Personal spheres of influence and why direct democracy cannot work.

[Hooboy !!]

Ever since the Greeks emerged as a world power some 2,500 years ago, democracy has been considered to be the form of governance most closely associated with personal freedom and liberty. But, to what extent does democracy work?

To understand this problem there are two concepts that must be understood. The first is the personal sphere of influence and the second is democracy.

Personal sphere of influence

A sphere of influence is most often associated with a nation or state, but individuals also have a personal sphere of influence. The analogy of a pebble in a pond is often used to describe how a sphere of influence works. Influence extends out and away in ever expanding ripples. Personally, I think this is a poor example. A better example is that of gravity. The effect a body has on other bodies is directly proportionate to the size of the bodies and their proximity. Larger bodies exert more influence and the further away one is from the center or gravity, the low the influence.

As it applies to people, physical size actually does play a role, but it is not the only factor that defines a person's influence. Age, intelligence, skills, possessions, social alliances, etc. all contribute to a person's ability to influence the people, objects, or the environment around them. Geography or space also affects influence. Technology has to a great extent altered personal spheres of influence by allowing us to expand them to a global scale either through travel or through communication. Economic developments, such as capitalism, allow individuals to exert influence without having to even be physically present. But, technology and social developments cannot overcome the single most limiting factor in a person's sphere of influence and that is... their cognitive abilities.

It is of course possible for a person to have an influence on things and be completely unaware of it, but this would not be a deliberate manipulation or influence. The primary issue is simply, what are the limits of what any one person is capable of being aware of and actively participating in at one time. The human mind as real limitations on things like memory and tasks that can be managed at one time. Technology and social structures can be used to augment and expand these abilities, but technology and social structures work to dilute personal influence in much the same way that geography or space does. The further one is away from something, either literally or metaphorically, the less influence one has.

The sphere of influence then is unlike gravity in this respect. Personal influence does not influence everything around a person equally. Only those things that the person is aware of and actively trying to manipulate are affected. Though what frequently happens is that unintended consequences will affect a great many things.

Democracy

What happens when personal spheres of influence overlap? Very often, there is conflict. Competition of scarce resources, differing opinions, and priorities place individuals in conflict with each other. There are many ways of resolving these conflicts. One way is for the individual with the greater influence to simply disregard any other considerations and do as they please. Another way is through compromise and cooperation. Which way is “better”? That is a matter of opinion, but a universal goal of the vast majority of human beings is to live in peace and security. Human kind has developed a great many methods of conflict resolution so that they can peacefully coexist and promote a sense of security throughout the entire community. One way has been to form a system of social governance where decisions that affect everyone, or most everyone in the community, have some ability to participate in the decision making process. These are often referred to as democracies or republics (representative democracies).

In conjunction with free speech and a free press, democracies are great ways for every individual in a community to participate in the decision making process, by first learning about the issues, participating in any debate on the issues, and then ultimately casting a vote that is the decision.

Why Direct Democracies Fail

There are a number of reasons why a democracy would fail: limits on free speech, manipulation of the press (or distribution of information), voter fraud, etc… One very important and often overlooked reason though is voter apathy. Again, there are a number of reasons for voter apathy: feelings of despair, lack of faith in the system, lack of interest or sense of significance, etc…

What are the major causes of despair, lack of faith, and disinterest? Despair comes from feelings of helplessness or inability to exert influence. A lack of faith comes from being so far removed from the process that your confidence that when you do exert influence it will have an affect is low. And disinterest comes from simply being so far away from an issue that there the issue has little or no impact on the individual. All of these things are a function of the sphere of influence. There is only so many places a person can be at one time; only so much resources (material and social) that can be used as leverage; only so many things a person can concentrate on or give thought to; only so many things that will have a direct impact and therefore significant effect on the individual.

This is why we do not see any large scale direct democracies. Direct democracies do work on smaller scales, such as at the neighborhood level, community level, workgroup level, union level, even corporate level. But, there is a degree of scale in terms of number of individuals, complexity of issues, and geographical situation, where direct democracy simply fails.

[Preno]

First, you should have made clear what counts as direct democracies and what doesn't. Direct democracy does not necessarily mean that everybody votes on every issue, it only means that every representative's decisions can be overridden by the decisions of the electorate (whereas in parliamentarianism, the electorate has no way of influencing the decisions made by their representatives in the course of one term). Just so that we know what we're talking about.

Voter apathy stems from the fact that one realizes he has no influence over some matter. This is apparently a much worse phenomenon in parliamentarian systems than in direct democracies. If the person know they can only choose between 2-4 options, and they think they all suck, they are much more inclined to just stay home than if they have a guarantee that their vote carries some weight.

You didn't really describe how the supposed failure of direct democracy manifests itself, so I can't comment on that. But regardless of what you meant by the 'failure' of direct democracy, one must keep in mind the utter failure of parliamentarianism, as strikingly demonstrated by the current situation, where Democrats have basically been voted in to end the war in Iraq, yet they have proven themselves to be completely incapable of doing so. What exactly is the advantage of not being able to make sure that your representative actually represents you?

[Hooboy !!]

First, you should have made clear what counts as direct democracies and what doesn't. Direct democracy does not necessarily mean that everybody votes on every issue, it only means that every representative's decisions can be overridden by the decisions of the electorate (whereas in parliamentarianism, the electorate has no way of influencing the decisions made by their representatives in the course of one term). Just so that we know what we're talking about.
OK. By direct democracy, what I meant was that everyone participates (votes) on all matters that have a public impact. No representation. This does not mean that voters would have to vote on every mundane and trivial issue that comes up as a function of governance, like what color to paint the light poles. But, legislative issues, spending issues, constitutional issues, etc, voters would decide.

Voter apathy stems from the fact that one realizes he has no influence over some matter. This is apparently a much worse phenomenon in parliamentarian systems than in direct democracies. If the person know they can only choose between 2-4 options, and they think they all suck, they are much more inclined to just stay home than if they have a guarantee that their vote carries some weight.
If voters were more involved in the legislative process, then this would not be an issue.

You didn't really describe how the supposed failure of direct democracy manifests itself, so I can't comment on that.
Good point. By "failure" I mean "analysis paralysis", where the decision making process becomes so long and drawn out that it becomes impossible (or incredibly inefficient) to govern.

But regardless of what you meant by the 'failure' of direct democracy, one must keep in mind the utter failure of parliamentarianism, as strikingly demonstrated by the current situation, where Democrats have basically been voted in to end the war in Iraq, yet they have proven themselves to be completely incapable of doing so. What exactly is the advantage of not being able to make sure that your representative actually represents you?
I really wasn't interested in discussing parlimentarianism accept as possibly as a contrast to the alternative of direct democracy.

I see in your definition that it would be a kind of hybrid system where representatives would govern, but the voters would have the option of forcing a referendum. This is something that is possible today BTW, at least at the local and state levels. It may not be possible at the federal level. I am not sure. This leads to the question of whether or not it is feasible to have voter referendums at the national level and then relate this back to my original thesis regarding individual spheres of influence.

[Preno]

OK. By direct democracy, what I meant was that everyone participates (votes) on all matters that have a public impact. No representation. This does not mean that voters would have to vote on every mundane and trivial issue that comes up as a function of governance, like what color to paint the light poles. But, legislative issues, spending issues, constitutional issues, etc, voters would decide.The difference between direct democracy and representative democracy is not (in spite of what the latter's name might suggest) the use of representatives, but the nature of the representation. In a representative democracy, the representatives can make any decisions they want (once voted in), in a direct democracy, they are bound by the wishes of the people they represent (either by having an explicitly bound mandate, which would be fairly bothersome, or simply by being recallable and their decisions cancellable in lower-level referenda). Matters that have a public impact may be decided either directly by the people, which is the option you mention, or by their (directly-democratic) representatives, both cases being subsumed under the label of direct democracy.
If voters were more involved in the legislative process, then this would not be an issue.Well, precisely my point. The more chance of affecting the process they have, the less voter apathy there is.
Good point. By "failure" I mean "analysis paralysis", where the decision making process becomes so long and drawn out that it becomes impossible (or incredibly inefficient) to govern.Alright. So why would analysis paralysis ensue? Who would overanalyze, the voters? Why? And is there evidence of an analysis paralysis in Switzerland?
I really wasn't interested in discussing parlimentarianism accept as possibly as a contrast to the alternative of direct democracy.Indeed. The contrast lies in the fact that in the latter, decision-making is democratic, whereas in the former, it need not be, as demonstrated for example now in the U.S. If democracy is a desirable feature of a political system, then surely that makes parliamentarianism much less desirable than a direct democracy.

Discussing the shortcomings of direct democracy is fine, but one must first fully realize the basic shortcomings of indirect democracy.
I see in your definition that it would be a kind of hybrid system where representatives would govern, but the voters would have the option of forcing a referendum.Well, indeed. But if they act in contradiction to the desires of the people they represent, they get recalled, or their decisions get cancelled. Thus, we get the best of both world - efficiency (not everybody needs to approve every decision) and accountability (no more unfulfilled election promises).
This is something that is possible today BTW, at least at the local and state levels. It may not be possible at the federal level. I am not sure. This leads to the question of whether or not it is feasible to have voter referendums at the national level and then relate this back to my original thesis regarding individual spheres of influence.Well, if one was serious about implementing direct democracy, one could employ modern communication technology like in Estonia. There can easily be several referenda running at the same time over some period of time, so from the technological pov, it does not pose a problem. One could have an on-going statistic of votes, feedback on the representative's decisions (which, if too negative, would automatically trigger a cancel vote), and so on. This is absolutely feasible today, and as people would grow accustomed to making such decisions, then I think such a system could thrive.

As for spheres of influence, you talked about them, but I don't think you made some definite thesis of how they would negatively affect a possible direct democracy. I suppose you wanted to say that the people would not be interested in voting on matters that don't affect them. But that's perfectly fine, I think - if you don't care about the result, don't vote. If you do care, however, you should have every right to have a say in that decision.

[Hooboy !!]

The difference between direct democracy and representative democracy is not (in spite of what the latter's name might suggest) the use of representatives, but the nature of the representation. In a representative democracy, the representatives can make any decisions they want (once voted in), in a direct democracy, they are bound by the wishes of the people they represent (either by having an explicitly bound mandate, which would be fairly bothersome, or simply by being recallable and their decisions cancellable in lower-level referenda).
What you are describing is the electoral college. The reason this works is because they are voting on just one issue. Can you imagine how impossible it would be for an elected official to accurately represent their constintuency, even if they tried hard? It would be impossible, short of conducting surveys and polls on a regular basis for each and every issue. You might as well forego the representative altogether at that point.

Well, precisely my point. The more chance of affecting the process they have, the less voter apathy there is.
OK. Then you are agreeing that it is an issue of personal spheres of influence?

Alright. So why would analysis paralysis ensue? Who would overanalyze, the voters? Why? And is there evidence of an analysis paralysis in Switzerland?
Switzerland has a population just a little bigger than Arizona. I think you are missing the concept of scale that I am talking about.

This is absolutely feasible today, and as people would grow accustomed to making such decisions, then I think such a system could thrive.
Perhaps, but again, Estonia is pretty damn small.

[unrealist42]

So if it is just a matter of scale, why don't we just scale down?

Do we really need such vast political entities?

[Bonniedundee]

Direct democracy is the only real type of democracy, if you take democracy to mean actual majority rule, as has become painfully clear, representative "democracy" is only a pale shell of real democracy which degenerates into plutocratic oligarchy and special interest.

Preno sums up what direct democracy means very well.

Also for direct democracy to work it would have to radically decentralised with almost all decisions made at the local level and a those few higher up made by recallable representatives.

[Bonniedundee]

So if it is just a matter of scale, why don't we just scale down?

Do we really need such vast political entities?Exactly, direct democracy and decentralism go hand in hand.

It is right that direct democracy is absurd on a national level, but on the local level it works fine.

[coloradoatheist]

So if it is just a matter of scale, why don't we just scale down?

Do we really need such vast political entities?Exactly, direct democracy and decentralism go hand in hand.

It is right that direct democracy is absurd on a national level, but on the local level it works fine.

It can work on the local level as long as that level has controls that are set by the higher level, which we do in the US. Direct democracy leads to tyranny if it's not contained.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

It can work on the local level as long as that level has controls that are set by the higher level, which we do in the US. Direct democracy leads to tyranny if it's not contained.How so? There is no direct democracy around at the moment.

Representative "democracy" is around and leads to great tyranny, it can't be worse than this.

And the whole point of direct democracy is to devolve power to lowest level and place it in the hands of the individuals it concerns, controlling from above beats the point.

[coloradoatheist]

It can work on the local level as long as that level has controls that are set by the higher level, which we do in the US. Direct democracy leads to tyranny if it's not contained.How so? There is no direct democracy around at the moment.

Representative "democracy" is around and leads to great tyranny, it can't be worse than this.

And the whole point of direct democracy is to devolve power to lowest level and place it in the hands of the individuals it concerns, controlling from above beats the point.


Representative democracy can lead to tyranny and does, hence why tyranny of majorty is controlled by the limitation of govt in the Constitution.

Direct democracy is better and hence why the FF wanted a powerless federal govt but they also wanted the govt completely restrained.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Representative democracy can lead to tyranny and does, hence why tyranny of majorty is controlled by the limitation of govt in the Constitution. But then it leads to tyranny of the minority.

I'd rather have a tyranny of the majority than a minority one. At least there would be no ruling classes.

Direct democracy is better and hence why the FF wanted a powerless federal govt but they also wanted the govt completely restrained.
Except for Jefferson and Paine and a few other anti-federalists who wanted this?
You won't restrain a gov't with a constitution which is presided over by representative who mostly bow to the ruling classes and special interest, at least in direct democracy there would be no classes to control gov't and shape it in their way, you'd have to watch for anti-minority rulings rather than anti-majority ones like currently, and with radical decentralism even that would be a relatively mild danger at worst.

[Hooboy !!]

So if it is just a matter of scale, why don't we just scale down?

Do we really need such vast political entities?
Way to get right to the point.

Isn't this the goal of anarchists, to break societies down into more manageable chunks?

I think the question about size is very poignant. Are economies of scale that are realized worth the prices we have to pay for them?

[premjan]

Greek democracy was never a world power was it?

[Preno]

What you are describing is the electoral college. The reason this works is because they are voting on just one issue. Can you imagine how impossible it would be for an elected official to accurately represent their constintuency, even if they tried hard? It would be impossible, short of conducting surveys and polls on a regular basis for each and every issue. You might as well forego the representative altogether at that point.Conducting polls is not all that demanding. Even a negligible percentage of the population can be a very representative sample.

And afaik, electoral colleges elect people, not make representative decisions.
OK. Then you are agreeing that it is an issue of personal spheres of influence?I really can't say, because I found the whole matter a bit fuzzily put. If your point is that people are less inclined to vote in matters that do not affect them directly than in matters that do, I agree. If your point is that people do not care and vote for matters that do not affect them directly, I disagree. If people give money to charities to help people on the opposite side of the globe (or the homeless on the same side of the globe), why shouldn't they vote to do the same, especially since voting is cheaper, binding, and has globally more effect?

At any rate, I don't see what connection there is between personal spheres of influence and analysis paralysis. If there is one, you forgot to state what it is.
Switzerland has a population just a little bigger than Arizona. I think you are missing the concept of scale that I am talking about.Still, if analysis paralysis is something inherent to direct democracy, then it should be reflected in the comparison of Switzerland to other similarly-sized parlamentarian democracies. Does it?

And it appears that you are not arguing against direct democracy here, but against direct democracy on the scale of the entire U.S., right? So the title of this thread appears to be a bit of a misnomer.
Perhaps, but again, Estonia is pretty damn small.Well, what makes you think that it will be so much more difficult in the United States? Elections do not necessarily become significantly longer because of the number of regions involved. It takes as long to decide as it takes to decide in the state where it takes the longest to decide (also, she sells sea shells on the sea shore).

[Mark]

At the risk of being flamed, I don't see democracy as the be-all and end-all. I see democracy as a mechanism to blunt to arbitrary power of government, not to usurp it. Most people are pretty ignorant of affairs while still holding some fairly strong views and this is something which a direct democracy would be particularly vulnerable to - public excitement. The 'people' (a nebulous entity at the best of times, and whenever something is invoked in its name I am deeply suspicious) is a fickle, temperamental beast, and I would not trust it at all to make rational decisions on a national level in a crisis.

I know you'll all probably say that you wouldn't trust representatives either, but I'm not saying either is perfect; I would still prefer representatives though.

[Hooboy !!]

Conducting polls is not all that demanding. Even a negligible percentage of the population can be a very representative sample.
This is a good point, however... it has been my experience that polls (and statistics in general) are easily manipulated and interpretted to meet whatever goal the pollster has.

And afaik, electoral colleges elect people, not make representative decisions.
We are nitpicking here. My point was that the electoral college is an example of a direct democracy in action, in that it is deciding one particular issue... who will be voted for at the time of the presidential election. Once that vote is performed, the electoral college is no longer useful.

I really can't say, because I found the whole matter a bit fuzzily put. If your point is that people are less inclined to vote in matters that do not affect them directly than in matters that do, I agree. If your point is that people do not care and vote for matters that do not affect them directly, I disagree. If people give money to charities to help people on the opposite side of the globe (or the homeless on the same side of the globe), why shouldn't they vote to do the same, especially since voting is cheaper, binding, and has globally more effect?
The former. It is a matter of priorities. To answer your last question... I think people are willing to contribute money to charities all over the world, as a result of appeals to emotion. It is easy for people to contribute a dollars too. It requires no real effort.

At any rate, I don't see what connection there is between personal spheres of influence and analysis paralysis. If there is one, you forgot to state what it is.
It is simple really. In order to make a good decision, and by "good" I mean rational, a person has to invest a certain amount of time in fact gathering, listening to the various points of view, then forming a conclusion. It takes time. Some times, a lot of time, particularly on complex issues. The key thing to understand is that not all issues are the same either. It is pretty easy to make a decision regarding whether or not a water park should go into your neighborhodd, but it is much harder to make a decision about something as complex as carbon emissions.

There is just so much time in the day. What people do is prioritize their problems, or issues that they are facing. They deal with the ones that are most important to them first. They may pick some low hanging fruit, which are easy issues to form an opinion about, say feeding the starving people in Africa, or treating HIV. But, very complex problems, which take hours, or days of analysis... may never be given any attention at all. And ironically, these are the ones that need the most attention.

Still, if analysis paralysis is something inherent to direct democracy, then it should be reflected in the comparison of Switzerland to other similarly-sized parlamentarian democracies. Does it?
I think so. I am not familiar with Switzerland, but I do not think it is much different from our local governments. In local elections, many times, voters are not even aware of the issues on a ballot until the pre-election materials are mailed out. This gives them very little time to read about and understand the issues they will be voting on.

And it appears that you are not arguing against direct democracy here, but against direct democracy on the scale of the entire U.S., right? So the title of this thread appears to be a bit of a misnomer.
You are right. I should have been more clear. Direct democracy has a finite scale of society that it can effectively support.

Well, what makes you think that it will be so much more difficult in the United States? Elections do not necessarily become significantly longer because of the number of regions involved. It takes as long to decide as it takes to decide in the state where it takes the longest to decide (also, she sells sea shells on the sea shore).
It depends on the number of issues before the voters and how complex the issues are. Take for example voting for local judges. In my last election, there were like 20 judge positions up for election. Plus about 12 referendums, state representatives, senators, etc etc etc.

That's a lot of ballot items. You would have to be holding elections pretty regular. I suppose you could streamline things with technology, but... there is a limit.

[psikeyhackr]

So does the internet now make possible impersonal spheres of influence?

I have had people copy things I have put on the internet to other locations I have never been to and start discussions on message boards about them.

No one can tell what kind of new "democracy" will be triggered by the internet.

Kill an economist for Karl. :D :devil1: :D

psik

[Hooboy !!]

So does the internet now make possible impersonal spheres of influence?

I have had people copy things I have put on the internet to other locations I have never been to and start discussions on message boards about them.

No one can tell what kind of new "democracy" will be triggered by the internet.

Kill an economist for Karl. :D :devil1: :D

psik
The Internet alters the dynamics only slightly. Issues have to have a tangible impact on the individual. The Inernet does allow people to gather facts easier, and to participate in discussions easier.

[psikeyhackr]

The Internet alters the dynamics only slightly. Issues have to have a tangible impact on the individual. The Inernet does allow people to gather facts easier, and to participate in discussions easier.

I guess it had a tangible impact on Dan Rather.

How the Blogs Torpedoed Dan Rather

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/1/28/172943.shtml

psik

[Preno]

This is a good point, however... it has been my experience that polls (and statistics in general) are easily manipulated and interpretted to meet whatever goal the pollster has.Quite correct, they are. But the goal of our pollster is to accurately determine what people want, no?
We are nitpicking here. My point was that the electoral college is an example of a direct democracy in action, in that it is deciding one particular issue... who will be voted for at the time of the presidential election. Once that vote is performed, the electoral college is no longer useful.Well, pardon me, but it seems to me the electoral college is a completely useless institution. I may be wrong, but exactly what is the actual difference between an electoral college electing a president, and the president being elected simply by counting the ballots? It seems like a completely trivial difference to me.
The former. It is a matter of priorities. To answer your last question... I think people are willing to contribute money to charities all over the world, as a result of appeals to emotion. It is easy for people to contribute a dollars too. It requires no real effort.Yes, and it is easier for people to go to the ballots that to contribute $$. It also makes the whole "contribute $$" make more sense - I think most people would like to help make the environment better and are willing to make at least moderate sacrifices, but they are not willing to do so on their own (which would effectively only penalize them).
It is simple really. In order to make a good decision, and by "good" I mean rational, a person has to invest a certain amount of time in fact gathering, listening to the various points of view, then forming a conclusion. It takes time. Some times, a lot of time, particularly on complex issues. The key thing to understand is that not all issues are the same either. It is pretty easy to make a decision regarding whether or not a water park should go into your neighborhodd, but it is much harder to make a decision about something as complex as carbon emissions.

There is just so much time in the day. What people do is prioritize their problems, or issues that they are facing. They deal with the ones that are most important to them first. They may pick some low hanging fruit, which are easy issues to form an opinion about, say feeding the starving people in Africa, or treating HIV. But, very complex problems, which take hours, or days of analysis... may never be given any attention at all. And ironically, these are the ones that need the most attention.Let me first make a purely terminological remark: this is not what the term "analysis paralysis" means, or at least I haven't really heard it used this way. The meaning in which I did hear it used, and in which it makes more sense to me, is "too much analysis", not too little analysis, which is the scenario you suggest. Having meetings about maximizing the efficiency of communication at meetings about the order of priorities for other meetings is a case of analysis paralysis (nothing being done due to too much analysis), making the wrong decisions because of a lack of analysis is precisely the opposite (wrong decisions being made due to too little analysis).

Now, as for the complex stuff, it's largely a myth that the members of parliament are some kinds of experts on that. Sure, they can invest a greater amount of attention to the issues, but honestly, do they? No doubt, the people who actually propose the laws are often experts at that one issue, but is the parliament at large? I dare say not.

Representatives in indirect democracies are chosen on the basis of "complex issues" as well, so this particular difficulty is exactly the same - the deficiencies of parliamentarianism, however, are greater due to the fact that you vote for whole bundles of complex issues (for example, I may not find it difficult to decide whether I support A and B and oppose C and D, but it may be a much more complex issue to decide whether A+C is better than B+D). It's an either - or, and in both cases indirect democracy loses: either the representatives are chosen on the basis of a complex issue X (in which case your criticisms applies to them, but even more so, because of the inseparability of the issues as mentioned above), or they are not chosen on the basis of a complex issue X (in which case, they are no more predisposed to understand that complex issue than any other group).
I think so. I am not familiar with Switzerland, but I do not think it is much different from our local governments. In local elections, many times, voters are not even aware of the issues on a ballot until the pre-election materials are mailed out. This gives them very little time to read about and understand the issues they will be voting on.Well, this is a criticism that also applies to indirect democracy, since you still choose the candidates on the basis of their opinion on potentially complex issues (or actually, in the best case you do, in the worst case, you choose according to which is more good-looking - which has much more disastrous results in an indirect democracy). But the advantage of direct democracy is that it allows one to separate the issues, instead voting for (two!!) ready-made, inseparable bundles, and in doing so to simply not vote about issues you don't care about or issues that are too complex for you to understand. I for one would be quite happy to nominate some independent expert committee on, for example, global warming and heed by its decisions, whatever they be, since they obviously know more about the issue than I do.
You are right. I should have been more clear. Direct democracy has a finite scale of society that it can effectively support.Right, that's finally a statement one can argue about.
It depends on the number of issues before the voters and how complex the issues are. Take for example voting for local judges. In my last election, there were like 20 judge positions up for election. Plus about 12 referendums, state representatives, senators, etc etc etc.

That's a lot of ballot items. You would have to be holding elections pretty regular. I suppose you could streamline things with technology, but... there is a limit.Well, two points. One, how does that show that decision-making takes significantly longer in bigger states? As I said, the time certainly does not rise linearly if the voting goes on in parallel in different regions, it rises with the amount of time it takes in the state where it takes the longest to decide. The effect of any smaller states is negligible and can basically be minimized with on-going automatization.

Two, I think the whole concept of "holding elections" might become obsolete. The way I see it, it is possible - or should be possible in the near future - to have an on-going electronic poll on laws that are currently being considered, where you could place your votes over some on-going period of time (thus making elections obsolete by virtue of the fact that it will, in fact, always be elections - or rather, it will be elections any time you choose to elect). It will no doubt take some getting used to, and certainly there will be bills that won't attract sufficient interest on part of the general population, but ultimately, the only way to teach people to make well-grounded decisions is to first give them decision-making and let them teach from their own mistakes.

[Hooboy !!]

Quite correct, they are. But the goal of our pollster is to accurately determine what people want, no?
If the pollster is a disinterested third party... perhaps. Even then, it is hard for me to place too much faith in the poll, since the poll results can be interpretted in different ways. Good poll writing is tricky.

Well, pardon me, but it seems to me the electoral college is a completely useless institution.
I think we are in agreement on this.

Let me first make a purely terminological remark: this is not what the term "analysis paralysis" means, or at least I haven't really heard it used this way.
Typically, it means that people are too caught up in the argument to make a decision. But, this can happen when there are too many topics too. You made a good point though... the person running a meeting has a very important responsibility. They are the ones that are listening to the dicussion and making the decision about when to cut off debate and make a decision. The problem is in a direct democracy is that there is no way this function can be performed. The end of discussion is established by an arbitrary date.

Now, as for the complex stuff, it's largely a myth that the members of parliament are some kinds of experts on that. Sure, they can invest a greater amount of attention to the issues, but honestly, do they? No doubt, the people who actually propose the laws are often experts at that one issue, but is the parliament at large? I dare say not.
I think they do. Now, the representative themselves may not, but that have staffs of hundreds that do.

Don't get me wrong BTW. I agree that direct democracy is superior in terms of voter participation. I just think that there are real limits on the scale of that participation.

Well, two points. One, how does that show that decision-making takes significantly longer in bigger states?
On a per issue basis? It doesn't. There are just far more issues.

Two, I think the whole concept of "holding elections" might become obsolete.
Perhaps. But again, it is an issue of time. Sure, you can make it more efficient, but eventually, as the complexity of the society increases, the amount of time required for voter participation will real reach 100%.

[Preno]

If the pollster is a disinterested third party... perhaps. Even then, it is hard for me to place too much faith in the poll, since the poll results can be interpretted in different ways. Good poll writing is tricky.It is in the interests of the representative to obtain an accurate poll, and in the interests of the pollster to comply with his wishes.
Typically, it means that people are too caught up in the argument to make a decision. But, this can happen when there are too many topics too. You made a good point though... the person running a meeting has a very important responsibility. They are the ones that are listening to the dicussion and making the decision about when to cut off debate and make a decision. The problem is in a direct democracy is that there is no way this function can be performed. The end of discussion is established by an arbitrary date.I agree that the structure of information flow in the society matters a great deal to a functioning direct democracy. I don't think, however, that discussion needs to be ended by an arbitrary date, or at any rate at a more arbitrary date than in any other decision-making system. What will be a problem is to devise a communication structure that would allow for efficient discussion of issues between large segments of society - and I don't pretend to have a solution to that (I don't think it's in principle unsolvable, however). In parliaments, only a few hundred people need to talk to each other. If a direct democracy is to be fully direct, it will be somehow necessary to engage all those that wish to participate in a decision in a discussion about the issue.
I think they do. Now, the representative themselves may not, but that have staffs of hundreds that do.If so, then it would be more effective and less prone to the personal influence of the representative to delegate the decision-making power to expert commitees (as is in some cases already done in practice).
Don't get me wrong BTW. I agree that direct democracy is superior in terms of voter participation. I just think that there are real limits on the scale of that participation.
On a per issue basis? It doesn't. There are just far more issues.
Perhaps. But again, it is an issue of time. Sure, you can make it more efficient, but eventually, as the complexity of the society increases, the amount of time required for voter participation will real reach 100%.I agree with all three. The general population cannot be expected to make qualified decisions on objectively complex issues that require detailed attention. The best solution seems to me to be appointing expert committees to deal with these kinds of issues. Whether their decisions should be recallable by the population, the principle would dictate yes, although it would have to be seen which of the two is pragmatically better in the long-term.

On the other hand, the population can still be expected to have preferences in terms of general goals, and these need to be reflected in the decisions made by any representatives and/or expert committees. If the decisions of the latter are in contradiction with those goals, they should be cancelled. The question is whether to leave it up to the experts or up to the population to determine whether the goals and the means are in harmony. Historically, not allowing the population to veto such decisions has been to the detriment of the population, so in the long term, I think allowing them to approve/cancel the decisions is in everybody's interest. Better to allow the public to cancel a good (beneficial) decision than to allow bad decisions to be enforced without the assent of the population.

Assuming that out of several options, one is objectively better than others, than statistically speaking, given a sufficiently objective and advanced structure of social communication this would be the option to win most of the time.

[unrealist42]

I think we should go to direct government by consensus. The technology exists, why not?

We could tie it in with lotteries and legalized betting on the referendums to keep the public interested. The media would go crazy for it.

Everybody votes, all the time, on everything, from anywhere, by cellphone or kiosk or lottery agent, and they can change their vote anytime. Once consensus is reached, say 85%, it becomes law.

The government becomes only an executive and juduciary, no more legislatures.

Issues would swirl around for a while before consensus is reached so there would be plenty of time to express views and plenty of time for people to see through them all and make real decisions.

[Loren Pechtel]

I think we should go to direct government by consensus. The technology exists, why not?

Because the technology does not exist.

Yes, we could handle the voting aspect of it. Understanding what we are voting on, though? No way in hell could the average person do it. We simply don't have the time.

[Bonniedundee]

I think we should go to direct government by consensus. The technology exists, why not?I don't think it would ever be possible to have a direct democratic national gov't, I doubt it is ever possible to have a democratic national gov't, but at the local level it certainly could be done.

[Hooboy !!]

It is in the interests of the representative to obtain an accurate poll, and in the interests of the pollster to comply with his wishes.
Not really. Why? The existence of a poll, no matter what the results, can work to sway public opinion. Even of an idea is initially in the minority, poll results can be used to swing fence sitters one way or another.

What will be a problem is to devise a communication structure that would allow for efficient discussion of issues between large segments of society
If you can solve this problem, you will be famous.

On the other hand, the population can still be expected to have preferences in terms of general goals
lol

I read that and the first thing that went thourhg my head was a National Mission Statement Writing Committee. Why I laugh is because I hate mission statements.

I do like the idea of national referendums and the ability to recall legislators, or to have laws recalled by a national vote. I think the idea of independent states is largely obsolete at this point and having national elections (other than the presidency) seems very doable, technologically speaking.

[unrealist42]

I think we should go to direct government by consensus. The technology exists, why not?

Because the technology does not exist.

Yes, we could handle the voting aspect of it. Understanding what we are voting on, though? No way in hell could the average person do it. We simply don't have the time.

That's why we tie it in with bookmaking and lotteries. People will take the time when they have a bet on it. The most watched shows on TV would become ones about legislation, the implications of discussions would seriously affect the odds so people would pay far more attention to politics than they do today.

[Loren Pechtel]

Because the technology does not exist.

Yes, we could handle the voting aspect of it. Understanding what we are voting on, though? No way in hell could the average person do it. We simply don't have the time.

That's why we tie it in with bookmaking and lotteries. People will take the time when they have a bet on it. The most watched shows on TV would become ones about legislation, the implications of discussions would seriously affect the odds so people would pay far more attention to politics than they do today.

No. Nobody has the time to do it. Even the legislators have staffs to help them understand the issue.

At the federal level it's all but impossible to even read all the bills you need to vote on. There's absolutely no way the average person could do it--we spend our days earning a living, not reading bills.

You're basically proposing that if you're sick you should go to med school instead of a doctor.

[unrealist42]

Med schools are cheaper than doctors and medical students are often up on the latest in medical advances.

You don't seem to understand the premise here. No legislatures to obfuscate and confuse the issue at hand. People make single issue proposals and others vote on them. No matter how obtuse or obscure or how long it takes, let the people decide, and change their minds along the way until a consensus is reached, say 85% yes or no.

Did I mention no limits to advertising etc. to get people motivated to vote on any particular issue.

When the voting reaches some critical mass then people will start paying attention and driving the odds.

If you're too busy to pay attention then its just more money for me when I win.