The most common criticisms of the concept seems to be "common people are stupid", "people would not have time to research political proposals" and "mob rule easily taking away basic rights". And I think its a fair criticism of the pure direct democracy.

But why these flaws should imply that we need representatives? They are easily solvable without introducing them.

Problem: Common people are stupid
Solution: Differentiate vote weights based on education / test results / IQ etc (perhaps all of them).. Solves the problem without introducing unnecessary representative middlemen.

Problem: People would not have time to research political proposals
Solution: allow people to dedicate their vote on someone they trust - basically allowing for having representatives, but the difference is it would be only an option, and not a necessity, the default would be direct voting. And if you want, you can take your vote back and vote directly anytime you deem it necessary.

Problem: Mob rule
Solution: Constitution requiring more than 2/3 to change. Contrary to popular belief, its not the presence of representatives that protects minorities from mob rule in modern democracies. Majority would just vote their representatives and enforce their opinion over the representatives of the minority. Its Constitution, or laws enumerating basic rights that require quotas and more than simple majority of votes to change is what makes them less prone (not immune) to mob rule. And there is no reason why such laws could not also exist in a direct system.

Basically electronic direct democracy with unequal merit and education based vote weights, possibility of voluntary representatives and constitutional higher law enumerating basic rights of all. I call this "constitutional direct geniocratic democracy".

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Maslo
Problem: Common people are stupid
Solution: Differentiate vote weights based on education / test results / IQ etc (perhaps all of them).. Solves the problem without introducing unnecessary representative middlemen.

Thoughts?

I only have a High School diploma, and I've worked with plenty of collegiate graduates. To be honest, there are plenty of four year degree holders who are just plum dumb. Now a combination of education, test scores, and IQ tests may suffice to weight voting merit. The details in what type of testing to be required would be a integral part of how successful/fair a system such as this could be implemented.

Then again, any time you begin to diminish voting rights of anyone you place yourself on a slippery slope of thwarting the true democratic process. It's something I would like to see tested in various local levels first before implementing on a national level. Good idea though.

Problem: People would not have time to research political proposals
Solution: allow people to dedicate their vote on someone they trust - basically allowing for having representatives, but the difference is it would be only an option, and not a necessity, the default would be direct voting. And if you want, you can take your vote back and vote directly anytime you deem it necessary.

I like this idea. I think it would evolve into campaigns for "voting rights". The wealthy could still have heavy influence in the process through buying of "voting rights". Separate money and politics as much as feasibly possible and you'll preserve the democratic process as a viable option.

Basically electronic direct democracy with unequal merit and education based vote weights, possibility of voluntary representatives and constitutional higher law enumerating basic rights of all. I call this "constitutional direct geniocratic democracy".

With anything of an electronic nature you'll have the issue of tampering. Also, this once again leads to wealthy interests possibly intervening with the democratic process. Billions of dollars are already used to sway D.C. It would only be shifted to sway binary code.

Overall, there are some pretty good ideas. I tip my hat to anyone who can think outside the box.

Originally posted by Maslo

Thoughts?

Yes, I have some.
Who will be making these tests to keep dumb people out in the cold? You?
What you going to do when the test gets to hard and you no longer get to vote? Because that's what will happen in time. Guarantied!
Nah, testing for dummies is discrimination, pure and simple.
(If you must discriminate against someone, discriminate against sociopaths. Some are actually smart. If they don't get to vote, you might just end up with a working society.)
Get your schools in order - problem solved. Then you can have direct democracy, without representation.

Enjoyed the response Maslo.

Originally posted by Maslo
Problem: Common people are stupid
Solution: Differentiate vote weights based on education / test results / IQ etc (perhaps all of them).. Solves the problem without introducing unnecessary representative middlemen.

I can understand your solution but who designates the line or bar in which determines the weight of ones vote? It wouldn't be hard to conceive that the concept would start benign and beneficial, but over time will grow and be tweed to benefit only a select group while suppressing others; ie. the current tax code if you need a reference.

Problem: People would not have time to research political proposals
Solution: allow people to dedicate their vote on someone they trust - basically allowing for having representatives, but the difference is it would be only an option, and not a necessity, the default would be direct voting. And if you want, you can take your vote back and vote directly anytime you deem it necessary.

Interesting. Are you suggesting that voting is an evolving process that has no time-frame? Meaning that representatives can be here today and gone tomorrow at the whim of the People and week to week? Or am I reading your idea wrong?

As it is now, the "binding" portion of your vote places our representatives into office, but our political voice doesn't stop there (although a vast portion of society believes "Super Tuesday" is the day they fulfill their political duty) and the First Amendment address this issue by explicitly stating we have the Right to redress our Government.

Problem: Mob rule
Solution: Constitution requiring more than 2/3 to change. Contrary to popular belief, its not the presence of representatives that protects minorities from mob rule in modern democracies. Majority would just vote their representatives and enforce their opinion over the representatives of the minority. Its Constitution, or laws enumerating basic rights that require quotas and more than simple majority of votes to change is what makes them less prone (not immune) to mob rule. And there is no reason why such laws could not also exist in a direct system.

Until such laws are overcome with a 2/3 vote and reduced to a 1/2 vote or a 1/3 vote. There would have to be more to this such as the compatibility between States and the Federal Government to discuss more I believe.

Interesting discussion though and thoughtful.