[–] greycloud 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
this promotes tyranny of the masses and forces populace presidents. when the masses are ignorant of the harm caused by getting what they want, they will accidentally destroy the world. there is a fine balance to be had between having a world worth sustaining, and sustaining it.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] Codewow 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That would be hectic. I think a minimum term would need to be in place to avoid having situations where a transition of power needs to occur, but there's something heavy taking place.
It would be great for transparency, but also prone to abuse.
Someone should simulate this kind of system in a real world scenario though. See what happens over a year.
That would be hectic.
Polliticians mostly enjoy broad public approval during their first few months in office, it would be very unusual for them not to get a chance to put their policies into effect, and if they did something THAT unpopular, arguably they should be kicked out early.
It would be great for transparency, but also prone to abuse.
Democracy is abusive and corrupt by nature, so that's nothing new.
Someone should simulate this kind of system in a real world scenario though. See what happens over a year.
It'd be interesting alright.
[–] Mediocrity ago
I hate democracy.
Well, it's a good thing we live in a Republic.
I really hate that argument, it's stupid even in theory and it breeds complacency, making people think they're actually protected by pieces or paper and "wise" leaders.
The fact is that, in a society with a government, someone is holding the power. Whether it's the general poplace or some elite is irrelevant, either way they have the ability to become tyrannous. And once they decide to do so, no amount of constitutional restraints will stop them. Just look at the second amendment.
[–] Mediocrity ago
I'm not arguing anything.
I'm pointing out that the fact we are structured as a republic removes the outright mob rule that plagues direct democracy. All that other stuff is still there. And your original idea is pretty terrible. Here's why:
In order to do what you're suggesting, we would need a way to track every citizen, and their vote. In the current system (where we actually have voter ID laws), you show a photo ID, and are given a ballot. Your name gets crossed off a list, so the pollsters know you already voted.
In the scenario you're suggesting, the Feds would need to keep a living record of every voting age citizen. Meaning they would have to keep a big list of who had voted for whom and how old that vote is. And, of course, the system you're suggesting is directly democratic, since you are combining the idea of a voter tally with an approval rating. Basing the election on any public official on polls is just a bad idea - polls are always fickle.
Example: Kenyan gets kicked out of office. Killdawg gets elected. She doesn't fix everything right away, and the polls suddenly sway to the Donald. He gets elected. He doesn't fix everything right away. He gets ousted. All of this happens in the space of 3 months. This is problematic. And you think political ads are bad now? How bad do you think it will get when campaign season literally never ends?
What we have now is the best we've got. And yes, it's a republic. Which is not a meaningless distinction, no matter how much you like to think it is.
[–] NotToBeContrarian 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
You might enjoy "Liquid Democracy".
https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Liquid_Democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy