Comment by swed420
1 day ago
> Instead, solutions should be developed through a public democratic process that includes elected officials, policymakers, educators, health workers, local officials, and community leaders. Millions of people will have their lives disrupted, and we’ll need a stronger, more flexible social safety net to help them manage the transition. Local communities are already raising concerns about the energy and water needed for data centers. Without solutions, some groups will push for stopping AI development and deployment altogether.
Sounds great, except it ignores the fact that capital interests have controlled the levers of our faux democracies for decades, with no end in sight.
Not everywhere. Switzerland has a direct democracy, which should be emulated by the rest of the world.
https://www.aboutswitzerland.eda.admin.ch/en/direct-democrac...
FWIW I am not from Switzerland, I only live there. Direct democracy works great.
Use of the term of direct democracy feels dilution in that case. It is a significant step in that direction, though for me (and wikipedia) direct democracy is without the middleman. Switzerland still has parties, elected government and so forth, no?
If someone else hasn't given a thought yet to Liquid Democracy, I propose they give it a couple of minutes of imaginary thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
For some real world data there are some studies about (I think) German branch of the Pirate Party using it in internal decision making and there is interesting insight for those curious.
It be nice if we all where allowed to vote on particular laws if interested, and defer certain topics to our delegated experts. (Chat Control for example, would be a non issue then.)
The technology for that approach has been mature enough since the rise of social media and private crypto currencies (as a means of electronic private vote, particularly around usage of smart contracts for delegation). What about the interest and spreading of these ideas? Pretty limited, to non-existent. Some people like to follow leaders, though naturally wouldn't expect it to be the silent majority.
Switzerland still has parties and a senate but the people can veto any law and the people can amend the constitution. This arguably is a sensible balance as it’s probably not tenable for the people to legislate full-time. Representatives can legislate and the people will override them when they disagree.
There's nothing convincing in your link.
More importantly, even if it did contain the solution, there is no obvious way for a country with an already corrupt government to transition to such a thing.
I think you mean no obvious pacific way. Which is what any democratic citizen wants and seeks out. There are other solutions and way too obvious, in fact you have examples all over the world going back centuries.
1 reply →
Democracy is clunky but sort of works. Say UBI looks necessary it may be both parties adopt it so it gets done in spite of the uniparty issue.
Election denialism is unbecoming of anyone with a brain
“Sounds great, except it ignores the fact that capital interests have controlled the levers of our faux democracies for decades, with no end in sight.”
This is not election denialism. This is almost just a fact except they also subjectively declare that we have a faux democracy (which also seems accurate to me).
Yes it is. If you insist that the result of a democratic election does not reflect the will of the people, that, and nothing else, is election denialism.
9 replies →
> Election denialism is unbecoming of anyone with a brain
Convincing argument you have there, but the choices we're provided between shit sandwich A and shit sandwich B are the problem, not which one wins.
This is akin to arguing "nothing ever changes or improves in Liberal democracies", when policy history doesn't reflect that.
Large parties represent large coalitions, so there are more compromises and things happen slower, but they still happen. Not always for the better, as we're seeing when populists are elected.
18 replies →
This is a well known mathematical property of first-past-the-post election systems, as opposed to evidence of your grand conspiracy theory
5 replies →
No your choice was between a competent leader and a con man. When people type what you type it seems obvious you are attempting to avoid responsibility for choosing the con man. I blame everyone that has this "there was no good choice" bull. That is exactly what it is an excuse for blowing up everything and claiming no responsibility.
2 replies →
Political campaigns spend enormous amounts of money on ads to influence public opinion. That makes politicians beholden to their donors. Which subverts democracy from "the will of the people" to "the will of the wealthy". All of these are uncontroversial facts and fit the narrative GP is saying.
"What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph...
Election denialism is about rejecting official election results.
But anyway, on the subject of the usefulness of your vote, Trump was elected on an America first platform, touting ending foreign wars and avoiding new ones.
If you elected him and his party based on that I think you're going to be pretty disappointed with the effectiveness of your vote in its ability to bring about actual outcomes that you want.
>Election denialism is about rejecting official election results.
That would be the implication of such statements as "our democracy has been subverted by the big corporate conspiracy".
The post you are responding to is not election denialism.
There is no functional difference between the statement "democracy is subverted by a grand corporate conspiracy" and "our elections are invalid", because the only way the former happens is if the latter happens. If the latter didn't happen, then you're just upset about the outcome of a legitimate election. Which is a fair thing to be in a democracy, but it does not mean that the whole system is corrupt. Insistence that any other outcome than your preferred outcome is illegitimate is dictator behavior
3 replies →
Lol if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal.
You mean like the SAVE act?
Or restrictions on mail-in voting?
2 replies →
Being an apologist for the state and our current system is unbecoming of anybody with a brain
Which would be a projection on your part.
2 replies →
[dead]
[flagged]