Comment by basisword
8 hours ago
>> 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.
8 hours ago
>> 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.
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
That's where Unions and NGOs come in. Their job is to be lobbyists for the people, against corporate power.
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.
That describes pretty much every democratic government in the world, from the USA to New Zealand
> 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.