considering how flawed democracies are, i say let democracy die. adopt democracy 2.0 (no parties, no president/pm, no cabinet ministers, elected speaker, continuous citizen participation) and that’s that.
I don't think our current career politician representatives do either.
>Direct democracy will likely devolve into a reign of demagogues imho.
That's more or less what we already have, I think.
An unpopular solution is some sort of qualification based voting, possibly per issue, say having subject matter expert vote on particular bills within their domain. But there's no realistic way of competence based voting without disenfranchising the vast majority of voters.
- How do you feel about the minimal training of seafarers and the existing directives to that end?
- Also, the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road?
- Amending the regulations contracts for sales of goods?
- Postal services directive?
- Sustainable urban mobility?
- and, of course, cableway installations, how about those?
"Well", you might say, "If you're going to pull facetious examples out of thin air..."
But I'm not; you can find the pdfs here:
It's just a list of an MEP picked at random where she was shadow rapporteur.
Are you really going to read through those documents to make an informed decision about all these topics?
Democracy and its politics isn't just about the fun, high-profile stuff you find interesting.
Personally I'm pretty happy I can pay someone to read and write all that stuff for me, and then make a decision based on a broader alignment that I share with them.
The point wasn't the reports, or the quality of the reports, but the wide range of topics a random politician would have to be at least somewhat informed about to make a decision.
> They don't truly represent the will of the people.
So what is the true will of the people when it comes to safe cableway installations?
Also, I'm not sure if countries get their seat on the UN through elections, so I'm not sure how your example relates to the topic of democracies.
think how software evolves. now think how democracy stagnates.
i know humans are extremely conservative by nature, but this is just absurd.
First, "democracy" is pretty vague, do you mean direct democracy, representative democracy, presidential democracy, &c.
Then "democracy" isn't a fixed thing, it's been changing continuously for thousands of years. 500BC Athens democracy hasn't much to do with today's US version of democracy. So no, we don't "keep it flawed".
Democracy means "power to the people", the way you implement it might be flawed but the underlying principle sounds very sane.
> think how software evolves. now think how democracy stagnates
Change doesn't necessarily mean progress. You don't get to "move fast and break things" in geopolitics.
Name one country where the democracy system in place is stagnating, and why.
And then in these cases, why/how less democracy would improve the people prospects altogether.
As long as the democracy with flaws is better than the alternative, yes.
That's not “Democracy 2.0”, that's either 1.0 or a pre-release version, with modern liberal Western democracy spread out across something like the 4.x major version range (not every one on the same minor version.)
The version you are talking about doesn't work well with large, diverse, or otherwise complex societies, though it's fine for small hunter-gatherer bands.