undefined | Better HN

0 pointsarcticbull10y ago0 comments

My take on it is that direct democracy doesn't make sense for this type of complex and nuanced decision. The general population isn't in the business of politics and scare tactics on both sides aren't going to educate them on the nuances and detailed implications of a decision like leaving the EU. That's why we vote for representatives who make it their job to understand, and vote accordingly -- representative democracy and direct democracy are two different things.

People feel qualified to weigh in on any political issue because that's always been that narrative. I see it asking the general population, without any further information to vote one day or whether Apple should move factories out of China. You know literally nothing about what's going on, so how could you possibly make that decision for Apple? That's up to their board.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

zghst10y ago· 3 in thread

What about decisions like electing the leader of the free world? The most powerful person on earth? Should that be left up to every day people?

I think that people should be able to make big decisions that effect them. Direct democracy is more useful than ever, the elites use our republic to manipulate people more than ever. They game the system and with no balance or checks on their power.

arcticbullOP10y ago

IMO its as easy for the elites to manipulate the public via media as it is for them to manipulate elected representatives and the latter is easier to address via checks and balances, though nobody seems willing to put them in. Elections are in the public interest so campaigns should be solely funded by the government, not by private backers. Private parties should not be able to run media campaigns on behalf or against individuals. Lobbying would be rendered useless.

Further, certain other countries do not in fact vote directly for their 'most powerful person' -- in Canada, you vote for your representative locally and the party with the most local representatives sends their leader to be Prime Minister, and even there, the Governor General in Right of the Queen has final say just to make sure.

I think as noble as 'I get to decide what matters most' is, it's worthless when issues reach the kind of complexity that requires specialization in your field. As another poster mentioned above, you don't vote on what kind of medicine a child gets, you leave that up to a doctor -- a professional. Now feel free to pick that professional!

PKop10y ago

But what's a "media campaign"? Does this include social media? How about public speeches, broadcast on youtube?

This distinction seems arbitrary and basically restricts the ability for someone or some association of people to promote their ideas.

zghst10y ago

But in politics and economy per se, there is no right decision. There is no such thing as a utopia or path to one, social and economic order is in a constant, violent evolution. Politicians just manipulate this struggle instead of heal it. If you can accept that you can't control adult children, why not accept that you can't control people?

And that's not entirely false, parents can decide what medicine and procedures to put a child through. Doctors aren't all knowing, they make many mistakes and are even in the favor of special interests like pharmaceutical companies.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse