[sidlls]

I don't want direct democracy: the problem of voting shenanigans and corruption just expands from a known set of elected officials who vote on laws to...everyone. Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.

[htag]

The argument that people aren't to be trusted with a more direct democracy always falls flat to me. The alternative is power concentrated to a few people which introduces a risk for developing a ruling class, an aristocracy, or plutocracy. Arguing against direct democracy feels elitist, like only certain people should be trusted with actual power.

The truth is half of the population is dumber than the average, but the other half is smarter than average. Groups of people are susceptible to bias just like individuals. At least when people vote we know they are considering their own interests.

[vintermann]

Smart and dumb is the wrong way to think about it. The important thing is that people want different things, there are real conflicts of interest.

And moreover, we can't trust each other fully. We can try to aspire to it, but none of us can honestly say we just want what's best for everyone.

Just because someone is smarter than you by some measure, doesn't mean you're better off letting them rule you.

[htag]

My comment on intelligence was directly in response to my parent comment's quote "Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright"

> We can try to aspire to it, but none of us can honestly say we just want what's best for everyone.

This is exactly why having anything approaching a ruling class is a large hazard to avoid. Intermediate steps between citizens voting and power being executed are an attack area for people with selfish interests to inject themselves.

[kortilla]

I don’t want direct democracy deciding specific environmental regulations. Some things need to be done by appointed experts.

Yes it’s “elitist”, but it’s the equivalent of expecting someone qualified to perform a heart surgery rather than a rando off the street.

[vintermann]

A "direct" democracy should be perfectly capable of calling in expert opinion, if they decide that a question isn't really political. But which questions are political, is itself a political question.

(You do need the random lottery version of DD, sortition, rather than the everyone gets to vote on everything type).

[uncletammy]

> Aside from that, people in aggregate just aren't that bright: I don't want them making decisions much more substantial than what they'll have for dinner, much less voting on issues that affect me.

If you evaluate it on a longer timeline, people achieve a greater political intelligence because of increased voter participation and a quicker policy feedback loop.

Yeah, collectively, humans are still idiots. That being said, we do have a decent amount of technological promise and maybe just enough idealism in our blood to sustain the species. It's probably worth a try.

[fomine3]

> If you evaluate it on a longer timeline, people achieve a greater political intelligence because of increased voter participation and a quicker policy feedback loop.

Similar idealism was expected before everyone use Internet. Internet would make everyone smart. Now we can see current awful situation.

[seer]

I mean we don’t really have to imagine - we can analyze how direct democracies perform in real life.

They apparently do have their own problems and pressures that need to be balanced, but that’s why we don’t just say everyone can decide anything, but with some rules and regulations I really think it can work … I mean it seems to *be* working - just analyze Switzerland.

There is still a need for an Environmental Protection Agency, an Anti Corruption agency, a Police etc, but it seems much closer to the ideal of what a democratic society should look like than what I can see in my own country.

I’ve always thought why not try that out, sure there would be some blunders, but it would be made by us, ourselves, so we can always revisit, fix and learn.

[eastbound]

> people in aggregate just aren't that bright

The premise of Humanism is that people should decide for their own future.

It also means we won’t hide the bible in Latin and we’ll translate it in current languages; In other words we’ll educate people. If you don’t trust people, that means school is failing, but remember that we’ve invented democracy in the 1700 across the world, when schools weren’t briliant either. And it was a much better system than anything else. And it outran any other system ever.

Maybe you are not in favour of democracy. Many people support despotism because they think [place any way to choose leaders] will be better.

[sidlls]

We didn’t invent democracy in the US: it has been around since at least Ancient Greece, and before then, too. I am opposed to direct democracy and am absolutely fine with representative/republican democracy.