We have the technology for a while now so why have we not seen a detect democracy yet? Probably not a good idea to make it the only branch of government but 1 of 3 would probably be good.
We don’t quite have the technology to do so in a secure fashion just yet. We are pretty close- but in the last few years we have seen numerous high profile scandals over the integrity of critical systems that often were less about the technology, and more to do with those in control or care of it and breaches in the human component to the system. And that- we don’t yet have a technology which can reliably remove any human manipulation from such a system.
There’s infrastructure as well- verifying identification. The technology exists to theoretically verify the individual identity of every single legal voter- but there is an enormous economic cost to that, time, and quite possibly a huge issue of privacy and concerns for fundamental rights with a government controlled system like that which could verify every individual.
But- beyond the costs in money and complexity and theoretical freedoms and the potentials for abuses and the technical issues- direct democracy is a pretty terrible idea except for the strictest of Libertarians- and even then they’d have to acknowledge that in order to not have that direct democracy crush itself- it could not be a total direct democracy.
In plain terms- people aren’t always that bright, or logical. People often don’t think I’m big picture, and most often think in terms of how things effect them directly- but not about indirect or lasting repercussions. If most people were capable of understanding things like large scale economics and how to successfully run a large diverse entity- CEO’s and executives would made minimum wage and could be replaced with most people off the street.
“Direct democracy” is like saying why don’t we have “direct science” or “direct history” or “direct engineering.” The closest we have is direct economics- and look how well most people do there- look how well economies tend to run without entire teams of skilled professionals tending to commerce.
Perhaps after some generations in a world where every person of voting age and ability had a 4+ year college education.. but then what if anyone who doesn’t and their voice? I’ll basically stop here because I could go all day on this but:
Tl:dr and in conclusion- technical and other issues asides- we have a representative republic that was specifically built on the idea that most people lack the skills, knowledge, and objectivity to have a direct control over a large and complex thing like a government. When people are scared or mad- they don’t consider law or constitutionality- they want results. Direct democracy is mob justice on a larger scale. Civilizations and governments react slowly to inputs, take time to change courses. People- their emotions and desires change with the wind. You can’t steer an ocean liner the way you an a Gokart. Out politicians are (mostly and supposed to be...) professionals at politics and they suck by and large. If 90% of surgeons suck-wouldn’t you still rather have a surgeon be responsible for your operation than the most random person off the street?
As always you do make plenty of great points. I'm definitely not for a detect democracy alone but I think the opinion of the masses should be taken into account a little bit more. what I want is a Moore peaceful and organized alternative to protesting and riots. Like we as a people should be able to say hay this one law is super fucked up and have the government do something that isn't just to unload teargas into our faces.
You’ll get no argument from me there. The people don’t have enough of a voice, and some of the few ways people have to make it known when they are upset are often seen or treated by society and government as criminal or dangerous- and they can become dangerous in theory, or be perverted Into something else entirely.
There are some sad practicalities at work. To have stopped this most recent tragedy would require better screening of officers, better training, converting or eliminating contributors to a “negative culture” and higher standards for service- which just as not every soldier is an elite SOF trooper or a brilliant tactician and diplomat because uniforms need filled and a certain number is required in strength of force to be effective... the same goes for police.
Political pressures such as police unions contribute to the issue. While it’s important to protect our uniformed personnel- these unions often also keep people on the force who shouldn’t be. I’m not saying they’re bad or good- I’m saying it’s an added complication. What was done is against policy, it is against the vague standard of judgment allowed to police in use of force, and it was objectively excessive.
There is a certain reality in a situation and a moment. It can’t be explained to someone who has never lived that moment- I wasn’t there. From what I’ve seen from the comfort of my home- it was a completely uncalled for and avoidable situation. Better training and screening could stop that. But that falls beyond direct democracy or voice of the people- the practical reality is that you can’t have all “good cops” and keep the hours and pay and everything else of the job. Few but not many beat cops are there because they got bored making six figures at a corporate desk or decided working the street beat that tenure at MIT.
Once the deed was done- people are mad... but what would they vote for? For... it to be illegal or against policy? It is. To fire those officers? They did. Allowing a vote to force a trial... that’s dangerous. Very close to mob justice or kangaroo court- and what do we do if there is a trial and people don’t like the outcome? Voting for verdict or sentence somewhat defeats the purpose of an impartial jury of peers. It becomes more about marketing and media than justice.
It’s sticky. Very sticky. I won’t go in to all the studies and data on how society as a whole, age, race, occupation asides- is indicated to have biases against darker skinned folk that go to what seems to be a subconscious level. But random police around the nation shooting people of color who are time and time again showed to not be a threat in hindsight- that’s a tragedy, something that needs fixed, but not something we can vote away.
There is a lot of contention over wether police kill more black suspects than white, or wether those killings are equally justified etc. but- less contentious studies actually show that regardless of the racial mix of victims- the race of officers doesn’t seem to have a huge impact on the likelihood of them shooting a minority suspect. A black officer is essentially as likely to kill a black suspect as a white officer. So there is something deeper at an institutional or even individual bias level at play.
It’s all a mess. But yes. People need more ways to be heard and have that voice matter. I agree. We also need a better system of checks and balances against the government. We just have to be careful and remember that the same mechanisms that allow popular sentiment to enact a “just” law against the will of the government, like legalized marijuana or same sex marriage- can also be used to put through “unjust” laws as easily based on whichever way the pendulum swings with the masses. Right now you have stated like California who popularly oppose many immigration bills and call that “right” while much of the country is gripped by a popularity movement to “secure borders” and such.
Sentiments after 9/11 had people in polls calling for things like forbidding Muslim religious garb in public, thinking Mosques should not be allowed in certain places, or even calling for deportation or surveillance of law abiding citizens. The post 9/11 fear and anger allowed pushing through the patriot act and bills giving broad and unconstitutional or unregulated powers to various organizations- saw local sheriffs Recieving military weapons and armored vehicles. We must be very careful that out best efforts to give power to those without, don’t end up becoming tools to be twisted and used for the whims if whoever can best pervert them to whatever self benefit they seek.
It's a complicated issue for sure. What I would like to see is the D.O.J. (and honestly the whole government) get a total reform. Of course we can't pass a few laws and magically fix everything but every little bit helps. I think at this point the police should probably lose their hand gun privilege (or at least be made to load rubber bullets only) note I say hand gun not gun I'm all for them having access to a bigger weapon if needed but having a one on your hip at all times is a very different matter.
We also need to put in place a system designed to hold them accountable like a counter investing unit that acts outside of the police department and not under the local court because we all know that cops and judges work together and that eliminates the impartial justice system.
We can also talk about making the police more transparent and stopping people from the disposal of evidence.
I understand that change is hard and not always for the best but I think it's important to strive to be better at all times we as a nation seem to not care if there is a better way of doing things we are just too stuck in what we are used to. The same thing can be said about a lot of things inside our government witch honestly I think was a good design but it's about 250 years old now and things should probably be updated. For example we could totally move to popular vote and at least in part get rid of gerrymandering (witch is both unfair and costing a lot of taxpayers money). The way we make laws is also something that made complete scene back then but now is honestly just a hell of a mess. Why can't we split laws into single issues instead of making people say yes or no to something that is as long as Lord of the rings.
I don't even want to push my political side I just want to see our government come into the 21st century and actually do things that other countries have proven work.
Well said, and by and large agreed upon. I agree on the overhaul- we need more than fresh faces or younger politicians- we need to change the systems and improve them. As for police- it is an unpopular opinion- and not something that could be done overnight- but I would agree that something needs to be done about officers carrying guns. Wether that is a blanket ban of pistols, wether that is a larger ban, or wether that is more training and strict and frequent need to train and qualify in not just marksmanship and general safety, but to demonstrate in “kill houses” and electronic simulations and other scenarios that an officer can show the judgment and control to be trusted with a weapon in public.
Part of me has kicked around an idea that they shouldn’t have guns at all. That there be 3 tiers of officer. 1. Your basic peace officer- unarmed and unauthorized to arms. 2. Certified officers who under certain circumstances may be dispatched to a call where a there is strong and concrete evidence a weapon may be needed quickly, or when a locality experiences a major break down of public safety and it is prudent to have a larger armed force; and- 3. “SWAT” type officers who are armed and trained in weapon discipline.
A popular line to gun owners is “call 911.” Well- if responses are so fast- if the reality is that when your own or the lives of others are on the line- “wait by the phone” is an acceptable tactic- it stands to reason that most situations where the police would require the use of firearms could also be easily sorted this way. You’d have an administrative process and costs and other steps to asses case by case if a weapon is even justified in the situation. If I was an officer- I’d not like that much at all. But the truth is- I’ve known a lot of officers and an alarmingly small amount who actually had anywhere near the type of training- let alone the maintenance of that training- to be trusted to carry daily.
In many foreign countries- officers don’t carry side arms commonly. Now- America is America the same that New York isn’t Dallas- one size doesn’t fit all so I often hate to say “this country does it and it works for them..” key word... THEM. But- the foreign officers I’ve known tended to be very serious on martial arts for one thing- constantly training to defend themselves because- well- their lives are literally in their own hands and if they get scared... they can’t just pull a gun and empty the mag in the direction of what scared them. They also tended to be VERY good at de escalation and conflict management because- while there are armed gangs and nut jobs- most officers most of the day aren’t dealing with those things.
So whatever it is- yes. We need to re-examine not just the armaments of the “run of the mill officer” but the training, and we need to de militarize the police, change the culture of police to part of the community and not apart from or against the community, and examine ways to include the community in keeping itself safe so that communities and LEO are working together for the same goal and both see it that way- not “us vs them.”
Body cams I am all for- and I think that ANYONE in the public service should wear them. Including politicians. I think that there should be certain sensitive meetings not on body cam, independent civilian reviewers with clearance to be privy and verify the system isn’t being abused to use “national security” as a cover for dirty dealings and cheating the rules, and that footage should be available to the public live or archived for a given period with duplication allowed.
Laws are tricky. I agree that these “Save the cute puppies” Bills with 2,000 pages and 14 other laws tacked on- that in the end literally say “kill all the puppies” or have nothing to do with puppies but repeal other laws and etc. but most people won’t look that deep past “save the puppies”- these need to go.
The purpose is several fold though and actually sensical. It allows the grouping of proposals for easy organization- so that there is a record and so people can keep track of which things were related or tied in to each other. It’s used to allow more to get done in shorter time as all the legalese and such if drafting individual laws is cumbersome, and it allows for “camel trading.” It’s a mechanism to allow contentious bills a chance to pass- compromise. “I will support your bill for school lunch funding if you support my bill to restrict Orange Starburst to a maximum of 3 in a package...”
It gets rid of shenanigans and double crosses that can occur if we do a handshake agreement- but by literally tying these bills together it also makes all participants more likely to actually SUPPORT the body and not just sign it or vote yes- but to “talk it up” to others and to actually have “skin in the game” and a stake it in passing. Despite all the ways it can be used to “sneak” things in or to weigh down and kill things you don’t want passed by saddling them with baggage- it’s also a tool to cross even the most entrenched party lines and break stalemates on important issues.
And districting... Uhg. Yes. That is one of the hugest and most pervasive issues in politics today. Ignoring politics- ignoring the fact that in general- politicians like the current districting if they happen to be in power as it gives them control- we have to remember how our system is DESIGNED to work. In some cases- our 250 year old machine doesn’t need a re design- if just needs maintenance from many years of neglect and abuse.
Congress is supposed to be a direct body of the people- originally, every 30,000 people would have a representative. This would ensure that the many needs and groups were heard and represented in Congress. At sooo t in population though- that became impractical. Having that many representatives and opinions and so on to deal with- logistically challenging but also cumbersome. Nothing would hardly be able to get done.
The senate was supposed to be insulated from the people. This would allow them to focus on making decisions based in law, precedent, logic, expertise- and not popularism. The senate were the team that was told “don’t worry if people like you- just take care of things.” Not having to worry about re election so much, looking good in media- being able to be not necessarily the best presenting or campaigning candidate- but the person most functional in the job.
But we effectively ripped that out- making the distinction between senate and congress much more simply based in policies than execution. Short of ripping that entire system apart and staring with a fresh design:, or going to a parliament, we do have options. One is to re tune the system to work more in the spirit of how it was designed to work.
A proposal that isn’t perfect- but I think has promise- is one where districts are essentially- voted for. The use of districts is fundamental to the bicameral system. The idea is to have groups that SHOULD share similar concerns and needs (when viewed from a national/federal level) together so they can vote for who they think best represents them.
So the proposal is- keep districts, but each year re district based on previous votes. So instead of letting politicians decide who should share a district- which we have to remember is basically just saying “people who likely want similar things,” or doing some random districting (which studies and experiments show is no better or worse in general- but that at is simply in theory “equally unfair”) simply look at the votes from the previous years and draw districts based on those. Have some rules for what is or isn’t acceptable as a district, how to handle some change etc- and let people decide via their votes their district.
In year 0001, an entire cities vote may not count because they are in the “wrong district,” and their state may swing to “X” instead of “Y” even if “Y” got most of the votes- but in year 0002, those uncounted voices will be in new districts and have a fair chance to be heard.
A neat idea. The o my thing I haven’t heard on this system that concerns me is: a mechanism by which long term and in states where a “majority” bias is prevalent- how do we keep the “minority” vote from being discounted while still being “fair?” By the same token that 100 people shouldn’t necessarily decide things for 10,000- in a group of 10,000 the 100 shouldn’t be ignored in representation because they don’t have the numbers to ever make a dent even if they all stood together.
Sticky stuff. Overall I think we need a “tune up.” I think we need to decouple federal and larger powers more from local. We need to focus on how to deal with law and government on smaller scales.
Foreign policy has far more impact on our daily lives than in the past- but for day to day life- most people are really most effected by what happens at the local level, county, or state. We need to rebalance the equation and figure out how we can give local governments and populations more latitude to self govern- while upholding fundamental freedoms of those not in the majority for a specific location, and of course- keeping SOME semblance of portability. It isn’t practical to have basic laws shift wildly city to city. To be married in one city and a criminal in another and so forth.
As far as districts goes I honestly think we don't need it as much as we have it. On a larger scale it's basically a mechanism to simplify the math witch has not been needed sense the early 20th century or so when we started to have things that could crunch large amounts of data. A better system would probably be more like a dart board where a town can be the bullseye and the country the next later and so on and so forth. The popular vote is overall the moast representative of the population on the whole. Granted it doesn't help the minority.
I also would like to see us try a little bit more artificial intelligence and science in government. Granted I am well aware that placing a AI in charge alone is probably not a good idea but with someone there to interpret the data and humanize it a bit it would probably be quite useful (but maybe I'm just too into computers lol).
As far as the police go there is much more that needs to happen then just addressing the fact that they all carry hand guns on there hip. I think the culture and uniform need a complete overhaul ( see the 1968 Menlo Park blazer) . As well as the way they interface with the community.
First off the whole concept of a quota or whatever they want to call it needs to stop I have seen police departments without one and the function much more for the good of the community. There is also the matter of it also being predatory and unjust ask anyone that drives a car and they will
Probably tell you about a completely unnecessary ticket or worse that they have gotten because the cops have to make the numbers. It doesn't help anyone other than to bring in protection money into the local government and in a place that is peaceful enough it is basically the crime.
Don't get me wrong thought I'm for the concept of police but it's so twisted and self serving that it only causes more suffering even without talking about the mess that is our jail and prison system witch is so ridiculously broken for the purpose of serving justice or helping the community ( victims and criminals alike).
It is very sad that the system is more for the money making of the prison system and the predatory services that work with it then actually helping to make the world a better place.
Unfortunately it seems like that is just how our government is on the whole. It's all about keeping the people who give you money to run for re election happy forgot the greater good. Why can't we stop doing the traditional campaigning and switch to something that doesn't require insane amounts of money and man hours to run something like a YouTube channel would suffice that way it's not just the super rich that can actually run for office.
On the whole I understand that what works for one country or even city might not work everywhere but the same could be said about the past and the future if we don't try new ways of doing things we will not make progress. We may want to try to find some ways to test ideas in a smaller scale before putting them into practice. Though as you said we do run the risk of having laws so different that something that is normal in one place is a criminal offence in another. Much like the first government of the United States we can go too far if we allow for things to change too much from place to place but some different laws in different places will also to a certain extent move people to a more ideal environment for them thus condensing the numbers and making local government more reflect the ideas of the people.
By and large I agree. There are a few points of contention or nuance way or may not see eye to eye on. As much as the reactionary drives in me dislike the idea- it probably is best in the long term to start using AI in government. The trick there asides having sufficiently advanced technology, will be in making sure the AI isn’t manipulated with intent, or designed with too extreme a bias inherent to its creators minds. But it solves a lot of problems- if we can make it work and have society accept that it is being steered by a machine.
The problem is.... well... the idea of god? In religion- “god(s)” are responsible for everything good and bad. The grand architects. A lot of folks would punch these god(s) in the face if they could. So while an AI could make hard choices “optimally” (in theory) and not worry about re-election or various human hindrances and bias, couldn’t be “bought” or swayed by attachments- when and if said AI made unpopular decisions- there would surely be people who wanted to punch it in the face. And... they could. Or at least possibly have a hand in shutting it down.
But the details are one thing- I agree with the overall idea that SOME form of well designed AI should be used in governance once we have something that is suitable. As for districts- perhaps they are not needed- well, at the least there is some other system which could be used- but....
A “majority rules” voting system is on paper the most “fair” and straightforward method- but not by far the best. Most of the countries populations live in dense populated areas- cities and suburbs. By default- smaller states will generally have smaller populations. So whatever system we use- to actually represent the people and not just some fraction of the people- must be one that doesn’t just take the sum total as the average will.
The pendulum of society swings, we go through cycles of conservative or liberal on various issues as a majority, blind patriotism and skepticism- popular ideology doesn’t mean it is right, or even healthy- from racism to fascism, communism and Nazi Socialism- history is full of popular ideologies which ultimately have been not just “wrong” but plain catastrophic. Some switches aren’t so easy to unflip once they have been toggled- and as psychology and history tell us, as many recent events show- people tend to be reactionary and emotional.
If there are roughly 50% men and women (in reality there is a slightly higher female population- but let’s make the numbers easy..) and let’s say that men with with 2 testicles are the “norm,” that those with less in our “round numbers” example are statistically removed- that means the average person has 1 testicle.
So the data comes back and we all have one testicle. Now we need to distribute groom protectors to employees working with a type of monkey that eats testicles or whatever. 3,000 employees. So we order 3,000 groin protectors molded for 1 testicle and give them to every man and every woman. And even though by the average- our employees overwhelmingly have 1 testicle- out of 3,000 people there may be only one of them who actually needs a 1 testicle groin protector. We didn’t need to waste the money on the biological female employees, and most of the men aren’t protected or are very uncomfortable.
Yes the idea of designing something around a average is usually not a great idea and in some of the worst cases has gotten people killed, it's a much better idea to either design the system or device to either be as flexible or as adjustable possible or to design it to the extreme edge of your user base such as the disabled or the "pro" users
We also need to put in place a system designed to hold them accountable like a counter investing unit that acts outside of the police department and not under the local court because we all know that cops and judges work together and that eliminates the impartial justice system.
We can also talk about making the police more transparent and stopping people from the disposal of evidence.
Probably tell you about a completely unnecessary ticket or worse that they have gotten because the cops have to make the numbers. It doesn't help anyone other than to bring in protection money into the local government and in a place that is peaceful enough it is basically the crime.