Direct Democracy?

[Minimalist]

I had mentioned direct voting on issues at the "local" level, more referendum voting at the municipal and state level, and the ability to hold recall elections across the board (including congress),

That probably sounds good in theory but the reality - which we have here in AZ - is something quite different.  You don't get rid of special interests by cloaking them in populist rhetoric.

Every year there are 6-8 pieces of shit usually sponsored by some business group looking for a break.  What passes for reasoned debate are highway signs with such messages as:

"Yes on 205"  or "No on 205."  If someone was particularly interested they could find out what "205" was all about. 

Here is a case study on Arizona Prop. 200 from 2008.  This was a measure to override the legislature which had shut down the Pay Day loan - a particularly vile form of usury which hammered low-income people most. 

http://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Payday_Lo...%282008%29

You will not, I hope, be surprised by this:

Donors to Proposition 200

By the end of July, supporters of Prop. 200 had given about $8.7 million to a campaign committee organized to promote the initiative. The Arizona Republic reported that "nearly every cent...has been donated by - guess who? - a trade group representing payday lenders: the Arizona Community Financial Services Association."[8]

This is not an ancient city state like Athens or Rome where citizens could attend meetings of the local assemblies if they wished.  We are far too spread out for that.  And even if we were, one needs to remember the words of Niccolo Machiavelli:

Those who have found themselves witnesses of the deliberations of men have observed, and still observe, how often the opinions of men are erroneous; which many times, if they are not decided by very excellent men, are contrary to all truth. And because excellent men in corrupt Republics ((especially in quiet times)) are frowned upon both from envy and from other reasons of ambition, it follows that a common deception (error) is judged good, or it is put forward by men who want favors more readily for themselves than for the general good.


The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy, II: XXII

I have to agree with Nick.

[nihilistcat]

I had mentioned direct voting on issues at the "local" level, more referendum voting at the municipal and state level, and the ability to hold recall elections across the board (including congress),

That probably sounds good in theory but the reality - which we have here in AZ - is something quite different.  You don't get rid of special interests by cloaking them in populist rhetoric.

Every year there are 6-8 pieces of shit usually sponsored by some business group looking for a break.  What passes for reasoned debate are highway signs with such messages as:

"Yes on 205"  or "No on 205."  If someone was particularly interested they could find out what "205" was all about. 

Here is a case study on Arizona Prop. 200 from 2008.  This was a measure to override the legislature which had shut down the Pay Day loan - a particularly vile form of usury which hammered low-income people most. 

http://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Payday_Lo...%282008%29

You will not, I hope, be surprised by this:

Donors to Proposition 200

By the end of July, supporters of Prop. 200 had given about $8.7 million to a campaign committee organized to promote the initiative. The Arizona Republic reported that "nearly every cent...has been donated by - guess who? - a trade group representing payday lenders: the Arizona Community Financial Services Association."[8]

This is not an ancient city state like Athens or Rome where citizens could attend meetings of the local assemblies if they wished.  We are far too spread out for that.  And even if we were, one needs to remember the words of Niccolo Machiavelli:

Those who have found themselves witnesses of the deliberations of men have observed, and still observe, how often the opinions of men are erroneous; which many times, if they are not decided by very excellent men, are contrary to all truth. And because excellent men in corrupt Republics ((especially in quiet times)) are frowned upon both from envy and from other reasons of ambition, it follows that a common deception (error) is judged good, or it is put forward by men who want favors more readily for themselves than for the general good.


The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy, II: XXII

I have to agree with Nick.

These are definitely excellent points. The modern "far" left tends to fetishize the idea of direct democracy, forgetting its implications. For example, it seems highly likely that under a direct democratic political system, institutions of racism in the south (like Jim Crow) would have been prolonged (it was national action adverse to the desires of southern states, enforced by a federalized national guard, which brought about desegregation). 

On the other hand, many poor urban communities of color are really disenfranchised. They have no clout in our political system, and so it may be possible to enhance their influence by introducing some aspects of direct democracy at the grassroots level (although past attempts at this haven't been very promising). Moreover, the ability to recall politicians, while I do think it's an important thing to have, will not by itself solve our problems (remember they couldn't even vote out Scott Walker in Wisconsin when they held recall elections, even though he was in the process of eviscerating collective bargaining rights). 

In general, it seems, whatever form of democracy we have, it will always be subservient to our culture. In a country where a sizable portion of its citizens don't even believe in biological evolution or global warming, we definitely have a lot more work to do

[Minimalist]

Yup.

[abaris]

Thoughts?

Look up the Swiss system. As far as I know it's the only country that has ballots about nearly everything. The results are a mixed bag. Direct democracy was directly responsible for women not being allowed to vote until the 80ies or even 90ies in certain cantons.

[nihilistcat]

Thoughts?

Look up the Swiss system. As far as I know it's the only country that has ballots about nearly everything. The results are a mixed bag. Direct democracy was directly responsible for women not being allowed to vote until the 80ies or even 90ies in certain cantons.

The Swiss system is arguably the most successful example of direct democracy in history (and I have studied the Swiss system to some extent). But yeah there can be undesirable outcomes, depending on how you structure the system. In a constitutional democracy, questions involving civil rights should never be subjected to democratic decision making. Our Bill of Rights is decidedly an undemocratic document. It is designed to protect the rights of the minority against a tyranny of the majority. And of course designation of majority status is not necessarily a numerical designation (it's all about which class holds the power). 

But as of late, in its larger cities, the Swiss have been moving away from direct democracy. This is likely because of a large influx of new immigrants into its larger cities (Swiss culture has many attributes that would be considered offensive to Americans, like they are fairly racist and sexist). 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not a fan of direct democracy, as wisdom is not additive.  Its maximum is that of the wisest person in a particular group.  Adding naughts will never produce a sum.

Boru

[nihilistcat]

Not a fan of direct democracy, as wisdom is not additive.  Its maximum is that of the wisest person in a particular group.  Adding naughts will never produce a sum.

Boru

I was all into this shit back in the occupy days (I was pretty heavily involved here in NYC). My little affinity group was centered on finding ways to make consensus decision making work. In my experience, Americans are too individualistic for pure consensus to work.

However, I did read studies that show consensus decision making groups can produce better decisions than the most intelligent and qualified member of the group (making the decision independently), but these studies were in the context of consensus decision making at companies, where you have an element of authoritarianism to keep the group focused and civilized (e.g. if you're the disruptive type who can't play well with others, you get fired).

So while wisdom may not be additive, having diverse input in group decision making really does help, because often even the most intelligent member of the group will lack experiences that other group members bring to the table, which are relevant in the context of the issue being decided. You could have a PhD in physics from the research department at the table, making decisions germane to the research group, but he or she may have no experience with the administrative side of things. So having an administrative clerk at the table will be helpful (because no matter how great your work product, if you don't know how to get it through the red tape efficiently, you may miss a deadline or some shit). 

Point is, there's really no linear rule that holds true in all cases, except a few laws of nature like entropy or whatever (although humans really like nice and neat sounding bright line rules)

Like, sometimes we need to raise taxes (like now), sometimes we need to lower taxes. Sometimes we need fiscal discipline, sometimes we need a Keynesian stimulus. Connecting ideology or one line maxims to things as fluid and non-linear as decision making or economics or whatever ... really limits our thinking.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Point is, there's really no linear rule that holds true in all cases, except a few laws of nature like entropy or whatever (although humans really like nice and neat sounding bright line rules) Point is, there's really no linear rule that holds true in all cases, except a few laws of nature like entropy or whatever (although humans really like nice and neat sounding bright line rules) Point is, there's really no linear rule that holds true in all cases, except a few laws of nature like entropy or whatever (although humans really like nice and neat sounding bright line rules)
I was all into this shit back in the occupy days (I was pretty heavily involved here in NYC). My little affinity group was centered on finding ways to make consensus decision making work. In my experience, Americans are too individualistic for pure consensus to work.

I honestly can't speak to that - my experience of trying to work with Americans is highly limited

However, I did read studies that show consensus decision making groups can produce better decisions than the most intelligent and qualified member of the group (making the decision independently), but these studies were in the context of consensus decision making at companies, where you have an element of authoritarianism to keep the group focused and civilized (e.g. if you're the disruptive type who can't play well with others, you get fired).

 
I'd want to see the studies, naturally.  I'm unsure how one would test whether a decision is 'better'.


 

So while wisdom may not be additive, having diverse input in group decision making really does help,

I remain unconvinced that there even is such a thing as 'group decision making', in any practical sense.  People naturally gravitate towards leadership types and - while I agree that input in vital in making decisions - in practical terms, decisions are made by individuals, not groups.

because often even the most intelligent member of the group will lack experiences that other group members bring to the table, which are relevant in the context of the issue being decided. You could have a PhD in physics from the research department at the table, making decisions germane to the research group, but he or she may have no experience with the administrative side of things. So having an administrative clerk at the table will be helpful (because no matter how great your work product, if you don't know how to get it through the red tape efficiently, you may miss a deadline or some shit). 

Good points, but that's not really decision making is it?  When I say that decisions are arrived at by individuals as opposed to groups, I didn't mean to give the picture that decision-makers sit in alabaster towers and make decisions ex cathedra without input or advice.  Clearly, no one EVER comes to a sensible decision without intelligence, experience, advice, or a combination thereof (and sometimes not even then).  But ultimately, what appears to be a group decision is one person making the decision and the rest of the group acquiescing.


 

Point is, there's really no linear rule that holds true in all cases, except a few laws of nature like entropy or whatever (although humans really like nice and neat sounding bright line rules)

I agree entirely.


 

Like, sometimes we need to raise taxes (like now), sometimes we need to lower taxes. Sometimes we need fiscal discipline, sometimes we need a Keynesian stimulus. Connecting ideology or one line maxims to things as fluid and non-linear as decision making or economics or whatever ... really limits our thinking.

I'm good with that as well.
Boru

[jesus_wept]

The idea scares the hell out of me. It's bad enough that idiots get to vote for President. Imagine idiots voting whether or not we should invade North Korea. Forget it.

Whereas, in the UK we get dragged into war by the Americans and nobody wants it.

[abaris]

The idea scares the hell out of me. It's bad enough that idiots get to vote for President. Imagine idiots voting whether or not we should invade North Korea. Forget it.

Whereas, in the UK we get dragged into war by the Americans and nobody wants it.

Well, special relationship and all that.

And the last election results speak for a majority enjoying to be butt raped.