Hybrid democracy

[McBell]

Technology is already here, it is just being used for different purposes.
How does a bank knows that you are there when you pay something with a phone using your registered credit card?
There are many different ways how you could register yourself for certain service?
There are many different ways how you can use certain service.
There are many different ways how you can authenticate yourself for certain service.

You could go to police, identify yourself and then regiter you phone number or receive user/password so thath you can use any phone, or receive token, or ....

Whatever majority can decide in hybrid democracy, party can decide in representative democracy. Today we could all give our votes to some right wing party with some radical ideas. Protection against those ideas would be the same as it is today. There is no difference in what people could theoreticly vote upon in these two systems.

So basically you are saying that the only real difference is that more "people" will vote because they cannot control the voter base?

 

[CaptainXeroid]

America was established as a constitutional republic, not a democracy, to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority'. This hybrid democracy concept, while interesting, isn't in the spirit that our Founding Fathers intended, and it depends on a more informed populace than we have now. I'd have to vote no.

 

[AdamEve]

So basically you are saying that the only real difference is that more "people" will vote because they cannot control the voter base?

Yes, more people would have right to directly vote, not just elected polititions, if I understood you correctly.
Yes, politions would not be able to control voter base and missuse their trust.

 

[AdamEve]

America was established as a constitutional republic, not a democracy, to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority'. This hybrid democracy concept, while interesting, isn't in the spirit that our Founding Fathers intended, and it depends on a more informed populace than we have now. I'd have to vote no.

And instead of tyranny of majority now you have tyranny of minority politions and bankars. I guess if I have to choose between the two I would rather choose tyranny of majority pressuming that would make more people would be happy. I would definitly try to protect minorities giving them right to practice religion and other stuff which can't be voted away. I am sure there are already some laws that ensure this because even in representative democracy majority could over vote minority. Acctually why do you think that representative democracy would better protect minorities? Like I said in previous post we could all vote for some radical party with some radicla ideas. Having representatives does not protect minorities in no way.

 

[AdamEve]

America was established as a constitutional republic, not a democracy, to avoid the 'tyranny of the majority'. .

It seams to me that some people think like this.
We have a potential problem of tyranny of majority.
Lets solve it by having representatives.
OK our job is done.

But people forget that although this solution might solved original problem (although i don't see how so if you nderstand how please reply) but it has introduced another even bigger problem which is tyranny of minority of politicions and bankars.

Also current representative democracy fails at details like polititions don't have to do what they promised.

 

[Reverend Rick]

We live in a republic. This is not a democratic country.

Would you like 3 wolves and one sheep to have a vote on what is for dinner?

The reason the founding fathers created a republic is they thought the common man was too stupid to have a direct voice in government.

I believe their assumption was correct.

If you look further than the end of your nose, you would see that the majority of Americans could vote to take the money away from the rich and give it to the poor.

But when the baby boomers all retire, they could be the majority that votes that everyone under 30 becomes their personal slaves and wait on their every desire.

 

[AdamEve]

Would you like 3 wolves and one sheep to have a vote on what is for dinner?

If you look further than the end of your nose, you would see that the majority of Americans could vote to take the money away from the rich and give it to the poor..

Now we have 1 wolve and three sheeps and only wolve has the vote.

You are afraid of majority potentialy voting to take money from the rich minority.
But you have nothing aginst rich minority that has already voted and taken money from poor majority.

And continue to work on makin majority their slaves which should work 10 hours a day for minimal vages til 70 years.

Current system is very effective in preventing majority tyranny.
I agree.
But the side effect is much worse.
We now have tyranny of rich minority.

I agree that most people are not very well educated or informed but i beleive this will improve with time mostly thanks to internet.
But on the other side you have very well educated and inforemd polititions which do not use their knowledge for common god but for stilling even if that means inventing wars and killing people.
I don't see how this can be good.
It is not in human nature to care for interests of other but only their own.

You would rather live in current system in order to prevent potentiol problem then to try different system to try to solve currently existing problems.

 

[Reverend Rick]

You would rather live in current system in order to prevent potentiol problem then to try different system to try to solve currently existing problems.

I want a balance of power where no mob mentality runs anything. We can work within the system to fix things. Things can improve, the problem is, most young folks are too impatient to work within the system.

 

[AdamEve]

I want a balance of power where no mob mentality runs anything. We can work within the system to fix things. Things can improve, the problem is, most young folks are too impatient to work within the system.

How long is this system in power?
And how much longer do you plan to wait for solution inside the system?
I have already mention that the presumptions on which this system is based is worng. As soon any of us well meanining people get to power we become corrupted. This is in our nature, in our genes. If you wait for decent people to come to power and to take care of other you are up for a long wait. As long as we idealise humans as decent, caring creatures we will never foind solution. Most men are selfishn and easily corrupt. If we admit this and built a system not on finding decent people to take care of us, but system where everybody controls everybody else in order to protect their interest then we might have a chanse. Polititons is just a man who is currently in power. As soon as you become polititon you become corrupted. This is the persumption we should build our system upon. At least this is the conclusion i have.

 

[McBell]

Yes, more people would have right to directly vote, not just elected polititions, if I understood you correctly.
Yes, politions would not be able to control voter base and missuse their trust.

Your optimism is rather touching, but I suspect out of touch with reality.

 

[McBell]

The reason the founding fathers created a republic is they thought the common man was too stupid to have a direct voice in government.

I believe their assumption was correct.

I agree.
Though to be fair, it does not help that the politicians go to such great lengths to misinform.