this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2023
4 points (100.0% liked)

chat

9 readers
1 users here now

Have a fun conversation about anything that is on your mind. Ask a question or start a conversation about almost anything you desire. Make some friends in the process. Whether it's advice, AMAs, how your day is going, or a question that's at the back of your mind, it can probably go here. **Join us on our Matrix chat!** https://matrix.to/#/#m_chat:matrix.org

founded 2 years ago
4
Would you vote for a politician that used online voting software to determine the stance they should take on every issue? Would love to hear your thoughts and suggestions. (kbin.social)
submitted 2 years ago by Arotrios@kbin.social to c/chat@kbin.social
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've been thinking a great deal on systems that would help enable direct democracy, something I feel is vital in our increasingly centralized and polarized political world. In my eyes, votes are the eyes of the country - they are the best way for a governmental system to understand the needs of its populace.

A lot of that has gotten lost in our representative republics, none of which are true democracies, which in the past have been too unwieldy to implement after the population reaches a certain point.

However, now we have the technology to enable direct democracy, pretty easily too. If we had a politician with the will and the right system to implement it, I could see it being revolutionary if it were copied on a wider scale.

Some caveats

  1. The voting system is secure and only open to the politician's constituents

  2. The voting system allows commentary with your vote

  3. Votes are held for every piece of legislation

  4. There would be a submission form for constituents to directly submit proposed legislation for review by the politician

  5. Proposed legislation is published well ahead of the vote

  6. The system provides an auditable paper trail, but personal anonymity in the detail of the results

Would love to get other folks opinions on this, both from a technical and political perspective.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No - because there's no need for politician then, is there?

Part of a good politician's job is to try an take the often conflicting demands of their consitutents, e.g "better services", "lower taxes", "no debt please" or "an end to global climate change - but no inconvenience for me please" and try to shape them into a consistent, workable set of policies. They should also try to lead to an extent - being a person who explains positions, trade-offs and up-coming unplreasant truths that the electorate need to think about.

Yes, this is an idealistic view - but politicians like that do exist.

A politician who simply says: "You want that? we'll do that" based on a never-ending series of referenda isn't much use it anyone.

[โ€“] Arotrios@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

I hear you, and these are good points. I was looking to strike a middle ground where the leadership of the politician could still be in play, but they'd be provided with dynamic voter input that would guide their decisions in a more democratic manner. Right now, particularly in the US, politicians only pay attention to their voters at election time, and only to those who help them win, and they can only win with the money that those who want influence over the politician donate. However, if instead of relying on campaign funds, they had a tool to keep in synch with their voters more effectively, it could blunt the power of wealthy individuals to corrupt the democratic process.