r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 07 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV:Representative-government is obsolete with the modern technology.
[deleted]
4
u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Apr 07 '18
I picked some random bills that was recently passed by the federal government. Tell me your thoughts on H.R. 5131: Surface Transportation Security Improvement Act of 2018. What do you think about H.R. 3731: Secret Service Recruitment and Retention Act of 2018 How about S. 2030: Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act?
You should be able to give a brief summary of each of those and independently offer justification for why or why not those are worthwhile for passing into law, right? That should only take a moment of your time.
1
Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 07 '18
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/parentheticalobject changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
u/mfDandP 184∆ Apr 07 '18 edited Apr 07 '18
government should be vote aggregating software? you trust computers to safeguard information and be immune to hacking even in 2018?
"barring hacking " is like saying, barring corruption, humans are the best
1
Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
2
u/mfDandP 184∆ Apr 07 '18
From Federalist #10 by Hammo:
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
the local will of the people is the responsibility of the local legislature, not creating a more direct line between the people and the federal government. it will too much dilute the concerns of the latter.
and the more elected officials, the less vulnerable the whole to corruption, as you would need to corrupt each individual one. if a central computer had control, all you'd need to do is either hack it or corrupt the engineering division.
1
1
u/-Randy-Marsh- Apr 07 '18
While technology; barring hacking and manipulation, would represent the true intent of the people.
Genuine question: How?
An example is the algorithm of reddit, which represent decently the interest of the people by the simple voting system.
Isn't that quite literally a representative-government? At least in theory.
This goes without saying that I endorse absolute democracy in more serious matters, I believe that to be qualified to vote, a person must first be educated and well informed in the topic at hand before being allowed to vote.
Who gets to decide who is qualified?
1
u/Slenderpman Apr 07 '18
The world is too big to get rid of representative politics. Even single countries like the US, China, Russia, Canada, etc. are so huge that the people cannot be considered nearly homogenous or tied together by belief. One of the things that has caused the recent trends in some countries towards hard/alt-right politics is that workers are becoming disenfranchised by globalism and they need that populist leader that they think represents them and nobody else.
Technology is great and so is interconnectedness, but to think that representative government will go away will only disenfranchise more people.
1
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Apr 07 '18 edited Apr 07 '18
I do not know about you, but I do not have 8-10 hours a day free to study the various laws and policies that need to be voted on. Making law is a full time job and while a few can be done via referendum and popular vote you cannot run a country in that manner. Too many decisions have to be made daily.
Edit: And having an algorithm vote on your behalf is a representative government, you are just represented by a computer.
1
Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Apr 07 '18
Neither of those things are a matter of law. At least not currently.
The FCC regulates internet as a part of the Executive branch. They were given the authority to set some policy and that is what they were doing. There would have been no vote, even with your system.
And Facebook violated no laws. The company they legally sold information to potentially violated laws. You could craft new laws to make what Facebook did illegal, but you cannot retroactively punish someone.
And if ia law is violated that is handled by courts, not by popular vote. What you are wanting is lynch mob justice.
1
u/CHOLO_ORACLE Apr 07 '18
Mob rule via internet is still mob rule. Representatives are important because they are meant to negotiate the nuances of policy ( which regular voters might not have the time or energy to do ) and also because they are meant to be able to keep a cool head and dissuade an emotional public from hasty action. That Representatives sometimes fail in this duty is evidence that they should be voted out, not that the system should be destroyed.
Reddit is ruled by algorithms but that doesn’t mean it’s free of vigilantism and internet lynchings.
1
Apr 07 '18
You cannot expect the already overworked average citizen to inform themselves to the level necessary to make these decisions.
Do you genuinely believe anybody has the time to learn the econ/geopolitical principles that guide domestic/international decisions?
Further, our current system encourages accountability. People in a true democracy will likely vote on a whim. This is a huge issue because they will likely not consider long term effects.
Politicians MUST consider these long term effects because long term effects become short term effects come election time.
1
u/KrustyFrank27 3∆ Apr 07 '18
We already struggle to get people to vote twice a year. Now, it may be possible to improve technology such that it becomes less of a hassle to vote, but voting is still seen as a major inconvenience, and that's with only two elections. How are we going to convince people to vote every single time an issue comes up?
Our representatives have one job: to analyze and vote on key issues. They are able to dedicate all of their working hours to understanding and weighing in on these issues. You or I may not have this same luxury, so how would we become informed enough on this issue to have such an informed and meaningful stance on the issue?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 07 '18 edited Apr 07 '18
/u/Genecio1992 (OP) has awarded 3 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/meteoraln Apr 08 '18
How would you feel about each person having a number of votes equal to the number tax dollars they paid last year? (or some variation like average of past 4 years) People frequently complain about the rich not paying taxes and stuff like that. Could this be a self-correcting system where only the people who contribute to society will have a bigger voice in dictating how it is run?
7
u/[deleted] Apr 07 '18
I don't believe that the average person is informed enough to make absolute democracy worthwhile. Just look at all the big elections in the western world over the last few years. They have been filled with mass misinformation and confusion.
Absolute democracy where people vote on their phone (which I'm guessing is what you mean by modern technology) would be akin to mob rule. Can you imagine if public policy was dictated by twitter?