Should The US (Or UK If You're A UK Cat) Adopt A Direct/Pure Democracy?

[Eff Pandas]

Like Brexit? Thats a fine mess we got ourselves into

I honestly know lil to nothing about that so can't comment on it, but its not like politicians haven't f#cked the people more than the people f#cked themselves with voting.

They all ain't gonna be winners, but at least the people would have more control of the world they wanna live in which I think is more ideal then voting on some corrupt guy I'm hoping is telling me the truth on what he will or won't do. I know if nothing else I can trust myself.

Voting on issues>Voting on a guy who I hope represents more of my issues than he doesn't represent

[Eff Pandas]

Well. Do you know of any country or municipality that has attempted pure democracy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

And there is a tiny pocket of it in the US with local sh^t, but thats not the most modern version of what it should look like.

In the New England region of the United States, towns in areas such as Vermont decide local affairs through the direct democratic process of the town meeting. This is the oldest form of direct democracy in the United States, and predates the founding of the country by at least a century.

[siablo14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland

And there is a tiny pocket of it in the US with local sh^t, but thats not the most modern version of what it should look like.

Others like Richard Ellis of Willamette University argue that the time-consuming process of gathering signatures introduces a bias toward moneyed interests. Some suggest this has damaged direct democracy in California, where professional petition writers andpaid signature gatherers dominate the process. Moneyed interests also enjoy a natural advantage in having the resources that ordinary people lack to mount media campaigns to support their narrow interests.

Looks like the moneyed interest will still have the advantage there.

[Eff Pandas]

Looks like the moneyed interest will still have the advantage there.

Costs more cuz more votes to buy doe.

And its not like there aren't gonna be problems with anything. If people end up buying votes you could just make them not able to buy votes like you can't put up ads for cigs anymore or other random laws with advertising.

The main thing is its people voting for their beliefs vs people voting for a guy to best represent their & the other 50k to 1M or however people in your district, city or w/e. Thats what I believe in.

My main stance with this is why am I voting for a guy to represent me when I can represent myself with the technology we have today? I think our current system is outdated & can be improved.

[siablo14]

Costs more cuz more votes to buy doe.

And its not like there aren't gonna be problems with anything. If people end up buying votes you could just make them not able to buy votes like you can't put up ads for cigs anymore or other random laws with advertising.

The main thing is its people voting for their beliefs vs people voting for a guy to best represent their & the other 50k to 1M or however people in your district, city or w/e. Thats what I believe in.

My main stance with this is why am I voting for a guy to represent me when I can represent myself with the technology we have today? I think our current system is outdated & can be improved.

Man. I am for that direct democracy system but you see how most people don't give a damn about politics and how fake news can influence voting so have a feeling moneyed interest will find a way to game that system too.

[Prince Madison]

definitely not. theres very few people who will actually think and research what the pros and cons of the votes are for each subject, they barely do it for the election. dont know what people are like in the US but theres a real sense of apathy for politics here in the UK so it would never work

[Eff Pandas]

Man. I am for that direct democracy system but you see how most people don't give a damn about politics and how fake news can influence voting so have a feeling moneyed interest will find a way to game that system too.

If people are voting on issues its less about politics I'd argue.

Idk that the politics of an issue would be as charged without so many D's & R's trying to influence people.

And more people voting is always gonna get a more representative opinion on a topic then less people who are often influenced by the letter by their name in how they vote & companies/causes who've given them money (& may or may not give them money or influence their election in the future based on a current vote) then their own opinion or what they think those who voted for them opinions are.

[siablo14]

If people are voting on issues its less about politics I'd argue.

Idk that the politics of an issue would be as charged without so many D's & R's trying to influence people.

And more people voting is always gonna get a more representative opinion on a topic then less people who are often influenced by the letter by their name in how they vote & companies/causes who've given them money (& may or may not give them money or influence their election in the future based on a current vote) then their own opinion or what they think those who voted for them opinions are.

I am for it but I know moneyed interest will find a way to get it to work for them but I am for trying it.

[BM dnobagaV]

The Founding Fathers would like to have a word with you.

[Eff Pandas]

The Founding Fathers would like to have a word with you.

They dead. They ain't sh^t to say.