> legislation would likely move more quickly

I tend to think the slow pace is a feature not a bug. Could you imagine if something like Roe v Wade was flip flopping every 4 years on political whims?

That said, I do think a modern democracy should have more frequent digital voting abilities perhaps on a policy level. Voting for a person you hope will represent you, it’s a decent concept when you lack technology but as we know it’s heavily flawed as well. I don’t quite understand how we can build something like Bitcoin but can’t solve digital voting in a way that’s not constantly under threat of hacking/some Evil manufacturer etc.

The United States has a mechanism for slow-moving policy; the Constitution.

That doesn't mean we can't have other mechanisms for policy that can be more nimble, local, or "temporary" (for better or worse).

Tech policy is the best example of legislation that can't keep up with reality on the ground. (subject to corruption from monied interests, of course)

Does tech legislation need to be kept up more quickly? I really like the default being no regulation and filling in where needed. It’s reactive by nature. I don’t know what broad legislation would have been put in place proactively to help tech be better governed (without specifying honing in on a specific business/industry after the fact).

I fear more of if the legislation process is too fast moving it become subject to mob mentality. Instead of #deletefacebook we may have gone straight to a knee jerk reaction of legislation that bans social media which I’m not sure I want to live in that world either.

In practice, first-past-the-post voting is dysfunctional bordering on evil, especially when combined with gerrymandering wherein politicians select their voters rather than vice-versa. The entire result set of this mess - two parties and their primaries - is deeply screwed up. The practical challenge (imo) is to explain alternatives concisely to voters who might want to modify how their voting system works. But there are now experiments going on here and there.

This also hinges on the ability to predict voting patterns based on residence, which is quite the insanity.

LVT wouldn't reduce mortgage or rent prices, but what WOULD reduce them is eliminating property taxes. and that's easier to do if you can offset it with another more efficient tax, like LVT.

https://clayshentrup.medium.com/does-a-land-value-tax-have-z...

approval voting is also great.

For your 1st point I had to google "Approval voting" : it's the Condorcet method, it seems...

Why bother improving a method that is inherently flawed? You can chose 50 candidates but they are all stupid and corrupt that makes no difference.

Why not make the system more robust and go with liquid democracy [1] ? (yes, I know, many technical/security challenges to overcome, first)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy

Because Condorcet is still better than nearly all implementations of first past the post. But I think the commenter is getting at instant runoff voting methods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

There is a comparison between these three systems in the Condorcet wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Comparison_wi...

None are perfect but IRV is in use and effective. Tactical voting is still an option but at scale either obvious or difficult to organize without being obvious.