority method of decision making.
BringBackUsenet@reddit
Two wolves and a lamb getting to decide what's for dinner.
gl1204@reddit
The United States is not a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic.
This is not to say it’s better or worse, it’s why it doesn’t function the way you believe a democracy would.
That being said, Plato’s republic (among many other things) then comes into the equation if you’re wondering why it was set up that way to start with.
Siglet84@reddit
We’re not doing any better with .1% of the population doing whatever the fuck they want and hoping that the courts will side with the constitution. Just look at how many states keep passing obviously unconstitutional gun laws that take years to get struck down. Look at how Trump as been running as a dictator and is basically unchecked on any major issues.
stebe-bob@reddit
AI posts should be banned. At least edit it a little bit.
dale1320@reddit
Our Constitution does not give us a representative democracy, it lays out a democratic republic. It's a system that us supposed to protect the rights of the minority while allowing fir the majority to run the country. A democracy is basically majority rule, the mob makes the rules.
haltandcatchtires@reddit
Citizens United was the death of democracy in the USA.
RealNinjafoxtrot@reddit
So the house was capped at 435 representatives in about 1929? And originally way back then and before 1 representative represented about 30 000 people, now it's around an average of 700 000 people per representative because the rules haven't been updated to accommodate population growth.
If we were to have a system where 1 Rep = +/- 30000 people like back then, we would need about 11 000 memebers in the house and I see that as a plus because we would have fire debates and the fights will be wild and if nothing ever gets done? Fine cos they've done enough already.
I strongly support the idea of ballot measures, single issue bills and we the people get to decide because we do have the tech to do that now. In any case what's important is that these conversations start happening in high places, perhaps smarter people than us could even come up with a better system than what we are proposing.
surmisez@reddit
Unfortunately, with the advent of Gerrymandering, I don’t think it would matter what the ratio of voters to representatives is, they are still not going to be representing the people in any equable sense.
MakinBaconOnTheBeach@reddit
I agree with your overall point. Democracy is overrated and since WWII, has shown it is easily corruptible.
A couple counters to your post:
Governments have become so powerful and corrupt that even direct democracy (ballot questions) can be thrown out and ignored. Example: in my state, Massachusetts, a ballot question passed with 72% of the vote that the state auditor could audit the state legislator. The house has basically just said "uhhh... No, we're not going to do that". No audit has taken place nor is it scheduled.
Also, I don't agree with your statement that the average voter isn't stupid. We still have people voting for socialism and against liberty. Maybe they are just uninformed but that's just as bad as being stupid. I mean, Mamdani got elected and Massie got ousted. Two totally different places, cultures, political ideologies and they both voted for the worse option.
surmisez@reddit
In 2000, your state voted to lower the state sales tax, in increments over time, to 5%.
In 2002, “Bacon” Hill decided that it was low enough and stopped the yearly decrease.
Ironically, the tax rate did eventually reach that voter-approved 5.0%, but not until 01/01/2020, a mere 20 years after the ballot question passed.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Look at Canada and the ability of a province to secede. After Quebec nearly voted to do so, they changed the rules that it needed to be a "clear majority" in favor. But the federal government (House of Commons) gets to decide, after the fact, what constitutes a "clear majority".
"Clear Majority" is never defined. This was likely intentional so they can say that 50%+1 is not a "clear majority". Or 60/40 is not "clear" even 75/25 may not be a "clear majority" since there is a major population set who disapproves of it.
TheWheatOne@reddit
You assume the hivemind of macroscopic traits of the general populous is any better. Any deeply thought out positions are drowned out by the emotions of mobs.
I'd argue those that want to pay higher taxes should be able to vote, those that don't want higher taxes for themselves individually, can cast away their social privilege to vote.
Fresh_Yam169@reddit
Democracy is a joke in any form. That’s why most successful countries are republics.
P.S. For those who don’t understand the difference: Democracy is the rule of majority, republic is the rule of law.
P.P.S. No, the US is not a democracy and never was.
Live_Taste_7796@reddit
How many times do we have to tell you people that democracy is NOT a good thing? Instead of a pos politician forcing bad ,harmful policy on me, i have the pos public forcing bad and harmful policy onto me. Thats not an improvement, thats a side-grade at best.
Equivalent-Region895@reddit
Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
LordoftheWildHunt@reddit
And the sheep deciding what's for dessert.
technojoe99@reddit
I'm going to use a car analogy. Some people want to know every detail about how a car works. Others only want to know how to drive and nothing more, even if it means they don't know about important maintenance.
Government is the same way. Some people simply do not care to know at a level required to perform important maintenance. I think involving those people via a direct democracy would be counterproductive.
AutoModerator@reddit
REMOVED: due to a large amount of brigading, we are temporarily restricting posts from drive-by users. If you are unfamiliar with our beliefs or ideology, take some time to lurk, or do some research. Do not message the mod team, this will be reviewed when we have time. Messaging the mod team asking us to approve this will result in an automatic denial and potential ban as we will assume you are a clanker sending automated messages.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.