Sixteen-year-olds can learn to drive, get a job, pay taxes and be on the Organ Donor Register, but they are considered too young to vote. Should they also have a stake in deciding their future?
That’s how you get an America-like situation where the goal isn’t to come up with policies the most people agree with, but to find ways to get the people who already agree with you to turn out to vote, and to dissuade people who disagree with you from voting.
It’s a brilliant way to empower NIMBYs even more than they already are.
Okay so make it mandatory with a “no opinion” option for those who are not concerned on issues.
We don’t actually need to have an individual opinion on every topic, nor would everyone care about everything. Let’s empower people to make their own choices for once.
There are an average of two divisions every single day Parliament sits. And that’s without counting votes that are determined on the voices. Or issues at the state and local council levels. Federally, there are about 200 Bills introduced every single year. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with enabling people to vote on all of them if they want to, but making it mandatory is a ludicrous proposition. Enabling people to choose a proxy is not just a good idea, it’s a necessity to do large-scale direct democracy.
That’s how Thor’s idea works. You choose your proxy. You don’t elect them without the option to change until the next election. You can switch proxies or take over directly at literally any time.
You don’t have to, that’s the entire point of the proxy; it’s for people who can’t/don’t want to vote on every single issue. Clearly you’re not one of these people so there’s no actual issue here, you’re just arguing for argument’s sake.
Though I should argue that democracy is not functioning if people cannot care about issues due to needing to work excessively in order to eat and have shelter. People shouldn’t be worrying about what they’re going to eat or where they’re going to live but about policy that affects them
What about the best of both worlds? You can cast you own vote or you can hire a proxy to vote on your behalf. Obviously we would need some regulation on what is basically selling votes. But by making it an expense people are incentivised to do it themselves and you have the power to remove their proxy status at any point
Or we could cut out the middle man and just vote or not vote ourselves on issues as we see fit?
That’s how you get an America-like situation where the goal isn’t to come up with policies the most people agree with, but to find ways to get the people who already agree with you to turn out to vote, and to dissuade people who disagree with you from voting.
It’s a brilliant way to empower NIMBYs even more than they already are.
Okay so make it mandatory with a “no opinion” option for those who are not concerned on issues.
We don’t actually need to have an individual opinion on every topic, nor would everyone care about everything. Let’s empower people to make their own choices for once.
There are an average of two divisions every single day Parliament sits. And that’s without counting votes that are determined on the voices. Or issues at the state and local council levels. Federally, there are about 200 Bills introduced every single year. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with enabling people to vote on all of them if they want to, but making it mandatory is a ludicrous proposition. Enabling people to choose a proxy is not just a good idea, it’s a necessity to do large-scale direct democracy.
Cool, so don’t make it mandatory. I don’t really care.
What I care about is that people have a direct say in what they want to vote for. Not have to hope a representative actually represents them.
That’s how Thor’s idea works. You choose your proxy. You don’t elect them without the option to change until the next election. You can switch proxies or take over directly at literally any time.
I don’t want to choose a proxy, I want a direct say. The only person I want representing me, is me.
Anything less is simply lipstick on a pig.
???
You don’t have to, that’s the entire point of the proxy; it’s for people who can’t/don’t want to vote on every single issue. Clearly you’re not one of these people so there’s no actual issue here, you’re just arguing for argument’s sake.
Though I should argue that democracy is not functioning if people cannot care about issues due to needing to work excessively in order to eat and have shelter. People shouldn’t be worrying about what they’re going to eat or where they’re going to live but about policy that affects them
@[email protected] @[email protected]
What about the best of both worlds? You can cast you own vote or you can hire a proxy to vote on your behalf. Obviously we would need some regulation on what is basically selling votes. But by making it an expense people are incentivised to do it themselves and you have the power to remove their proxy status at any point
No different to the potential for the same problem today in representative elections.
That is actually what was proposed by the candidate @[email protected] was referring to.
Ok then? Do that. But why should your preference to do it that way dictate how everyone must do it?