A am sure that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum will be performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). — Linkey
Theoretically, this problem can be solved as follows: the voter does not just vote for one of the candidates, but gives each candidate a score on a ten-point scale. — Linkey
Ranked choice voting is a process that allows voters to rank candidates for a particular office in order of preference. Consider a race where four candidates – A, B, C, and D – are running for a single seat such as Governor. In an election utilizing RCV, voters simply rank the candidates 1-4, with the candidate ranked as “1” being the voter’s highest preference for Governor. If a candidate is the first choice of more than half the voters, that candidate wins the election. But if no candidate gets the majority of the vote, the candidate with the least amount of support is eliminated, the second choice support for that eliminated candidate are redistributed, and this process continues until a candidate wins more than half of the vote.
There is already a better system than this in place in a number of jurisdictions. It’s called ranked choice voting. This from the web — T Clark
This is a good idea, but maybe I don't fully understand the principle from your quote. — Linkey
It is quite unclear how to solve this problem; — Linkey
For me, the best system can be as follows: if we have e.g. 3 candidates, each voter ranks each candidate with 1-3 numbers, and rank 1 means 10, 2 means 5, 3 means 0. — Linkey
Why would we possibly bring in a new system when there is an existing one, ranked choice voting, that has been in use for a long time and works well? — T Clark
Can we vote to create a representational democracy where we have a House, a Senate, and a President so we no longer have to vote on everything personally? — Hanover
You have this "democracy" now, and in fact, the President and expesically the Senate use their powers for serving the financial aristocracy ("300 familities"), they have the full power and do not allow other people to become their competitorr; and it is becomes clear that smart people are not allowed to become presidents in US, because a smart president can become a threat for the power and money of these people. — Linkey
No, we don't have a 'democracy' like the town meetings of New England. — BC
Proposition 13, adopted by California voters in 1978, mandates a property tax rate of one percent, requires that properties be assessed at market value at the time of sale, and allows assessments to rise by no more than 2 percent per year until the next sale. This means that as long as property values increase by more than 2 percent per year, homeowners gain from remaining in the same house because their taxes are lower than they would be on a different house of the same value. Proposition 13 thus gives rise to a lock-in effect for owner-occupiers that strengthens over time. It also affects the rental market, both directly because it applies to landlords and indirectly because it reduces the turnover of owner-occupied homes.
Referendum and initiative SOMETIMES lead to very bad law, and sometimes to very good law. — BC
It's much more direct than your town electing representatives to meet and make decisions. — BC
How many people make up a quorum? — BC
On the other hand, who is held responsible (later) for bad decisions? An elected assembly is in office long enough for bad decisions to sometimes come home to roost. — BC
How many people make up a quorum? It would be very unrepresentative if only a handful showed up to a meeting to make decisions, — BC
Good question. I don't think there is a quorum. I'm not sure of that. — T Clark
What if we made it mandatory form a quorum with at least half of the possible attendees? — javi2541997
What if we made it mandatory for a quorum with at least half of the possible attendees? — javi2541997
his could mean they are not very interested in taking part in decisions — javi2541997
A am sure that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum will be performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). — Linkey
Yes, that's a good one.There is already a better system than this in place in a number of jurisdictions. It’s called ranked choice voting. — T Clark
Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats. Today, proportional representation is the most common electoral system among the world’s democracies.
Proportional representation is an electoral system that elects multiple representatives in each district in proportion to the number of people who vote for them. If one third of voters back a political party, the party’s candidates win roughly one-third of the seats. Today, proportional representation is the most common electoral system among the world’s democracies.
And who would set the question for this Friday? Do the voters get advance warning to inform themselves on the subject? It's not a lot of time to prepare. How would a new mandate be implemented, when, and by whom? Who owns the platform on which the voting takes place and how are votes tallied? What percent of the votes would it take to win, and would that be the same requirement for imposing a parking fine, changing a zoning regulation, eliminating/reinstating the death penalty and declaring war? What if the public mood shifts before the law goes into effect? — Vera Mont
Some of your questions are trivial. Concerning the necessity to gather information before voting, I have an idea of using a lot: a group of 200 random people would be chosen, the state will give them the money for studiing the subject, and possbly they will vote instead of the whole population. This is one implementation of the "lottocracy", for me there are better ones, but they are more difficult for explaining. — Linkey
So somehow you’ve gone from hundreds of millions of people voting on laws to 200 people voting. I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well. — T Clark
As the article notes, it seems a lot like the electoral college system. I place both of them under the classification of “seemed like a good idea at the time.” — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.