That’s why democracy is also known as being ruled by the hordes of idiots. It’s amazing when people are well informed on what they are voting on, the problem is that’s never happened in mass and never will. People will vote based on their feelings or just straight up not at all.
He’s not the first but I was thinking about that. I can’t remember the critic but early on in the American experiment someone described it as mob rule.
Similar but I would prefer a representative democracy but where the representatives need to be national experts on what they are deciding. So for instance if it’s medicine then the representatives need to be physicians and medical scientists, and previous heads of hospitals. If it’s dealing with the environment then the representatives need to be environmental scientists, civic engineers, and so on. Aka have the most informed people for that which you are trying to make decisions. Even better, have their policies reviewed by a body of their peers the same way scientific publishing works to get a measure on how good or bad their ideas are. Even better, test their ideas when they’ve been implemented to see if they’re actually working.
I wasn’t making a political point with the video, but your points are interesting.
I agree that, as far as I understand it right now, body-reviewed policies are the democracy we should have.
How about also requiring someone to have experience or a degree in a specific field to vote on specific issues? For example, I’ve been working in tech for a decade, I should be able to vote on technology policies, but not on medical policies.
That’s a fair additive although it can be difficult to define the boundaries. Particularly tech can have a far reaching influence and arguably global influence these days. If the scope of the policy is narrow then I can imagine that being functional, if the scope is potentially global then that may become an issue.
Lots of recall campaigns have successfully been done. They have the benefit of being very public and attention grabbing by nature. That’s if more immediate ejection/dismissal mechanisms don’t exist on a panel/committee.
You’re operating under the assumption that these people haven’t already made the calculation that wherever bribe they received is worth their position.
So recalling them, or voting them out, after they’ve done what they were bribed/blackmailed to do, isn’t the threat, or check on power, that many here believe it to be.
Meh. Flock isn’t big enough to hire every rando county commissioner that buys their garbage. This isn’t Lockheed hiring a retiring general or some K street group picking up a friendly senator.
And even if they do hire him, at least he’s not in a position supposedly representing anyone anymore.
Will they remember this the next time he’s up for reelection?
Voters have a depressingly short memory.
That’s why democracy is also known as being ruled by the hordes of idiots. It’s amazing when people are well informed on what they are voting on, the problem is that’s never happened in mass and never will. People will vote based on their feelings or just straight up not at all.
https://youtu.be/QFgcqB8-AxE
He’s not the first but I was thinking about that. I can’t remember the critic but early on in the American experiment someone described it as mob rule.
Similar but I would prefer a representative democracy but where the representatives need to be national experts on what they are deciding. So for instance if it’s medicine then the representatives need to be physicians and medical scientists, and previous heads of hospitals. If it’s dealing with the environment then the representatives need to be environmental scientists, civic engineers, and so on. Aka have the most informed people for that which you are trying to make decisions. Even better, have their policies reviewed by a body of their peers the same way scientific publishing works to get a measure on how good or bad their ideas are. Even better, test their ideas when they’ve been implemented to see if they’re actually working.
I wasn’t making a political point with the video, but your points are interesting.
I agree that, as far as I understand it right now, body-reviewed policies are the democracy we should have.
How about also requiring someone to have experience or a degree in a specific field to vote on specific issues? For example, I’ve been working in tech for a decade, I should be able to vote on technology policies, but not on medical policies.
That’s a fair additive although it can be difficult to define the boundaries. Particularly tech can have a far reaching influence and arguably global influence these days. If the scope of the policy is narrow then I can imagine that being functional, if the scope is potentially global then that may become an issue.
Fuck elections, these types of people require more immediate consequences.
Lots of recall campaigns have successfully been done. They have the benefit of being very public and attention grabbing by nature. That’s if more immediate ejection/dismissal mechanisms don’t exist on a panel/committee.
You’re operating under the assumption that these people haven’t already made the calculation that wherever bribe they received is worth their position.
So recalling them, or voting them out, after they’ve done what they were bribed/blackmailed to do, isn’t the threat, or check on power, that many here believe it to be.
Even if he lose he will be hired by flock, it works this ways sadly.
Meh. Flock isn’t big enough to hire every rando county commissioner that buys their garbage. This isn’t Lockheed hiring a retiring general or some K street group picking up a friendly senator.
And even if they do hire him, at least he’s not in a position supposedly representing anyone anymore.
He didn’t get the cameras, the sheriff did. They want them to pass an ordinance to block their use