[basisword]

>> that does not lend itself to be democratic, because it is way longer than most people's attention span

The attention span of the general public _shouldn't_ matter. That's why we elect politicians.

[forgetfulness]

That could still be democratic in principle if it weren’t for lobbyists

If legislative processes are so drawn out and complex that no more than a handful of ordinary citizens could keep track of them, the advantage that paid lobbyists have over the public is enormous

[saubeidl]

That's where Unions and NGOs come in. Their job is to be lobbyists for the people, against corporate power.

[Xelbair]

Is the process democratic if citizen's opinions are irrelevant?

No matter who's in charge, no matter the election results, no matter the protests - the same style of legislation is pushed.

and once something's in it is almost impossible to remove.

[iso1631]

That describes pretty much every democratic government in the world, from the USA to New Zealand

[graemep]

> The attention span of the general public _shouldn't_ matter. That's why we elect politicians.

It would work if we could elect politicians who were both competent and trustworthy.

Of course that would require successfully electing people who are competent about a broad range of issues, able to see through well funded and clever lobbying, unblinded by ideology, and able to resist pressure.