Real democracy

[Macoleco]

Democracy has two meanings: the real one, and the socially accepted one. Voting every 4 years, and expecting a group of “representatives” to decide what is best for you is not democracy. At best it is a “guided democracy”, meaning no real changes on policies occur regardless of who you choose as president. Biden himself said it.

So in order to achieve real democracy, we need to start at a municipal level. I think that humans by nature feel more attached to what immediate surrounds them and small groups. For example, in a tribe of 50 people, everyone matters and so does their opinion.

So I propose to use the internet and create a voting system where everyone in a community (hundreds to thousands of people) can vote regularly for every decision taken, from small to big. For example, from voting for the best design of a bus stop, to the development of new infrastructure. Access to information such as budget and how it is spent should also be displayed.

Now we also need to take decisions at a national level which require technical knowledge, such as economy. For this I propose two options: every community creates a group of certified experts who arrive to an agreement, and then a national decision is taken. Or every certified expert around the nation has the right to vote.

People who lack the required knowledge can’t vote as it might me detrimental to the country. Nonetheless, the effort to educate everyone through information available on the internet, open classes, conferences, etc., should also be available.

I think this system should be implemented somewhere in a developed country, such as Finalnd or Sweden, in a small community (hundreds to thousands of people) as an experiment, and see how it goes. I would expect fierce resistance from groups of power.

[Rev. Rye]

So, how do we make sure that these voting systems can't be exploited to flood the polls with votes for a certain option?

And how do we determine who actually has the required knowledge to actually vote?

[Macoleco]

So, how do we make sure that these voting systems can't be exploited to flood the polls with votes for a certain option?

And how do we determine who actually has the required knowledge to actually vote?

Avoiding bots in an online voting system is vital. In some countries voting is already made online so I’m sure there are ways to prevent it. Cyber security exists for a reason.

As for who can vote, when it comes to general decisions anyone above 18. When it comes to technical topics, those with university degree and proven experience.

[vulcanlogician]

It would be interesting to see what results your proposed experiment would yield. That would be the final word on whether something could work or not.

Now we also need to take decisions at a national level which require technical knowledge, such as economy. For this I propose two options: every community creates a group of certified experts who arrive to an agreement, and then a national decision is taken.

But how is this different from representative democracy?

Or every certified expert around the nation has the right to vote.

This sounds like an idea I had years ago as a kind of intermediary between Platonic guardians and representative democracy. The idea was roughly, alongside our congress, we'd have something called "The House of Guardians." This legislative body would consist of educated experts on the things they were voting on. Climate scientists, for instance, would vote on bills that addressed Global Warming, etc. And any bill that passed from the committee of experts would still have to make it through the house and senate.

The biggest difference with the house of Guardians and regular congress would be that one must qualify to be on the ballot by demonstrating academic excellence in the given field that they are running for. The house of guardians would be chopped up into scientists, economists and the like.

Anyway, your idea reminded me of that system I formulated long ago. I still think it's an okay idea. Needs to be worked out though.

***

As for unbridled democracy, I have high hopes for it. But in California they've had mixed results trying this (even in moderate form). Turns out, some analysts hypothesize, the general public is prone to whim and doesn't consistently make responsible decisions.

---

And how do we determine who actually has the required knowledge to actually vote?

This is a concern I had. It may end up being that the process for determining who has the requisite knowledge becomes some sham, manipulated by those who want to lock in their own nomination.

[The Grand Nudger]

It sounds like the kind of regime I'd impose militarily when I didn't trust people to make good political decisions. I'd actually be surprised if it didn't work better than our current system, so long as we're narrowly defining work as "get the bridge built". If working includes keeping people from throwing molotov cocktails at you, probably a no go.

Fuedalism is, in practice, a group of certified experts making decisions for their local community - for example. "Those with university degrees and proven experience" is a pipeline for wealthy children, and those wealthy children will keep it that way, you betcha. Something that I think is crucial to democracy, that we don't always put out front or shine positive light on - is that it's not really democracy unless you have the ability to fuck it all up, intentionally, because that's the will of the people. I'm not fond of it, but there it is. It's not really democracy unless the dumbest goobers vote is worth the same as the smartest man alive.

[Rev. Rye]

As for unbridled democracy, I have high hopes for it. But in California they've had mixed results trying this (even in moderate form). Turns out, some analysts hypothesize, the general public is prone to whim and doesn't consistently make responsible decisions.

Hell, I've seen at least three Internet Historian videos focused specifically on contests/polls that wound up being ruined by idiots on the Internet doing everything in their power to derail them. Hopefully, a provision where a committee can separate the wheat from the chaff from the pool of nominees should help.

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean...fuck all polls? Here, hold this bottle for me while I get the fuel.

[vulcanlogician]

Fuedalism is, in practice, a group of certified experts [at winning wars] making decisions for their local community - for example. 

FTFY.

"Those with university degrees and proven experience" is a pipeline for wealthy children, and those wealthy children will keep it that way, you betcha.

True. And that's my main reservation. Both concerning Plato and with the OP's secondary "expert legislators" idea. In OP's case, I think they meant it as a counterbalance to all the "raw democracy" things they proposed.

In Plato's case, it's straight up "mistrust of the people." I disagree with Plato about democracy. He hates it. I think it's great. But (still) he has some criticisms that are worth paying attention to. And anyone who loves or lives in a democracy would do well to pay attention to its shortcomings. I see OP doing that to some extent, while promoting it in other ways. I kinda dig it, actually.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

While I object to the sort of elitist voting mentioned above, I think there should be some metric beyond age to determine who is allowed to vote ('warm body' democracies are a recipe for eventual disaster). Maybe something like this:

You step into the voting booth (or log into the voting website, whichever) and find that the computer has generated five basic civics questions for you to answer - nothing too esoteric, just the sort of thing sixth graders used to study.  Get them all right, and the machine unlocks so you can vote. Get even one wrong, and a cacophony of bells, klaxons and flashing red lights erupts, announcing to everyone within earshot that you, an adult human being, able to hold a job, drive a car, have romantic outings, etc, have just demonstrated that are too ignorant to have a voice in governing the State.

Provision could, of course, be made for the illiterate and for those whose first language is not the majority language of where they live.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Fuedalism is, in practice, a group of certified experts [at winning wars] making decisions for their local community - for example. 

FTFY.

They did quite a bit more than that - most were better at civil admin and agronomy than they were at winning wars - just ask the long list of dead and deposed kings.  I suppose, though, that's the Bad Expertise™ - which begs another question already asked.  Since we're probably not thinking of any and all expertise being the right kind of expertise, we'll need a list. 

In Plato's case, it's straight up "mistrust of the people." I disagree with Plato about democracy. He hates it. I think it's great. But (still) he has some criticisms that are worth paying attention to. And anyone who loves or lives in a democracy would do well to pay attention to its shortcomings. I see OP doing that to some extent, while promoting it in other ways. I kinda dig it, actually.

I believe it may have been angrboda that once noticed I have a soft spot for technocratic facism.  That's what OP is describing.  I think it's probably a good idea from the standpoint of getting things done.  I only doubt it's ability to appeal to and motivate the seething masses of a nation.  That has implications for domestic stability - but also in their ability to fight of wars (bringing those feudal lords back, lol).  That's where democracy, even in a representative form, really shines, imo.