Say what you will about President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho -- at least he cared about the well-being of his country and sought out expert guidance to set things right.
I'm not entirely sure if I understand your point, but if you're making an analogy between the president and parents, and citizens and children, then I think that is a terrible way to think of an ostensibly democratic system.
If we didn't need hand-holding we'd just vote on policy directly.
The argument is that people aren't equipped to do that, but that's a muscle they've never exercised, because... they aren't equipped to do that, because that's a muscle they've never exercised, etc. It's self-sealing.
Isn’t town hall a thing in the US? I’m not american, but voting on the scale of a nation is generally costly, and some country just keep it for a few important matters. Delegates are way more pragmatic.
Don't know about you, but personally I don't like direct democracy bc i have shit to do besides deciding which law to pass. My states' ballot is full of ridiculous questions every year and takes me days to do my research. I can't imagine doing this year round without getting paid.
> i have shit to do besides deciding which law to pass...
Really shows people take the government for granted. Just remember about the people who gave their lives for freedom and independence. They gave their LIFE. You are only asked to give some of your time to maintain what they bought.
Or am I getting this all wrong and people never gave life for freedom and independence?
there is a lot of nuance in laws so much so that people spend their entire lives studying and learning how to work with the law. it's unrealistic for every person in a democracy to be able to study understand and vote accordingly on every law proposed. people absolutely should put in more effort towards their civic duty but there are other aspects of society that require significant effort as well.
People gave their lives so everyone could spend their life studying law?? The people you've got in mind gave their lives for a representative, not a direct democracy.
Laws are difficult and nuanced. Deciding between yes/no takes me a long time, because I am not a lawyer or a legislator. Even for them, again, legislating is a job for a reason... I know I like certain things, and dislike others, I know basically which direction I want things to go; however, deciding whether a concrete bill is a reasonable-enough implementation that has closed loopholes is way out of the scope of decisions I would trust myself, or most citizens, to make well. This, it feels like a waste.
Voting on policy directly would be taking up everyones time. It's just not practical for anything bigger than a small village.
The problem with today's system is we have MPs or representatives instead of delegates. They are not bound to their campaign promises in any way other than risking a small fine if someone fights them in court for months to prove they were lying. Once you get elected you can do what you want until the next election unless you really piss off your colleagues and get kicked out.
Voters should be able to call an early election in their district and override their reps/force them to vote a certain way, without having to personally show up and decide every single issue.
> If we didn't need hand-holding we'd just vote on policy directly.
That argument doesn't make sense to me. We elect people to work for us. They're not our parents; they're our employees. You have the relationship upside-down.
None of this has anything to do with voting on policies.
Jordan-117 · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
InsideOutSanta · · focus · HN ↗
andai · · focus · HN ↗
The argument is that people aren't equipped to do that, but that's a muscle they've never exercised, because... they aren't equipped to do that, because that's a muscle they've never exercised, etc. It's self-sealing.
skydhash · · focus · HN ↗
thelaxiankey · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
Really shows people take the government for granted. Just remember about the people who gave their lives for freedom and independence. They gave their LIFE. You are only asked to give some of your time to maintain what they bought.
Or am I getting this all wrong and people never gave life for freedom and independence?
jayGlow · · focus · HN ↗
thelaxiankey · · focus · HN ↗
Laws are difficult and nuanced. Deciding between yes/no takes me a long time, because I am not a lawyer or a legislator. Even for them, again, legislating is a job for a reason... I know I like certain things, and dislike others, I know basically which direction I want things to go; however, deciding whether a concrete bill is a reasonable-enough implementation that has closed loopholes is way out of the scope of decisions I would trust myself, or most citizens, to make well. This, it feels like a waste.
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
Would you study law if the lives and freedom of everyone you care about, dependent on you doing so?
tancop · · focus · HN ↗
The problem with today's system is we have MPs or representatives instead of delegates. They are not bound to their campaign promises in any way other than risking a small fine if someone fights them in court for months to prove they were lying. Once you get elected you can do what you want until the next election unless you really piss off your colleagues and get kicked out.
Voters should be able to call an early election in their district and override their reps/force them to vote a certain way, without having to personally show up and decide every single issue.
InsideOutSanta · · focus · HN ↗
That argument doesn't make sense to me. We elect people to work for us. They're not our parents; they're our employees. You have the relationship upside-down.
None of this has anything to do with voting on policies.