it's pretty clear that voting for leaders is a bad idea - Trump 2.0 should be laying this aspect of democracy fully to rest.
What we need is a form of governance which is firstly competent, secondly aligned to the interests of the country, and thirdly connected to the will of the people via some mechanism. This is not a swappable hierarchy, but a clear system of what is most important first.
For a long time we have believed that voting for representatives (3) was the best method of securing (2) and (1) but now that is no longer the case, we need iterate on our systems of goverance, like we iterate on any system which has accrued too much debt (in the case of democracy, ideological debt)
Lottery is not a bad idea, but why have leaders in the first place? The practical problems of finding out what the people want have largely been solved with by mobile internet. How about a rotating cast of citizens, randomly selected by lottery, who must vote on policy choices presented by an AI? What about using a quadratic voting method so that citizens are incentivised to vote mainly on subjects in which they have a direct stake? Perhaps we should politically organise only locally and vote there, have representatives who have true local affiliation to vote on national issues?
The world is accelerating on tech innovation; we need to innovate in social and political spheres at commmensurate pace
fjfaase•8mo ago
Americans on average are just to stupid for keeping democracy and are allowing their country to become an authorian state, just like it happened in Russia.
cjbenedikt•8mo ago
"It's a pity that the people who know how to run a country a busy driving taxis or cutting hair." Or: " Anyone who claims to know best what millions of people want should be locked away and fed three times a day." Don't some US states have coin tossing in a hung election?
jkmcf•8mo ago
The problem isn’t so much the leader but the institutions supporting the leader. Take the average person and drop them into the DNC or RNC and the outcome will probably be the same.
I’d prefer having Confucius-like exams that filter insufficiently educated candidates. Then the problem is having very capable crooks, but at least it would be obvious they know they are crooks.
hunglee2•8mo ago
What we need is a form of governance which is firstly competent, secondly aligned to the interests of the country, and thirdly connected to the will of the people via some mechanism. This is not a swappable hierarchy, but a clear system of what is most important first.
For a long time we have believed that voting for representatives (3) was the best method of securing (2) and (1) but now that is no longer the case, we need iterate on our systems of goverance, like we iterate on any system which has accrued too much debt (in the case of democracy, ideological debt)
Lottery is not a bad idea, but why have leaders in the first place? The practical problems of finding out what the people want have largely been solved with by mobile internet. How about a rotating cast of citizens, randomly selected by lottery, who must vote on policy choices presented by an AI? What about using a quadratic voting method so that citizens are incentivised to vote mainly on subjects in which they have a direct stake? Perhaps we should politically organise only locally and vote there, have representatives who have true local affiliation to vote on national issues?
The world is accelerating on tech innovation; we need to innovate in social and political spheres at commmensurate pace