| ▲ | terminalshort 2 hours ago |
| So do you believe in democracy or not? And I do not mean this as a loaded question because the value of democracy is a legitimately arguable point. If the majority of Californians want caps on property tax, then I do not see a good argument that they should not get it that is also compatible with democracy. |
|
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | biophysboy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Democracy can mean a lot of things: direct, representative, etc. Voting for yourself is different from voting for your constituents. Ideally, the latter will also consider community effects. |
|
| ▲ | thomassmith65 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you put a question to the electorate like 'should we tax only people whose last name begins with an X, Y or Z?', it's liable to pass. Nobody really advocates for Direct Democracy. It isn't viable: 'tyranny of the majority' etc. Most Western governments are Liberal Democracies - where some issues aren't subject to a vote - partly so that the mob can't persecute outnumbered subgroups. |
| |
| ▲ | chr1 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | If majority of people in a country want to persecute an outnumbered subgroup, then what prevents the majority of delegates wanting the same as well? You have an implicit assumption that the delegates are going to be smarter and better people that are going to lie to the majority to get elected and then will valiantly protect the subgroup. But that have not happened anywhere. In fact in every case it is the delegates who organize persecution of various subgroups, even in situations when the share of population truly wanting to persecute subgroup is far from being a majority. | | |
| ▲ | thomassmith65 an hour ago | parent [-] | | I refuse to believe that anyone reading this is incapable of remembering at least five historical examples in which the public was happy to treat an unpopular group unjustly. There is no foolproof system that can guard against it, however declaring 'rights' and delegating the responsibility to protect them to the judiciary at least is a mitigation. | | |
| ▲ | chr1 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Direct voting does not replace judiciary or even senate, it only augments the house of congress. Can you bring one example where the public wanted to treat a group unjustly and parliament elected by that same public have defended the group? |
|
| |
| ▲ | jemmyw an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is highly unlikely. People may seem stupid when acting as a larger group, but I think part of that is that our current democracy doesn't require much engagement. If we moved to direct democracy then imo we'd get some bad policies that would quickly be reverted once the effects become apparent, and then voters are going to be a bit more careful. For example, "only taxing people whose last name begins with X, Y, Z", I don't think voters would currently be that dumb, but if they were then how many weeks of zero tax money would it take to get that undone? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | drecked 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Democracy != Direct voting. It’s never meant that. So people can “believe” in Democracy just fine and still think direct voting is bad. Also, Democracy doesn’t even mean “if a majority of people believe X, therefore X”. |
| |
