| ▲ | zelphirkalt 5 hours ago |
| This is of course a process, that does not lend itself to be democratic, because it is way longer than most people's attention span. People don't manage to remember things that happened in politics 4 years ago in their own country. Now they are required to follow up on dozens of shitty proposals, all probably illegal in their own country, and those don't even happen in their own country? That divides the number of people, who even start looking into this stuff by a factor of 1000 or so. |
|
| ▲ | GeoAtreides 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| what do you mean, a slow bureaucracy is a democratic bureaucracy. the last thing you want is a highly efficient bureaucracy enacting change quickly. This message brought to you by the Bureau of Sabotage |
| |
| ▲ | ekianjo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is nothing democratic about the process. It's all unelected politicians ruling for you | | |
| ▲ | GeoAtreides 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was making a joke (and referencing a book); that being said, you're wrong, no unelected politicians are ruling for me or any other european citizen. | | |
| ▲ | Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which politicians ran on a platform of "we are going to spy on you"? I guess all of them do. | | |
| ▲ | wongarsu 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | "unelected politicians" and "politicians that do things outside their campaign promises" are very different claims |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mejutoco 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is there a website that tracks these? That would be a nice divulgation process. |
| |
|
| ▲ | squigz 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People on average are really not that stupid and are absolutely capable of looking back a few years for context. |
| |
|
| ▲ | scrollaway 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People’s attention span has decreased to a matter of days now, if not hours. Have you seen how quickly front page news in the US is forgotten? The democratic process needs a revamp but it shouldn’t be driven by the general populations attention span. |
| |
| ▲ | ahsillyme 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I wouldn't be so sure of that assertion regarding attention span. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance granted, it's about opinion rather than capability but the same bias would explain such a reflexive judgment, and such a judgment will have negative consequences if it is false. (Consensus can be shaped, as can the perception of consensus be.) |
|
|
| ▲ | basisword 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >> that does not lend itself to be democratic, because it is way longer than most people's attention span The attention span of the general public _shouldn't_ matter. That's why we elect politicians. |
| |
| ▲ | forgetfulness 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That could still be democratic in principle if it weren’t for lobbyists If legislative processes are so drawn out and complex that no more than a handful of ordinary citizens could keep track of them, the advantage that paid lobbyists have over the public is enormous | | |
| ▲ | saubeidl 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's where Unions and NGOs come in. Their job is to be lobbyists for the people, against corporate power. |
| |
| ▲ | Xelbair 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is the process democratic if citizen's opinions are irrelevant? No matter who's in charge, no matter the election results, no matter the protests - the same style of legislation is pushed. and once something's in it is almost impossible to remove. | |
| ▲ | graemep 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The attention span of the general public _shouldn't_ matter. That's why we elect politicians. It would work if we could elect politicians who were both competent and trustworthy. Of course that would require successfully electing people who are competent about a broad range of issues, able to see through well funded and clever lobbying, unblinded by ideology, and able to resist pressure. |
|
