Honestly with the way the internet exists now, we might feasibly be able to do something closer to direct democracy.
But good luck convincing the people in charge to lay down their power.
this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2025
725 points (97.1% liked)
Comic Strips
13571 readers
2828 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Perhaps, though I’d be very concerned for mob mentality. Social media is famously reactive.
No doubt. I think an easy way to counter that is to put a “deliberation” time on legislation. I’m spitballing but maybe require two votes 3 months apart, and they must both agree (otherwise there’s a third tiebreaker vote another 3 months later)? That would help kill off the flash fire effect that a viral meme can create and focus more on fixing problems that occur over a longer period of time.
I mean I’m no political scientist so I’d love to hear more about what methods are proven for direct democracy.
Was it... the Persians? Maybe? Anyway, they had to make two choices on any decision, once when drunk and again sober a few days later. If rhe choice was the same both times it was deemed a good idea.
I have zero idea if this is fact, but it sounds similar to your idea.
Ooh never heard that but it kinda makes sense
I really hope it's not some fever dream, or total bullshit, but it kind of makes sense. I'll see if I can find some facts on it.
Making a second decision mandatory makes it harder to change existing laws. This can be a good thing in some cases, but not always. It increases conservatism (in that it's harder to change things).
No doubt. The goal is to make it harder for memes to affect the outcome of a decision.
Another way to approach it is if a supermajority votes for something, no secondary confirmation vote is required. Eg. reproductive choice would easily pass with one vote because it has such widespread support.
Yeah no....as much as our current system sucks, I'd rather have some sort of a buffer before full on mob rule.
People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals...and you know it.
Full on direct democracy sounds like a good idea. Until you realize it's two wolves and a sheep making dinner plans.
I fail to see how that’s different than the way it currently works, except you get the tyranny of the far right minority instead of tyranny of the majority.
Or another way to look at it, with your analogy, instead of two wolves, you have one professional career wolf who is far more effective at his job.
Nah it's more like the wolves lawyers and the sheep's lawyers fight it out. Like a proxy war.
I say liquid democracy would be better
Super earth has my vote for managed democracy! o7
Ew. I almost clicked a Reddit link. 🤮
Mostly /s. Kinda.
My sincere apologies.
Ironically as libertarian (not capitalist) I guess I want BIGGEST government.