Democracy in its current form is bound to fail - The greek inventors specifically warned of exactly our brand of democracy.
How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
11–20 of 37 posts
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#12I found it quite interesting that they removed the reply button. Afaik HN also has a limited reply button - there is no notification attached to it. This discourages talk/debate like discussion (lack of personal reaction) and encourages more a discourse style interaction around the facts.
The opportunity to reply is only invoked after an increasing amount of time, which I think is dependent on the depth of the conversation. In other words, the further into a conversation you are, the more time you are forced to take to think on the other person's response.
Great idea! I was thinking about how to make votes (aka likes) more like real votes. Maybe by updating the number of likes of a post once every 6 hours.
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#13Democracy in its current form is bound to fail - The greek inventors specifically warned of exactly our brand of democracy.
http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbarddemocracy.htm might be worth a read.
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#14Unlike social media, traditional media "generates" opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Democr...
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#15Democracy in its current form is bound to fail - The greek inventors specifically warned of exactly our brand of democracy.
Which is why originally, we didn't have what we have today. We had a modified republic which allowed democratic elections of some officials, but not of others. Keep in mind that senators were elected by states for a long time, a good thing if you as me, as they were intended to serve as a sort of moderate gerusia and be less accountable to the whims of the public. Electors for the presidency weren't directly elected either, in many places. Again, I think this helped us see a president more as a leader and less like a head-man.
Indeed, too much democracy can lead to disaster. We're seeing already that we end up with mob politics, populism, and candidates competing as to who can spend more of the other side's money, pass more laws they hate, etc. I hate it, and this is why the federal government was supposed to be elected mostly indirectly and given a small role to play.
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#16I found it quite interesting that they removed the reply button. Afaik HN also has a limited reply button - there is no notification attached to it. This discourages talk/debate like discussion (lack of personal reaction) and encourages more a discourse style interaction around the facts.
The opportunity to reply is only invoked after an increasing amount of time, which I think is dependent on the depth of the conversation. In other words, the further into a conversation you are, the more time you are forced to take to think on the other person's response.
Can you draft a reply before that times has passed? I wonder how that would influence the conversation.
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#17> And rather than showing the messages that divided each of the four groups, Pol.is simply made them invisible. This seems like a good way to find some initiatives through consensus. The main mechanism seems to be giving a "conversational veto" to everyone in the discussion. A "let's move on" button, basically. I find that very interesting. It would certainly help with concerns that "my legislature does nothing ". It…
Politics is complex and deadlock preserves the current situation which some group considers preferable to change. Consider, (53+25) = 78% of the US population believes Abortion should be legal in some or all situations. That’s why a total ban is rarely debated it’s a campaign issue, but making it illegal would quickly cost elections. Restrictions on the other hand also have popular support (53 + 21) = 74%. Thus rathe…
Abortion is also a very interesting example of tactical voting: https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-.... Just 28% of people support making abortion in the second trimester generally legal, but every state allows second trimester abortions. (Recent laws have not yet taken effect.)
So legal with restrictions is a middle ground, but there is a ton of debate and tactical voting within that middle ground.
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#18Democracy in its current form is bound to fail - The greek inventors specifically warned of exactly our brand of democracy.
http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbarddemocracy.htm might be worth a read.
The author does a lot of fun thought experiments that don't hold up long under critical scrutiny.
Take for example: "On the other hand, if, as it is now fashionable to maintain, the majority of voters in a democracy are prohibited from doing one thing—ending the democratic elective process itself—then this is no longer democracy, because the majority of voters can no longer rule."
It is still a democracy, because the majority of voters did not the surrender the power to make that decision to anyone, but in fact nobody is able to make that decision at all. There's no non-democratic entity who could decide so in place of the majority, because it is something that simply can't be changed. Every decision made is still made in a democratic process.
Just because you can't decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean you are not a democracy. It's simply another decision nobody can make. It's completely outside the scope of your democratic decision making.
Edit:
Another example would be a company in which all decisions are made in a democratic process. Well why can't its workers decide that murder should be legal? The obvious answer is that it is simply not a decision they can make, but is instead at the discretion of the country they operate in.
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbarddemocracy.htm might be worth a read.
The author does a lot of fun thought experiments that don't hold up long under critical scrutiny. Take for example: "On the other hand, if, as it is now fashionable to maintain, the majority of voters in a democracy are prohibited from doing one thing—ending the democratic elective process itself—then this is no longer democracy, because the majority of voters can no longer rule." It is still a democracy, because the…
Can the majority of people decide to end democracy if they, the majority, wanted or not? If not, why not, and how is it a democracy then? If yes, then I do not understand the relevance of your comment.
> Just because you can't decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean you are not a democracy.
I think this one is pretty obvious and I am not sure of its significance here. You cannot decide to do a lot of things, but that does not mean that you cannot decide to do some other things. Allow me to say this: just because you cannot decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean that you are a democracy (just as it does not mean you are not a democracy). See the problem here?
> Another example would be a company in which all decisions are made in a democratic process. Well why can't its workers decide that murder should be legal? The obvious answer is that it is simply not a decision they can make, but is instead at the discretion of the country they operate in.
This makes no sense within the context. You have mixed the scopes yourself. It is at discretion of the country, yes, and the company most likely is not the majority that makes up the country, is it? Otherwise if there was democracy, and whoever was part of the democratic process are indeed the majority of the country they operate in, then they are either allowed to decide that, or they are not allowed to decide that. If the majority of people cannot decide that, then it is simply not democratic. At first I thought you would talk within the scope of the company, then that would have made more sense in the way that workers are not necessarily part of the democratic process, or their votes can be simply ignored, which may happen in the context of a country, too, in which case I would not call that democratic either.
For anyone who is reading my comment but have not read the article posted above: please do not dismiss the article because of my comments! There is much more to it than what is mentioned in my comments, and the author has articulated his arguments better than I did! I do not accurately reflect the author's views.
Re: How a social network could save democracy from deadlock
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author does a lot of fun thought experiments that don't hold up long under critical scrutiny. Take for example: "On the other hand, if, as it is now fashionable to maintain, the majority of voters in a democracy are prohibited from doing one thing—ending the democratic elective process itself—then this is no longer democracy, because the majority of voters can no longer rule." It is still a democracy, because the…
Can the majority of people decide to end democracy if they, the majority, wanted or not? If not, why not, and how is it a democracy then? If yes, then I do not understand the relevance of your comment. > Just because you can't decide that the sun should drop out of the sky, does not mean you are not a democracy. I think this one is pretty obvious and I am not sure of its significance here. You cannot decide to do a l…
> Can the majority of people decide to end democracy if they, the majority, wanted or not? If not, why not, and how is it a democracy then? If yes, then I do not understand the relevance of your comment.
You just simply restated what the article's author said and to which I responded at length already. But I'll rephrase from a different angle further below for your benefit.
> This makes no sense within the context. It is at discretion of the country, yes, and the company most likely is not the majority that makes up the country, is it? Otherwise if there was democracy, and whoever was part of the democratic process are indeed the majority of the country they operate in, then they are either allowed to decide that, or they are not allowed to decide that. If the majority of people cannot, then it is simply not democratic.
And on company grounds? What if just worker's of said company decided it's okay to murder each other there?
If you believe that spheres of influence (both physically and in the abstract sense) should have no bearing on what decisions your democracy can make, then you can't ever have a democracy because something will always be out of your influence (unless maybe you're the only country on earth). The decision of whether murder should be legal on company grounds will always be outside of what workers can decide. However if your definition of democracy essentially makes having a democracy impossible, may I suggest you use one that is actually useful.
If you believe that yes, your decisions should be scoped to physical borders and other limitations that arise, then your constitution (or whatever document dictates you can't end democracy), is simply another factor that narrows down what decisions can be made.
Your constitution is very much like your country's border in that sense. It limits the scope of your decisions.