[Poll] Would you support a poll democracy?

That system would only last as long as the representatives / legislators uphold it, as soon as any extremist parties get 30% they'll change things either through polling or through polling a lot.

Also, there would need to be strict descriptions on how the proposals are termed, because if they're too vague, they can be exploited, if they're too specific, voters have no idea what they're voting for

 

Im all for poll voting on bills. just for IMPORTANT laws please demand a MAJORITY like 2/3 so we dont have a farcve like brexit over in the uk, 51/49 on a major decision is not a green light.

 

Technically, Hitler wasn't elected, his party got 20-30% , and the communists got 20-30% , so the government had to deal with one of them to achieve a majority, so they made him vice-chancellor I believe, with the assumption that another nazi high official would try and curb them in, but the nazis sort of ramped out their political terror campaign against anyone opposing them, removed the SA which relieved a lot of people because the SA was annoying them and then he sort of just did a political coup after hindenburg died and got a higher position.

 

1. Thoughts on a poll democracy?
Humanity is fucking retarded. I'd rather be ruled by a fascist authocracy than by the retardedness that is known as human swarm stupidity.

2. What are the weaknesses of this system? What are the strengths?
Surprisingly the entire thing has no advantage. The ones in control are all overglorified monkeys and it would be complete anarchy. This would only ever work in a transcendent scientific and secular society. We are far away from that.

3. What would you do if you lived during a period of political revolution? Would you go-with-the-flow with whatever people came up with?
If it ain't bothering me I don't see a reason to fix it. If a revolution is likely to screw me over I'd either oppose or gtfo.

4. Do you trust majority rule?
The majority of mankind is bloody retarded. Else we would have fixed climate change by now, just as an example. A technocracy would likely be less of a pain to deal with.

5. Do you believe in “democratic values”?
Rofl. Do not delude yourself into thinking that anything but money and power matters. What you call democratic countries are merely slightly better oligarchies.

 

utopia is nice

 

We want Lychee for president

 

I agree! Free Poland from the Germans!

BTW what year is this?

 

And? The election for Reichstag November 1932 after he became chancellor was without change of rules a true democratic election.
He was elected the chancellor in germany. It is till today election from the government runing party a la Merkel.
That he get a president election, elected from national assembly(Reichstag/Reichsrat) the two chambers of pre-war German government system come way latter after they change some rules, is a another story.
Like the general assebly in Frence UK, USA they all have two chambers but with diffrence purpose.
Neverthenless his party won a democratic election changed few rules after that...
got like 43% in election march 1933 as far as i know was still a democratic election other partys were still in election.only after that they missuse the system... in todays democracy with 43% and the use of D'Hondt-method which is used in many european countries he would have over 50% of the seats.

And so on my point is that democracy can and will be missused because on long run the government care only till next election not like monarchy that try to run a country for generations, yes there is a need of regulation for it too, so they do not rule like tyrant but that is a topic for itself.

 

A democracy can be ruined in one voted government.
A monarchy can be ruined with one generation of rulers within a few years.

Both have pros. Both have cons. Both are reliant on the actual people in charge .
But a democracy until they've assumed total power and abolished all other parties has to try and maintain enough popularity to make sure they get reelected.
But a monarch has to keep enough balance within the nation to make sure that they don't fight eachother to gain more power or become strong enough to rebel against him( dependant on whether it's a symbolic monarchy or not)

 

Down with the Bourgeois democracy.
Proletariat of isekai world unite!

 

Magic tech society. There is no clear year that it resembles. On an intellectual level, they are as about as sophisticated as modern-day.

I agree with this 100%

If I were the one drafting the constitution in this system, I would probably divide laws up into tiers.

The 90% tier would be an “inalienable right” tier — and laws in this category would need a 90% vote to change or add to the club.

The 80% tier is like a “constitution level” tier.

Then 70% tier.

Then 60% tier.

Then a 50% tier.

Finally a plurality tier.

You cannot pass a law in a lower tier that conflicts with a law in a higher tier.

A secondary consideration that is extremely important would be some sense of quorum. The amount of turnout (e.g. 5% voter turnout vs. 70% voter turnout) is very important and should factor into the tiers. Higher tiers should require higher turnout to be eligible to modify or add to the law.

 

———

Oh, I thought about the republican component more, and I think it would be interesting if the role of the representatives sitting in congress/legislature was inverted.

One of the primary criticisms of the pure direct democracy (Greek style) is that the citizen voters aren’t able to spend as much time thinking about laws or the nuances about each decision. In contrast, politicians have this as their full time job, so they’ve thought carefully and (in theory) read each of the bills in detail.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have time to read the bills that are proposed every day.

Consequently, I think it would be interesting if the representative portion of republics was flipped in this scenario — so we elect representatives to go sit in congress — mostly to listen to everything that happens (full-time job) and use their brains and talk to other lawmakers/people.

However, rather than the representative voting for us....

The representatives hold a “mock vote” and the results of the mock vote are submitted back to the general public. When logging onto the Magic Poll Portal, you would be able to see what your local representative voted for (by default) — and you could read their rationale for why they mock voted that way.

If you agree (or simply like your local representative), you could just accept your representative’s mock vote and it would count as your own.

This would save you time and would be effectively the same as most republican systems anyways if you preferred to go along with your representative most of the time. Further, it allows representatives to be privy to classified information without the general public needing to know sensitive details.

I think it’s an interesting inversion of the norm because most people have a huge distrust of politicians, yet this system is grounded on the fact that you elect for someone to be your representative primarily because you trust them to explain the situation to you best so you can make the final decision yourself.

Which I think is actually somewhat close to the original intention of how republics were designed to work (prior to communications technology) — on the fundamental premise that you trust your own representative.

If you don’t like your own local elected representative, it would be possible to subscribe to a different elected representative that you like better (to receive their “recommendations/mock votes”). However, setting the default to your local one is probably important because I think most of us are interested in hearing what our local peers think.

Furthermore, I think it is important for local areas to send representatives to help shape the crafting of law and proposed bills/policies, because voices are the table at this stage are critical for representing your interests.

Even though the final ratification of laws may not be done by lawmakers (instead by poll), a skilled diverse group of lawmakers well-versed in law and the political/economic/social situation of your country are probably important to have.

 

You do realise this is basically what is supposed to happen every year in a country such as America and Australia right? But the public doesn't get this big say in the polls after what the representatives say. Politicians in a republican country are not supposed to run on shit talking the other party into the ground but are instead supposed to get elected based upon the views that they hold. Which is why the debates are a thing in American politics. The debates aren't there so that you can shit talk your opponents but instead so you can put forward the ideas that you will be representing if you become a member of government. The opponent then gets a period to prove to the audience why they don't actually want those things and then say the things they stand for and so on till the thing ends with closing statements.

 

The televised statements in US/Australian politics are indeed intended for politicians to speak to their own constituents, but the public itself has no bearing on how the representative chooses to vote after the rep is elected.

If a representative goes rogue, the only opportunity for the electorate to punish the representative (or president Trump) is at the next election (to not elect the same person again).

The electorate has basically no power if they disagree if their own representative.

The disagreement happens a lot, whether through perceived corruption or something else, which results in low faith for democratic processes and in government.

The direct democracy hybrid places any responsibility back onto the voter. The outcome I think will be 80% the same, but the voter doesn’t have anybody to blame except for themselves when the country goes to war with Iraq in 2001 and then blame it’s the politicians fault for voting for war. (To be real: >90% of Americans were in favor of the war after 9/11 — but popularity rapidly declined)

 

The oligarchy of Cat Corps already rules everything, so *shrugs*

 

I thought it was poll democracy in NUF ...