[throwaway_1224]

I think the state of democracy in the "factory bamboozling" era is such that we need a system that reflects direct voter preferences less, not more.

The trick is coming up with a system that diverges towards the interest of the masses, rather than the elites or the corrupt or the foreign. Basically, the system must get the voters' preferences wrong, but get them wrong right.

This is really akin to the nature of representative democracy. Elected leaders manage the voters' interest rather than always doing what is polling better on that day. It's obviously a tricky task, but it's the hallmark of the best-functioning democracies.

Right now we're about as far from the goal as we've ever been. Our systems have been hacked and we don't have an effective counter.

[int_19h]

This is a very long-winded way to say that democracy is a bad idea if it's not just for show.

[throwaway_1224]

"Just for show" would be foregone conclusion elections like Russia's or ignored elections like Venezuela's. Voters must still be central to the system and get the final say for it to be democratic.

The system just needs to be wiser and more resilient. For instance, the Electoral College was originally intended to be more than a bunch of sworn minions. In Europe, many parliamentary democracies have strong party infrastructures that prevent their takeover by "memetic" forces. There are endless possible improvements.

[cogman10]

What we need, IMO, is direct legislation. Many states have this and I think federally having the ability to put up and vote on a bill would do a lot to correct many of the issues we currently face.

Barring that, RCV would do wonders for the current political ecosystem.

[exmadscientist]

The direct legislation initiatives we just had here in WA were a total crapshow and I hope we never see their like again. They got tarred with the same brush because they came from the same sponsor (which is somewhat reasonable), even though they were not all equally popular or even sane. Then some were written in the negative and some were written in the positive, so it was very difficult to figure out what you were actually voting for. And one of the special interest groups figured out their favorite position was "all no", which is really easy to advertise, even if many voters in that block would have actually preferred yes on one of the initiatives.

And of course the Legislature had gone in and muddled with them even before they made the ballot (which, to be fair, is explicitly the Legislature's job in the WA initiative system, but it didn't help the confusion).

It was not a pretty election. I am convinced that direct democracy is not the answer, and that was with just four relatively inconsequential initiatives.

[valiant55]

We should do away with voting and select our representatives randomly, similar to jury duty. We'd need a society that places value on civil service and is better educated and willing to listen to experts to hash out legislation.

Elections are only good for finding the most popular candidate instead of the most qualified for office. Keep terms medium length (e.g. four years) and you'll have people focus on the greater good instead of personal benefit because at the end of their term they have to live in the society they helped build.

[em-bee]

what i like about your idea is that it makes everyone a potential candidate. and i think rather than randomness, that that is really the key. don't allow any candidates at all, but allow every voter to select a number of people they would like to see elected from the whole population. no candidates, no promotion of certain people, ..., just vote for the people that you believe are best suited. now this still favors more popular people who are more visible in the public, but it doesn't limit the choices to self-selected candidates.