The most common criticisms of the concept seems to be "common people are stupid", "people would not have time to research political proposals" and "mob rule easily taking away basic rights". And I think its a fair criticism of the pure direct democracy. But why these flaws should imply that we need representatives? They are easily solvable without introducing them. In fact, the presence of representatives often does not solve these problems at all. Problem: Common people are stupid Solution: Differentiate vote weights based on education / test results / IQ etc (perhaps all of them).. Solves the problem without introducing unnecessary representative middlemen. Problem: People would not have time to research political proposals Solution: allow people to dedicate their vote on someone they trust - basically allowing for having representatives, but the difference is it would be only an option, and not a necessity, the default would be direct voting. And if you want, you can take your vote back and vote directly anytime you deem it necessary. Problem: Mob rule Solution: Constitution requiring more than 2/3 to change. Contrary to popular belief, its not the presence of representatives that protects minorities from mob rule in modern democracies. Majority would just vote their representatives and enforce their opinion over the representatives of the minority. Its Constitution, or laws enumerating basic rights that require quotas and more than simple majority of votes to change is what makes them less prone (not immune) to mob rule. And there is no reason why such laws could not also exist in a direct system. Basically electronic direct democracy with unequal merit and education based vote weights, possibility of voluntary representatives and constitutional higher law enumerating basic rights of all. I call this "constitutional direct geniocratic democracy". Thoughts?
I agree with you that represntatives are just superflous middlemen. It was a good idea when communication was slower but nowadays with computer and stuff, let's just skip that and do what was intended. At first glance and without thinking too deeply about it, your proposal with the IQ testing seems good. Altough I think it will be very hard to implement and people will get really pissed off. But yeah, why should the village idiots voice be heard as much as the wise man's? I'm also thinking of weighting votes based on how much you pay in taxes. I mean if you pay 1 USD and I pay 80 should you have as big a say as me on how to use that money? Coupled with a flat tax it might be rather easy to calculate the votes. But with a flat tax I think the rich people won't mind paying more if it will also give them more power. Just to spew out proposals here: What about requiring people to listen to a debate in which all sides participate before they can vote? That'd prevent uninformed people from just voting withouth knowing anything. I think certain things shouldn't even be up for the demos kratos to vote upon. Such as individual rights and that. That solves most things I believe. And preferable most of these decisions should be on a very decentralised level so that the laws etc. can be tailored at regional level.
This would never go in the USA. Several courts have already ruled that IQ testing is racist. http://www.politicalforum.com/race-...ers-nyfd-hire-minorities-who-failed-test.html
I used to consider myself a direct democracy proponent until I began realizing these very truths of the average voter lol. I agree. But wouldn't a more cost-effective and efficient way be to have some form of enlightened oligarchy? This would definitely be a good revision to current electoral systems at the very least. But institutionalised education doesn't necessarily imply openmindedness when confronted with an issue. How long would we allow for this sort of process? It seems exceptionally time consuming. And for something like warfare, or emergency provisions, fast decisions are needed. Exactly, this is still majority/mob rule. Whether it's 50% + 1, 66%, or even 99%. There will always be a minority in a case who will feel neglected or oppressed. This is an interesting concept. If you like this idea, I suggest reading some Alastair Reynolds. He is sci-fi, and has a population of people called the Demarchists who have neurological implants that allow them to vote on a variety of issues at any given time so it becomes a subconscious act. People who make better choice have more say with their vote(s).
How do you define the line in a direct democracy between group rights and individual rights? For example, would you force every group to use the language of one group to do all business and state matter? And how do you enforce minority rights, when even in the currently implemented European democracies, it is exactly the minority status that makes minority rights unenforceable? But, for a counter-example, look at our USA. If the USA was a direct democracy, then small places such as Rhode Island wouldn't even exist on the map, because some majority vote such as New York would have deleted them long ago. So, just as minority rights don't work because they are "minority", direct democracy can't work because it is "direct". (Unless "democracy" is in a euphemistic sense.)
More problems: Constitution is impotent. Legislators suffer no penalty if they violate it. Constitution is open to subjective interpretation. Legislators have incentives to use their office for personal gain. Constitution is interpreted and enforced by those it is intended to restrain. Democracy is mob rule, regardless of how you seek to restrain, refine, expand, or thin the mob. There is no such thing as a government that will not evolve in the way that is most conducive to the desires of whom the government is comprised, and those desires are never compatible with what is in the best interest of the people. The initiation of force is always wrong.
It's not a good idea to make the right to vote transferable to a representative (isn't the idea to do away with representatives?) - it opens the door for all sort of misuses and corrupt schemes.
A rule from democratic politics; you neither create nor solve problems for others arbitrarily. That's the beauty of theoretical democracy. You IQ test proposition could eliminate conservatives and they need freedom too. Full employment policy if agreed by society would do the trick to solve not only poverty and crime but also the micky mouse regressive monetary system, disconnected from the value of work.
