you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 13 hours ago (14 children)

In my country center left's tax the rich means tax income above 60k.

And because that's against majorities interests they get voted out.

The rich unfortunately bought all the parties. Parlamental democracy is a failure and we need direct votes on each bill. Imagine being able to directly vote on the topics discussed on a weekly or monthly basis via phone.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 12 hours ago* (8 children)

    Sounds like an awful idea. Direct democracy on specific policies is a fucking nightmare. I want actually informed and knowledgeable people making decisions on shit.

    Yeah, sounds great in theory if everyone was as autistic as I am. But I don't want policies on healthcare and vaccines being decided on by the average uninformed click of some average idiot with a smartphone app.

    "Ask the audience" works until you have a question that requires actual expertise.

    I get your frustration with capital corruption and influence. But you're not thinking this through.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

    I don't want to throw away my vote after elections
    I got lied to too often.

    I want to be included in decisions that concern me - other decisions only concerns other people, I don't need to be involved in everything, but I want to keep my vote

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 36 minutes ago

    I get the idea, but one thing to know about lies, was it a campaign goal or what was it, bc most politicians can't do whatever they want. Even some majority doesn't mean unrestricted power. Dems have a platform of policies and more are passed in states with more Dems, and more healthcare access makes healthier people, and higher wages and paid leave improves worker satisfaction, etc. Proven policies produce good results so vote based on the platforms with proven policies. That's the closest we have other than ballot initiatives.

    You can try to make direct voting a thing with enough push for it, that's part of the Democratic process to join or start movements like that. With social media now anything can go viral! Good luck!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 12 hours ago

    Agreed. I don’t have the time nor interest to be appropriately informed on all judicial matters. I would like though to vote in someone that is and that shares my ideals, so they can represent me appropriately. What we should get is corporations and lobbying out of politics

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 hours ago

    Yeah, imagine having to regularly vote on something like "Art. 2.17b GCrL shall be amended to exclude entities as described under Art. 90 IndRegR". Didn't vote? Oops, that one made it functionally impossible to sue companies for negligence. And the one almost identical-sounding one next to it would've lowered your tax burden by 5%.

    A state is a hideously complex thing and I don't want to have to care about how the Regulation on the Valuation of Asset-Backed Financial Instruments in the Leasing Sector (1987) works or how paragraph 3 of the MONKEEZ Act potentially conflicts with TRIPS.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    You lack imagination. I'm seeing a system where you can change the party you vote for at any time. Not knowledgeable on a topic? Leave it to the people you trust most. But if certain policies are interesting it should be possible to intervene at will.

    If people decide on topics they have no clue on that's their right and no worse than voting the wrong parties.

    One problem i'm seeing is, people might vote shortsighted like brexit. But i'm seeing parties all over europe only thinking within their legislature too so no loss.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago

    Not knowledgeable on a topic? Leave it to the people you trust most.

    That's not what people do.

    But if certain policies are interesting it should be possible to intervene at will.

    No, it shouldn't. I can find vaccines "interesting". I shouldn't have a say in whether a new vaccine is safe or not. That decision should be left to experts in that field.

    I don't lack imagination. You are lacking any understanding of how policy is created and how governments function.

    It's such a stupid idea that I've heard this "app based direct democracy" multiple times from the dumbest fucking guys at bars. This is the equivalent of "we just need crypto" solution to problems with banking a capital. Ironically, if we had this type of direct democracy, you'd have the most popular policies be more and more dumb "easy to understand" solutions like the one you are presenting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago

    In Switzerland we have some sort of "direct democracy" (basically people get to vote on a law or a change in the constitution a few times a year) and people still vote for less taxes for the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 12 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm curious, is the "tax the rich = tax people earning over 60k" the actual position of the party (as checked on their website/announced by their reps), or is that what the media are reporting ?

    There was a very strong push to misrepresent the UK greens push for a wealth tax as being an attack on ordinary people who owned their homes.

    It was utterly untrue and fortunately the greens were media savvy enough to subvert it (but not savvy enough to prevent the anti-semitism attack successfully deployed against Corbyn the last successful left leader).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment