/v/Showerthoughts is a subverse for you to share all those thoughts, ideas, or philosophical questions that race through your head while in the shower.
"Showerthought" is a loose term that applies to any thought you might have while carrying out a routine task like showering, driving, or daydreaming.
Please be respectful of others' submissions. If you disagree, explain why in the comments. Downvoats are reserved for submissions you don't like or comments that do not add to the discussion, not opinions with which you disagree.
RULES
-
Please refrain from shower "observations;" we've heard them all before
-
Ideas for Voat features should be posted in /v/ideasforvoat, even if you think of them while in the shower
The spirit of this subverse's rules is to foster a community where dissent, free thought, and open discussion are tolerated, limited only to trolling, excessive abuse, site-breaking rules, or content that is better suited for another subverse. All moderation activity should operate within this spirit.
Moderation oversight: Deleted posts, Deleted comments, Banned users
Sort: Top
[–] 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
[–] 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.
[–] Broc_Lia [S] ago
I did say I hated democracy.
Anyhow, the alternate is having a tyranny of an elite oligarchy, which isn't any better. At least this way democracy might live up to the manufacturer's claims.
[–] 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.
[–] Broc_Lia [S] ago
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.
Democracy is abusive and corrupt by nature, so that's nothing new.
It'd be interesting alright.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] dontdoxxmebro ago
If only three people are in the room, and nothing has to get done.
[–] Mediocrity ago
Well, it's a good thing we live in a Republic.
[–] Broc_Lia [S] ago
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.