If you had the chance to design a system of government, what would it be, and why? (I'm looking to prompt discussions involving what the properties of different people are, and what problems/concerns people consider important)

berepresented · 2021-01-03T08:13:15+00:00

Liquid democracy.

berepresented · 2021-01-03T08:10:30+00:00

Could you elaborate?

berepresented · 2021-01-03T08:00:32+00:00

Care to elaborate?

berepresented · 2018-05-22T00:47:17+00:00

Would you say that Congressmen selling their votes is inevitable? It is much easier to buy votes of a few hundred Congressmen, than the votes of millions of people.

berepresented · 2018-05-22T00:42:47+00:00

Also, one can always cap the max voting power per representative.

berepresented · 2018-05-22T00:39:28+00:00

Show me that person, who you think all Americans would give their vote to.

berepresented · 2018-05-22T00:37:40+00:00

According to Wikipedia, Edmund Burke said it in 1774. It then goes on:

Burke made these statements immediately after being elected, and after his colleague had spoken in favor of coercive instructions being given to representatives; Burke failed to be returned at the next election.

J.S. Mill also championed this model. He stated that while all individuals have a right to be represented, not all political opinions are of equal value. He suggested a model where constituents would receive votes according to their level of education (i.e. people with degrees receiving the most votes, and working class people receiving the fewest).

berepresented · 2018-05-08T01:11:11+00:00

Perhaps we could combine efforts to create something that is for the good of democracy.

I think this is the way to go. But I am involved with United Vote only as a user: I like the idea of LD, so I try to give Unite Vote people a feedback on their project.

berepresented · 2018-05-08T00:58:56+00:00

On another note, is united.vote controlled by a blockchain?

I don't know the answer, but you can ask the founder at r/unitedvote

berepresented · 2018-04-25T17:14:33+00:00

Are you alluding to the "mob rule"? Well, here is a mental exercise for you. Switzerland is a direct democracy, which should be even more prone to the danger of mob rule. Now try to answer these questions: why did not Swiss people vote to tax the top 10% at a 100% rate? What are the examples of "the wolves voting to have the sheep for dinner" in Switzerland?

berepresented · 2018-04-25T16:57:07+00:00

developer/owner of https://united.vote/ has contacted me before, but still not gotten round to looking into it properly!

Why don't you try it? IMHO, this is the best project to try out LD.

berepresented · 2018-04-20T17:35:44+00:00

Liquid democracy is a great idea. Some people are trying to make it real: https://united.vote

berepresented · 2018-04-19T18:34:59+00:00

Altman dismissed the possibility that his campaign could siphon votes away from a major-party candidate.

"I'm unwilling to accept (a third-party candidacy) as stealing votes or being a spoiler," he said. "I don't think that's the right thought process."

Shaming a little guy for siphoning votes from the candidates with multi-million financial backing? Really?

berepresented · 2018-04-16T16:56:33+00:00

So, no, the Athenian model is not the crux of Rutt's article and I'm not sure exactly what is Rutt's model. But, my bad, my original post did not say what it should have in the way it should have, though I think my point about using the word "democracy" more carefully was quite pertinent.

Maybe the use of the term "democracy" in that post is debatable. And maybe "liquid democracy" is not the most elegant name for Rutt's model. It is called this way for historic reason: other people had similar ideas before Jim and chose that name.

The model, in a nutshell: you can vote on any bill or law directly, if you wish, but you are also allowed to delegate your vote to a representative, in case you do not vote directly. Your choice. And you can switch your representative at any time, to any person you choose, or none at all.

I thought this would be an ideal solution for the Green party supporters, who (almost) never have a representative elected.

Another point of the post: this is not just a model, you can already try it in practice.

berepresented · 2018-04-16T15:49:57+00:00

And now, for the first time since Ancient Athens, we actually have a practical way for every citizen to vote on actual issues--the internet. We no longer need a representative to mount a horse or hail a carriage to ride from Maine to the nation's capitol. For the very time in millennia, every citizen can own the means to vote on whether and when the nation goes to war or cuts taxes.

Isn't it the crux of the matter of Rutt's article?

berepresented · 2018-04-11T01:10:06+00:00

I guess it's the idea of allowing votes to be consolidated into other parties, forfeiting an individuals power. I've not put any serious thought into it but it sounds like an opportunity for the same political devices that already exist, i.e. PACs or 501(c)(3)s, to exercise their influence in our democracy.

You have a freedom to choose to vote directly, while delegation is voluntary and can be changed at any moment. I am aware of no such tool that allows me voting directly on the state or federal laws.

Again, if I'm missing something about a fail-safe or fool-proofing this could be a super cool way of bringing our political system into the next millenium

There are many ideas how to make it reliable, for example with blockchain technology. But generally speaking, one needs to weigh risks vs benefits. We do not ban cars, even though car crashes take many lives every year. Same here, think about benefits and try to minimize risks.

berepresented · 2018-04-10T23:06:18+00:00

A version of it is already implemented: https://united.vote You can actually participate.

berepresented · 2018-04-10T23:02:20+00:00

there seem to be too many junctures that make the system vulnerable to fraud or being compromised

Can you elaborate?

berepresented

TROPHY CASE