[md1515]

I'm not so sure we even need a congress anymore. Honestly...hear me out.

The purpose of congress is to provide representation for American citizens who could not travel to Washington D.C. to vote on the bills and amendments that congressmen take part in.

These days reporters in D.C. can blog about all bills or report them in news stories instantly. So U.S. citizens are always in the know. More importantly, American citizens can easily vote with the current technology we have. Youth can use the internet, elders the telephone etc.

What do you guys think? I doubt it would happen...congress is too ingrained in our constitution and 'murica in general...

[JimmyL]

I think your core assumption - that "US citizens are always in the know - is optimistic (here's a survey to whet your thinking - http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/). I think most Americans reading this site are, but we're not exactly a majority. There's a whole lot of people who don't live in the top-thirty cities in the country and don't have the time to spend a few hours a day reading up on politics. And even those who do, certainly don't have the background to have an informed opinion on everything that Government deals with. To pick an example at random, could you deliver informed comments and votes on issues relating to the work of the Bureau of Land Management in southern Utah, and how their grazing policies affect farmers? I know I couldn't.

The bottom line is that governing is hard, and doing is adequately requires a lot of knowledge about a lot of different things. Pick the Senate committee with the least-interesting sounding name - for me, that'd be the Subcommittee on Jobs, Rural Economic Growth and Energy Innovation or the Joint Committee on Printing - and try and watch a video feed of it in session for a few hours...the amount of things they have to deal with is amazingly broad, and way beyond the ability of any one person to capture (hence the importance of having a class of professional political staffers).

It's a similar reason why I'm in favor - generally - of lobbying. Is the way it's done now right? Not at all. But is there room in a well-run government for external subject matter experts with agendas? Certainly.

Lastly, I just don't think direct democracy works especially well. Check out California for the canonical example of what happens when you let people vote on complex issues in isolation of one another, with the information dumbed-down to target people who are willing to only budget an hour of their time per week on thinking about politics. Complex issues with national and international repercussions should be debated and decided by people who can study them in-depth and who represent a cross-section of the population, as opposed to those with the economic freedom to pick one or two to become involved with - I'm not saying that we have this now, but it's more what we need than a platform where OWS/Tea Party crowds can overwhelm a web vote on something.

[FD3SA]

Directy democracy fails for exactly the reasons you have stated, yet those reasons all have one source: complexity.

The system of law was designed not by engineers, but by law makers who had no concept of system architecture and runaway complexity. They employed an imprecise language to construct an unstable structure which requires continuous patching and propping, resulting in a quagmire of legislation, open to manipulation due to its inherently contradictory and subjective foundation.

This problem can only be solved by proper system design, but it requires a hard reset of extant legislation. Once the law is written such that every literate citizen can understand it, we will have arrived at direct democracy.

[JimmyL]

I'm not even sure that clear, literate laws would do it. They'd help a huge degree, for certain, but I think the breadth of issues that Congress has to consider would still overwhelm pretty much anyone who wants to deal with it, save those who can afford a professional staff to help them out.

Consider an issue like water-use rights on the Colorado River. Even if you codified all the regulations relating to it into a well-organized and clear format, there's still the difficulty of figuring out what the right answer is. How would an average literate and interested citizen consult with farmers, environmental groups, conservationists, power companies, land-use stakeholders, first-nations groups, agricultural companies, municipalities, individuals who have been on the river for decades, bureaucrats, etc. and then link all those consultations to what's going on with other affiliated riversheds, general environmental and developmental polities, fish stocks, etc.

Even if the law is super-easy to understand, I think it would still be difficult for an average unsupported person to understand the subtitles and implications of something like a water-use bill, let alone one that regulates complex financial and regulatory transactions.

[nitrogen]

Use interactive infographics to visualize the effects of various legal algorithms. Let people drag allocation around, tweak parameters, etc. Combine all the data, including expected satisfaction of the various interested parties, with expert statements from all perspectives. Display the results of regression tests (e.g. display how this change in the algorithmic law would affect reality now if it had been made 5, 10, or 20 years ago). Thus, you allow non-experts to make informed decisions (exactly how congresspeople are supposed to work now).

In the resource allocation example, each interested party would state the amount of the resource they currently receive, the minimum amount they need to survive, and the maximum amount they could use efficiently, and their expected revenue in all cases (if they are a commercial resource user). They could also indicate their relative satisfaction with the various allocation algorithms proposed by engineers and others. Independent audits could determine how essential a given resource or resource user's product is to the economy, and how efficient the various resource users are.

I'd expect this would require less supporting staff than our current legislative system. Right now, each representative has his or her own complete advisory staff. If the same data is shared by everyone, you'd only need enough people to audit the data, algorithms, and visualization systems to avoid manipulation of outcomes, freeing up current staffers to contribute directly to the economy.

[FD3SA]

This method would have the immense benefit of turning a subjective "policy" into an objective algorithm, whereupon its direct impact could be measured numerically via simulations. As it stands, policy submissions are vague tomes of legal jargon with no measurable effects, coupled with a grandiose vision of implementation which is designed to elicit a positive emotional response from the electorate.

[davekinkead]

Representational democracy also fails for the same reason.

[md1515]

Jimmy, let me clarify.

When I say making sure that US citizens are always in the know, I mean that the resources are almost always available for those who would like to be in the know.

With regard to your comment about having informed opinions on everything the Government deals with: I don't necessarily mean local matters. At first, perhaps we could start with the U.S. Congress while leaving the state.

I definitely agree that there are some issues to deal with. This is one radical proposal and I'll be the first to admit it might not even work. I do think that a more direct democracy in the model of the Swiss could be of great use in these times of questionable ethics (lobbying in particular).

[tzs]

All you need to do is go look at the discussion on Reddit in /r/politics, a place full of people who make some effort to be more informed than the average citizen, on the NDAA bill to see how colossally bad your idea is.

There have been several revisions of the bill, in particular of the 3 controversial sections. The majority of people in any given discussion are not discussing the current version. If there concerns are addressed in the current version, and you try to tell them that, you run a good chance of getting voted way down, because they saw some article by someone famous that said the bill was bad and they can't seem to grasp the concept that the article was written about an older version of the bill.

Congress deals with many deep and complicated issues. It is simply not possible for most citizens to competently decide how to vote on most bills. They have neither the background nor the time.

Under your system it would basically come down to a popularity contest among the proponents and opponents of a particular bill. People would simply look at who is for and against it, and go with which group fits in better with them. E.g., if Rush Limbaugh says it is bad, you'd have a large group of Limbaugh fans voting against it with no further analysis. If Glen Greenwald says it is good, a bunch of his fans will vote for it with no further analysis.

Advertising would also play a large amount in determining the outcome. You can already see this in states that allow initiatives to create legislation directly, bypassing the legislature. The outcome of initiatives if often heavily influenced by whether or not one side can significantly outspend the other on advertising.

[nitrogen]

Congress deals with many deep and complicated issues. It is simply not possible for most citizens to competently decide how to vote on most bills. They have neither the background nor the time.

It sounds like you're describing exactly what we have now, only without abstracted accountability through representatives. Sure, most citizens cannot competently decide how to vote on most bills, but clearly many congresspeople can't either. That's not only a problem of competence, but also of the unnecessary complexity of legislation. Using something like unified diffs alone would reduce the length of many bills significantly.

Under your system it would basically come down to a popularity contest among the proponents and opponents of a particular bill. People would simply look at who is for and against it, and go with which group fits in better with them.

Citizens and their representatives already do that now. People look to their party to decide how to vote, and representatives look to the lobbyists with the most persuasive voice. It's easy to appear persuasive when your entire industry is built around convincing people to watch your advertisements.

Advertising would also play a large amount in determining the outcome.

It already does, and not just in initiatives. Direct democracy is not a panacea, but it would remove one of the significant roadblocks to addressing the problem of corruption and undue influence in politics.

[davekinkead]

Direct democracy will never work in a complex system. Having a 300 million person committee is about as close to decision making disaster as you can get.

But direct democracy is still the answer IMO. What needs to change first however, is for decision making to become more decentralised - as low as a given problem will allow it.

You can't expect everyone to be informed about all issues (govt has consistently demonstrated that even they can't stay on top of the laws they create). But you can expect people to be informed about the immediate issues that affect them. Most issues are local or regional ones & very few need to be national or international.

Even without direct democracy, decentralising political power whenever possible is a very good thing.