Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs

Re:Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs by Aloisius on Thursday November 10, 2011 @05:55PM (#3222302)

Oh yes, because all the direct democracy systems that have been created have worked so well. You know what's worse than voting for representatives? Voting directly on dozens of bills that are so complicated that, unless you don't have a full time job, you have to rely on a bunch of summaries written by biased parties to interpret.

My favorite trick which happened in my city is having two bills that look nearly identical, except one looks better (more savings, more jobs, more whatever), but is actually illegal and will inevitably be struck down by the courts. The illegal one has a supersede clause in it so that if both are voted in, it undos the other, but since it'll be struck down for being illegal, nothing will actually change.

As someone whose state, city and county have implemented direct democracy, I can tell you it sucks. I'd rather have no laws passed then them passed directly via an uninformed electorate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs by zokier on Thursday November 10, 2011 @07:01PM (#3222594)

"I want to vote on some stuff directly and let somebody else vote for me on stuff i dont care about." (emphasis mine)

The key for successful direct democracy is encouraging delegation of decision making.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet voting: Exactly what the 99% needs by alttag on Thursday November 10, 2011 @06:29PM (#3222456)

Amen. As a former elected official, few things in government would scare me more than direct democracy subject to the whim of media campaigns and sound bytes. In my best Tommy Lee Jones voice: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." Or maybe the line attributed to Winston Churchill: "The best argument against democracy is a 10-minute conversation with the average voter."

[ Parent | on HN ]