(May 22, 2015 at 7:15 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: "representatives" would be contrary to direct democracy, although you could have a system of delegates (and in most DD systems, delegates are usually rotated in and out, they're not elected ... every citizen would have an obligation to be a delegate at some point, much like we have a jury duty obligation).Sorry, I used the wrong word: 'delegates' is right. The problem I was trying to highlight is that delegate-self-interest can cause corruption
Quote:But in a hybrid system, I suppose we could have some aspects of both representative and direct democracy (which may be the most functional of all the alternatives).Sorry, I sent you off down the garden path: I'm not talking about a hybrid system, I'm talking about a system where 'all interested parties' take a democratic group decision on 'everything' and then a sub-set of that group act on the decision. That's what I understand as 'direct democracy'.
Quote:There's many problems inherent in both representative and direct democracy, and to date, I'm not aware of any advanced society that has been able to find the perfect mix. So IMO I think we need experimentation (but it takes a lot of work and activism just to get the space and resources needed to experiment).I agree, sort of. I would prefer to hold off until we've managed to get more of 1, 3 & 5. In the meantime, maybe some of the more socio-politically progressive nations might take that sort of step and provide some well needed R&D.
Sum ergo sum
