Comment on So, I design a new formula for democracy by gaby

Parent Post: So, I design a new formula for democracy · In Reply To

gaby · 5/30/2025, 12:08:35 AM · permalink

\&gt; Instead of paying people to vote, Australia has a policy of punishing people who don't vote (unless they have a good justification).  
  
Then ill put an X in some box and be done with it. It wouldn't produce an intelligent signal, only add noise.  
  
\&gt; Switzerland has a decent system in which most many questions are put for public referendum. With new technology this could be applied to almost every decision actually.   
  
Some things definitely should be. For others it becomes:  
  
Do you want ${some\_department\_you\_know\_next\_to\_nothing\_about} to tighten the budget for ${some\_project\_you\_know\_nothing\_about} by replacing ${some\_policy\_you\_didnt\_know\_existed} with  ${some\_policy\_no\_one\_is\_familiar\_with}?  
  
So you type ${some\_policy\_no\_one\_is\_familiar\_with} into google and get sponsored articles screaming ${some\_policy\_no\_one\_is\_familiar\_with} *must be stopped!* while elaborately lying about its substance.  
  
This is in case you have time to look it up. If the referenda get to numerous everyone has to study every angle of the government and they wont invest that time in other things. We would still collectively lack experience and overly rely on popular theoretical nonsense.  
  
\&gt; Rather than forcing everyone to vote, I believe society and morality would be better served if voting rights and the scope of government were both limited and focused.  
  
Yes, reduce the scope by chopping it into independent departments focused on a specific field. The job becomes building and maintaining dykes to prevent floods. You do the risk analysis, figure out what the different solutions cost and present the voter with the options. If people living far from the coast prefer a cheaper solution propose a law that has coastal cities pay more. The training material for the voting certificate would probably fit on 3 pages and people would have a very decent picture of the different solutions to chose from.  
  
\&gt;  I think voting should be a privilege reserved for those who pay taxes, are educated, have clean records and a demonstrated understanding of the subject on which they're voting.  
  
That one pays taxes doesn't mean one knows what they are talking about. Someone without legs and only limited motion in only one arm could do a lot of work for us.  
  
An even larger problem is that we cant 100% rule out absurd and idiotic laws. If you have criticizing *foo* on your record. Why would you be allowed to vote? You can even get convicted for things you did by accident or didn't do. How would you for example legalize pot, alcohol or abortion if everyone involved is convicted?  
  
\&gt; People who don't understand that printing money causes inflation, supporting brutal dictators causes revenant and hate, or that Africa is a continent and not a country shouldn't be allowed to vote.   
  
While conceptually true the amount of work people have to do to get the diploma should be as limited as possible. All questions in the test should be within the scope. If you want to vote in the domain/department of agriculture you don't need to know Africa exists. For diplomacy in contrast we can squeeze it inthere as a minimum requirement. Maybe have people find 75 countries out of the top 100 on a map. Or gradually increase the topography with each certificate. Understanding the miracle of printing money should also find its place in one or more departments.  
  
It isn't necessarily true tho. If it causes inflation and how much depends on what the money is used for. You could for example buy gold with it or restore order when the country descends into chaos.  
  
\&gt; Remove anonymous donor contributions.  
  
In general yes. Could require them to be larg, register and earmark them for a specific purpose then have a referendum. If people disagree the money is deleted.  
  
\&gt; Limit election spending to a rational level.  
  
Buying peoples opinion has to be the most destructive thing out there. We can only hope to fight it with informed citizens. You cant prevent the rest of the world from talking about something.  
  
\&gt; Include punitive referendums. If a majority of people feel that their representatives haven't delivered, haven't kept promises, sold out, or acted against the national interest, they should be able to not just vote the person out of office, they should be able to vote them into jail and into paying fines.  
  
Yes, and rather than have election cycles we should be able to vote in a new rep whenever we want. If I hire someone to do something and they do an abysmal job or even the opposite of what I've asked from them they get fired immediately. If it is obvious malice they should pay for the damages and go to prison immediately.  
  
The death penalty would be reasonable for the right kind of offenses. If some foreign leader wants you to go to war for their benefit you should know that if you bypass the vote the public can put you to death the next day, right after the press release.  
  
I also had some fun thoughts about banning high level politicians and their partner from the labor force and from the financial system - for life. Give them a reasonably nice house, a personal cook/assistant, a car with fuel in it and some paid in full vacations. Like, the most luxurious prison possible with 24/7 surveillance. The level of luxury depends on their time in office and public approval rating. They may continue to apply for their old job.  
  
Thanks for your thoughts

2 bumps

Signature