Direct Democracy

At least on a state level, or at the very least on a localized level within your county, there should be a system where citizens can directly vote on any proposed legislation that would get signed and passed buy say the Governor or mayor, depending on how far-reaching the legislation will be.


In other words, we would entirely dismantle the system of electing a few out of touch people to represent a population, and rather the population will represent itself.

That means getting rid of congressmen and senators, and letting the people govern themselves. If you think that sounds crazy, is electing a select few of easily bought out people that are hard to get rid of any better? It would be intellectually disingenuous to say so.


Trouble is that we would probably need to get congressman and Senators to create legislation that removes themselves from office and create a new population representative system in its place, which would be incredibly difficult to do.

Couldn't this be seen as an issue that both the left and the right could agree on?

Other urls found in this thread:

i.4cdn.org/pol/1508610727952s.jpg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

We already have to much democracy in the west.
It only leads to degeneracy and leftism, democracy was a mistake and must be reduced, not expanded

fuck off retard

Spot the complacent low energy cuck, everyone

It says more about your ideology than it does the people if you're scared of having the people being empowered kiddo

Direct Democracy is how things are *supposed* to run. Of the people, by the people, for the people
With today's technology, it would be easy to implement
We have a new party over here which promises Direct Democracy. Media keeps it very quiet of course. It's where my vote will be going though

ah yes ebin buzzwords while you're advocating for anarcho-communist commune nonsense

On a local level direct democracy is fine as the area of effect for policies is immediate and consequently individuals will actually feel the consequences of their votes. If they vote well, they prosper. If they vote poorly then they suffer. The problem with democracy is once you start applying it over distances that are meaningless to any individual. When I vote for nationwide legislation, I'm not thinking about people in other states, and I'll never have to really face the consequences as much as 49 other states will. Consequently, I can vote for very outlandish bullshit motivated by idealism due to the distance inhibiting my ability to actually perceive and recognize damage that I may have done. Simply put, nobody gives a shit until something affects them. So why would you let one person in one state have say over the life of another person in another state?

direct democracy is a sham because people are easily swayed and absolutely stupid

I'm advocating for the people to have a voice, not a handful of politicians ruling over us.

Youre a super hero cuckold if you don't want that.

1.define the people
2.what if a majority of the people votes for collective suicide ?

Republicanism is just a diluted sham too, don't you forget that.

The average person has nothing going on in their minds that warrants giving them a voice. We gave them a voice and they gave a handful of politicians the ability to rule over us.

Yet it's better than having an old fuck across the country being bought our by pharmaceutical companies you fucking idiot

FURTHERMORE, I didn't imply this system should be in place for nation-wide federal laws, but perhaps for specific counties (or you're equivalent), or at the very least local towns

See: Some 74 year old getting bought about Pfizer is not better than you voting to legalize Marijuana in your city.

Are you guys daft or just bored-trolling?

Furthermore, democracy and republicanism are both basically just policy-building based on argumentum ad populum. They're literally ideologies designed to give small groups of people greater power by allowing them to capitalize on the massive numbers of retards and use those masses to claim numerical superiority (and therefore apparently victory) over ideas that are less popular but may not necessarily be wrong.

Democracy is unethical, immoral and also doesn't work

nowhere have I advocated for republicanism

and I think that a town should be governed by the family that owns it to guarantee prosperity

The general public is retarded. Look at California's referendum system. Californians always vote to approve for expensive programs but also vote for propositions that restrict the government's ability to raise taxes.

The population already represents itself by hiring legislatures on its behalf from neighborhood organizations/ school boards all the way up to congress.

What would your alternative be?

you probably mean the ((((people)))) being empowered

Why on earth would I want to give people to right to do bodily harm to themselves? It is you who are daft.

did we ever get source on that meme

a town of pedos voting to legalize pedophilia and fucking toddlers within city limits probably, and they'd only need 50.01% of votes

Vannessa Phoenix, Lexxxus Adams

My alternative would be this:
:)

It would be intellectually disingenuous to say that the BEST we as humans can comd up with is our deeply flawed and ridiculously corrupt system that enables a handful of soulless jaded fucks to govern us.

It was the best we could do in the Roman Republic, but has been antiquated since The Enlightenment, and inarguably so since the dawn of The Information Age

Yeah, some misguided 18th century lesser noblemen who never interacted with common folk just assumed that the average person (with whom they had never actually interacted) wasn't an easily swayed brainlet. Though apparently IQs have actually been going down over time.

someone doesn't know shit about Greek and Roman history
Democracy failed then as it is failing now.

There would be checks and balances in place, established by people more intelligent than us.

But a regulated system that puts the power in our hands is no doubt superior to our hopeless system we have today

I can almost guarantee it would collectively inspire the population to better our community, now that we'd be given the chance

Don't act like you can't see that.

In a country were the average IQ is 100, that means 1 out of every 2 citizens has a double digit IQ. Tell me, why should a person that dumb be allowed to have a say in how the government is run?

If they're more intelligent than us, why not just let them run the show entirely? And what stops a democratic society from just voting away those safeguards?

>There would be checks and balances in place, established by people more intelligent than us.
and that's how you end up with current republicanism, thanks for playing, next time read Plato before starting a dumb thread on a subject that was beaten to death before jesus christ was even a thing in the balls of god

We have checks and balances and still use direct democracy. Actually it's thanks to direct democracy that we aren't in the EU.
But i understand that you as French don't really care about sovereignty.

Sounds good and all.

But the money. The MONEY

Democracy is the single worst system of government that exists and must be abolished.

you don't know shit about your own country, proptip: EU regulations supersedes swiss laws and votations and your past few governments have been moving towards giving more EU decrees more authority over swiss law, without any votation.

Democracy is basically just mob rule, we're a republic for a reason

OP here

Email me - [email protected]

Long story short, I'm going to talk to my local politicians about this.

I want to edit & finalize my proposal about this to the point where it's pretty sound and reasonable, though I need constructive criticism to do so. I'm about to head out

just argue for a landowner system and take early 19th century southern NA as an example, thank me later

I said we aren't in the EU, i never claimed that we aren't cucked by the EU just like every other European nation or rather the people of European nations.
Wnad what without any votation? Next year we're probably gonna vote if we want to end the free movement of people.
And what is your country gonna do in the future besides sucking Brussels dick even harder?

you're missing the point hard but I noticed that people on here often end up resorting to ad hominem about France when I point out an objective and factual issue with their own country, try to read the thread again before replying to me, if your monkey protestant brain can handle it.

>Any form of democracy
Ancap or bust

>an- anything
>cap anything

>Muh mob rule

There's a reason literally no country does this you mong.

Ad hominem? I took a slight jab at your country in my last sentence and that's enough for you to dismiss my whole text? And you're complaining that i reply to your reply?
>monkey protestant brain
Many parts of Switzerland are catholic

-_-

no such thing as a swiss catholic since the germanization of north-eastern switzerland and the Sonderbund war

i.4cdn.org/pol/1508610727952s.jpg Where is this from,a porn movie?

STOP
WATCHING
PORN

Hahahhaaha Never,just answer !

New here?

Well no and yes..And i see you are clueless about the pic,or it is some shit that has been here forever?

why is it so arousing to imagine a personification of a country getting fucked by another in reference to an event in history

because you are a mentally impaired algerian

> when someone get your origins perfectly right
i'm born in France thought

to much democracy?
Every 4 years you can only vote for a perception of choice. The CDU and SPD are just two different sides of the same coin.

lol, still a nigger

And the electorate allowing it to get to this point is the exact reason that I sure as hell am not about to let them, "try and fix this" by giving them them more power.

the only proper way to vote is by bullet, the weak should fear the strong, the few the many.

but my skin colors is white, and i am a perfectly civilised & integrated members of society.

I see no one knows,google image did not show..F it gonna wank to something else then.

Normies everywhere.... Reeeeee

nope, people only make you feel that way but in your back they talk about how disgusting of an algerian you are and how much they wish someone would do something about your race

But everyone tell me that i don't look like an algerian at all and that they expected me to have a real french name my dudes

are you.. are you implying that my skin colors is a product of my imagination? I was black all along? I was a criminal all my life? holy shit user

no I'm implying that people set up a front and are disgusted by you but don't show it out of politeness or straight up fear of legal action against them

i need the saouce for this please

lmfao when fucking algerians pretend to be french. God damn. Feel sorry for you, Jacques.

Deluded not diluted you stupid ignorant benighted fuck.

While there's a lot of negative things to be said about (limited) direct democracy, there's at least one good thing about it: it bypasses the political class.

This is why I like the Swiss system with its limited direct democracy, and this is why I also like Macron's proposal to launch a referendum if the assemblée takes too much time discussing a law.

>Muh mob rule
>Brexit is a good thing
Pick one. Because let's not forget that Britain's "patricians" were all opposed to Brexit.

>The average person has nothing going on in their minds that warrants giving them a voice.
But of course you're the exception, right? It's fucking uncanny that the grand majority of elitists see themselves as part of the elite, as temporarily disenfranchised nobility rather than the plebs they are. Do you know what elitism leads to? To guys like Soros, the Clintons, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the Trumps becoming the new ruling class. The nobility are either old money or warlords who managed to become old money, with a vested interest in keeping social mobility as low as possible.

I have to wonder if any of you elitists have even the slightest knowledge of why the Roman Republic fell in the first place, and why Caesar managed to make himself a dictator for life.

A country was less than a percent away from basically saying, "we like not being sovereign." You're gambling, and given that you don't have nearly the same resources as the enemy, it's very likely that you won't be able to hold on to that fraction of a percent needed to win for much longer.

Yes, I am. Because my life choices have put me in an objectively better place than the overwhelming majority of people my age. I score higher than most other people on literally everything. If you're here trying to peddle, "we're all equal" well, I'll listen to it, but unless you can make a compelling case for it, I'm not buying. I don't feel like letting a bunch of niggers, white people with low self esteem, and South American mongrels tell me what to do because they outnumber me.

>A country was less than a percent away from basically saying, "we like not being sovereign."
What do you think the stats were like among Britain's elites? The fact that the PM negotiating Brexit right now was a Remain activist should tell you more than enough.

>Because my life choices have put me in an objectively better place than the overwhelming majority of people my age
What's your net worth?
>M-Muh good grades tho
They don't fucking matter, what's your net worth?
>B-Bu-
You do know shit like the French Revolution started not because of some hungry mob, but because the bourgeois was upset about the arbitrary privileges of the nobility, right? Same thing in Rome: what separated the rich plebs from the eques was merely family name, and what separated the eques from the patricians was how far said family name went back. This is why the Roman senate was next to devoid of plebs: not because they lacked education (some plebs could get really rich and really educated) but because they weren't part of the right in-group. So unless you can convince me that you're part of some inner circle, you're a pleb.

Who cares about the elites? Obviously they're not so isolated if they've basically manage to de facto buy out a near majority in just about every Western country. Unless you magically synthesize enough money to unfuck this, then the jig is up. And may I remind you that the founding fathers very clearly did not intend for everyone to vote. The rest of what you wrote is just ignorant, partly irrelevant, and narrow-minded nonsense.

Monarchism in all nations, even Switzerland when

stay jelly faggots.

Direct democracy would mean the loss of a lot of power for the elites. We will never get it without a fight.
Also, I think people are a lot better at voting for issues than they are at voting for parties.

This I can agree to. Voting should be based on issues, not parties. That said I still wouldn't support any kind of direct democracy beyond a local level where individuals can actually feel the consequences of their votes.