this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
10 points (85.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
1744 readers
851 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
a problem with direct democracy is that it still only ends up measuring the plurality rather than the majority. Now, I'd be curious to see a system tested that counts the silence so that a vocal minority can't always act with impunity as if all the people who WEREN'T heard simply don't exist, whether they chose to abstain or were otherwise prevented from participating through systemic phenomena (or just being overwhelmed with life).
I don't think we can rely on there being some sort of compulsory system that forces participation, but rather one that keeps in mind the rate of participation so that if only 10% of the population votes one way and 9% votes another way, that measly 10% doesn't get to act as though they have some kind of mandate.
Rather I'd have liked some kind of non-crypto-sludge ledger system where your votes are pseudonymous--only YOU can be certain of the identity of your vote but you can SEE where it is in the system and you have the ability to CHANGE it if your understanding of the stakes evolves--such that realtime polling approaching any given decision's deadline can actually be tracked and campaigns can have a better idea of what their blindspots are in terms of who they're reaching and what information is actually having a measurable impact.
Authenticating the veracity of this information and ensuring some system that actually manages to serve as a functional fairness doctrine is a separate problem that also needs to be solved.
AFAIK, most countries that have elements of direct democracy do exactly that. It's called a quorum.
I actually thought about including that (counting abstaining as voting for no party/leader) in the post, but the problem would be people voting for the Greater Evil, because they don't really want to vote. But it would, indeed, lower the amount of people who don't vote.
compulsory voting that attempts to actively single out and punish people for not participating, for instance, I believe WOULD result in them voting, out of spite, for the worst possible option. But if it's more like, any plurality "victory" has a big asterisk showing how they were vastly outnumbered by the people who didn't choose to pick a side, and that their momentum should be slowed proportional to how many weren't motivated to agree with them as a check/balance, might have a cooling effect on the proverbial "hot temper" of their technical marginal win. That, yes, they can proceed with the planning and legislation but a sword of damocles in the form of an instant referendum if those who didn't vote suddenly make a decision in light of which way the wind is about to blow finally decide to weigh in.
Sort of like how many people after Kamala lost were like "wait whats a tariff?" "wait what's this project 2025 thing??" "wait obamacare IS the affordable care act???" - it might not work out for major elections but for all the more local ones where policies are more immediately going to affect people's lives, it would be prudent. Also, even if an election is no longer actively running, changing your own position on the ledger would be a clear communication of loss in the confidence of an administration... the visibility of which, alone, would be good for prosecuting forcible removals from office for individuals who prove themselves unfit. Like that so-called alleged "George" "Anthony" "Devolder" "Santos" If That Even Ever WAS His Real Name.