Should those who are not intelligent be allowed to vote?

[Forster Keys]

It's pretty stupid considering it fails everywhere it was tried. If it didn't work for Athens and if it didn't work for California when we tried it, it won't work for anyone.

To be fair, California is pretty damn big. Large states have a significantly more difficult time implementing direct democracies.

Nonsense. If it doesn't work in California it can't work anywhere. Sociologists call it the California Test. It's science man.

[Distruzio]

Doesn't it work in Switzerland?

First, I don't live there so I don't know if they have any gripes on it or not. Second, it's still not a fully Athenian democracy considering it has some partial representative democracy.

Direct democracy only exists in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.

Fair enough, I suppose.

[Twilight Imperium]

Because children do lack the capacity to make an informed choice? I'd support lowering it, say to 16, but no further than that.

So... you agree with me? That the less intelligent should be disenfranchised?

In a perfect world, yeah. Unfortunately it's another "would be nice" solution that runs into severe implementation problems, i.e. testing and so forth. At least we know that four year olds won't be able to pick properly.

[Ixzara]

Doesn't it work in Switzerland?

First, I don't live there so I don't know if they have any gripes on it or not. Second, it's still not a fully Athenian democracy considering it has some partial representative democracy.

I think I've spoken to a few Swiss who have definitely clarified for me that Switzerland doesn't actually use direct democracy to the extent they have previously.

[Distruzio]

Doesn't it work in Switzerland?

I'd say this sort of direct democracy might be distorted by mass capitalist society. When people are too busy and disconnected, consciousness and enthusiasm waver, and a small and active minority can subvert votes. But this sort of decentralisation and the level of participation are definitely progressive.

So... direct democracy would work if only we added social media flair to it?

Demos-book, anyone?

[Mavorpen]

To be fair, California is pretty damn big. Large states have a significantly more difficult time implementing direct democracies.

Nonsense. If it doesn't work in California it can't work anywhere. Sociologists call it the California Test. It's science man.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[Forster Keys]

I seriously had to run that past myself twice to check if it was satire.

Alright, fine, maybe it'll work under some very specific circumstances.

Oh indeed. As I said earlier, in a mass capitalist society apathy and ignorance make direct democracy impractical. It would need decentralisation and a lot of consciousness to get it working. But neither of these are impossible to achieve.

[Norstal]

To be fair, California is pretty damn big. Large states have a significantly more difficult time implementing direct democracies.

Nonsense. If it doesn't work in California it can't work anywhere. Sociologists call it the California Test. It's science man.

Like I said, I'll retract my statement. It can work on very specific circumstances.

[Distruzio]

So... you agree with me? That the less intelligent should be disenfranchised?

In a perfect world, yeah. Unfortunately it's another "would be nice" solution that runs into severe implementation problems, i.e. testing and so forth. At least we know that four year olds won't be able to pick properly.

So.... then the OP's suggestion is sound in principle. Now we merely acknowledge a discussion of degree. Fine by me.

[Forster Keys]

I'd say this sort of direct democracy might be distorted by mass capitalist society. When people are too busy and disconnected, consciousness and enthusiasm waver, and a small and active minority can subvert votes. But this sort of decentralisation and the level of participation are definitely progressive.

So... direct democracy would work if only we added social media flair to it?

Demos-book, anyone?

I don't know how you got that.

No Facebook is the very opposite of the kind of democracy I'd like to see. It's extremely participatory, yes, but the mass atomised anonymity and the ability for its owners to meddle behind the scenes might lead to some nasty consequences.

[Twilight Imperium]

In a perfect world, yeah. Unfortunately it's another "would be nice" solution that runs into severe implementation problems, i.e. testing and so forth. At least we know that four year olds won't be able to pick properly.

So.... then the OP's suggestion is sound in principle. Now we merely acknowledge a discussion of degree. Fine by me.

Dunno what you're winking about, basically everyone here supports wiser leadership. Ideals run afoul of reality all the time. The main thrusts I've seen aren't "literally everyone should be able to vote", they're variants on "if we're going to have true democracy then everyone should get to vote on everything", "but what is intelligence anyway", and "that system would get screwed faster than a double-****ed hooker at an orgy"

[Forster Keys]

Nonsense. If it doesn't work in California it can't work anywhere. Sociologists call it the California Test. It's science man.

Like I said, I'll retract my statement. It can work on very specific circumstances.

Just having a little fun.

[Distruzio]

So... direct democracy would work if only we added social media flair to it?

Demos-book, anyone?

I don't know how you got that.

No Facebook is the very opposite of the kind of democracy I'd like to see. It's extremely participatory, yes, but the mass atomised anonymity and the ability for its owners to meddle behind the scenes might lead to some nasty consequences.

So... how could it be implemented?

[Forster Keys]

I don't know how you got that.

No Facebook is the very opposite of the kind of democracy I'd like to see. It's extremely participatory, yes, but the mass atomised anonymity and the ability for its owners to meddle behind the scenes might lead to some nasty consequences.

So... how could it be implemented?

I'd say the best system here would be small communities making informed decisions on the things that effect them. Something like the city-state communes of the medieval era, or the rural collectives of Spain and Ukraine in the 20th Century.

[Distruzio]

So... how could it be implemented?

I'd say the best system here would be small communities making informed decisions on the things that effect them. Something like the city-state communes of the medieval era, or the rural collectives of Spain and Ukraine in the 20th Century.

I'd.... genuinely support that.

[Agritum]

So... how could it be implemented?

I'd say the best system here would be small communities making informed decisions on the things that effect them. Something like the city-state communes of the medieval era, or the rural collectives of Spain and Ukraine in the 20th Century.

IIRC, the communes had elected councils. And at least in Italy, they were rife with backstabbing

[Forster Keys]

I'd say the best system here would be small communities making informed decisions on the things that effect them. Something like the city-state communes of the medieval era, or the rural collectives of Spain and Ukraine in the 20th Century.

I'd.... genuinely support that.

Come and join the revolution comrade. I always knew you were one of us.

[Great Nepal]

I'd say the best system here would be small communities making informed decisions on the things that effect them. Something like the city-state communes of the medieval era, or the rural collectives of Spain and Ukraine in the 20th Century.

Yes, direct democracies would work in those communities... but those communities are not something that is in interest of humanity. If every city in world was a state in itself capable of going to war with neighbour at any moment: we would be wasting so much resources and lack pool of resources that we couldn't have made a lot of advancements we have made thanks to centralization.

So... how could it be implemented?

Hypothetically, every person could be implanted with a device which sends them proposal and asks them to think "aye" or "no". If someone doesn't vote within 24 hours, the device will start to heat up creating very uncomfortable situation until said person votes... would get 100% turnout.

[Forster Keys]

I'd say the best system here would be small communities making informed decisions on the things that effect them. Something like the city-state communes of the medieval era, or the rural collectives of Spain and Ukraine in the 20th Century.

IIRC, the communes had elected councils. And at least in Italy, they were rife with backstabbing

Too right. And they also often degenerated into oligarchies or indeed, were nothing more than a mafiocracy of competing families from the start. The past does not present us with many utopias.

[Ixzara]

I'd say the best system here would be small communities making informed decisions on the things that effect them. Something like the city-state communes of the medieval era, or the rural collectives of Spain and Ukraine in the 20th Century.

IIRC, the communes had elected councils. And at least in Italy, they were rife with backstabbing

At least until the Austrians came in and conquered them and gave all Italians a reason for unification.

[Ethel mermania]

i have reached the conclusion that those who wish to restrict the vote of others, should lose the vote themselves, as they have proved they are unqualified for the vote themselves.

[Agritum]

IIRC, the communes had elected councils. And at least in Italy, they were rife with backstabbing

Too right. And they also often degenerated into oligarchies or indeed, were nothing more than a mafiocracy of competing families from the start. The past does not present us with many utopias.

Other than that, they were usually annexed by decidedly not communal foreign powers.

[Twilight Imperium]

i have reached the conclusion that those who wish to restrict the vote of others, should lose the vote themselves, as they have proved they are unqualified for the vote themselves.

So nobody should be able to vote?

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

i have reached the conclusion that those who wish to restrict the vote of others, should lose the vote themselves, as they have proved they are unqualified for the vote themselves.

It looks like you can't vote then.

[Forster Keys]

I'd say the best system here would be small communities making informed decisions on the things that effect them. Something like the city-state communes of the medieval era, or the rural collectives of Spain and Ukraine in the 20th Century.

Yes, direct democracies would work in those communities... but those communities are not something that is in interest of humanity. If every city in world was a state in itself capable of going to war with neighbour at any moment: we would be wasting so much resources and lack pool of resources that we couldn't have made a lot of advancements we have made thanks to centralization.

They wouldn't really be states, as far as we know them. The community would be so integrated into the decision making process it would be difficult to tell where the state began and ended, if it existed at all. But yes those problems do present themselves. The decentralised clans of prehistory fought and killed one another constantly. Ideally the movement that forged these communes would be in the spirit of internationalism and classlessness. Or at least be wise enough to realise that it's much better for communes to share resources and ideas with one another for mutual benefit than wage war.

Hypothetically, every person could be implanted with a device which sends them proposal and asks them to think "aye" or "no". If someone doesn't vote within 24 hours, the device will start to heat up creating very uncomfortable situation until said person votes... would get 100% turnout.

That's the very sort of massified futuristic dystopia I'm trying to avoid.