Me again...
-
What is our goal with a voting system? Should there be balance in power between people and government or should one dominate? What if the people are indoctrinated, brainwashed, or just mean? Checks and balances to keep people/government in check?
Personally, I say let the people lead and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe this all distills to beliefs about human nature. I am sure that people are more than just fine, they are our only hope (Obi Wan). This is faith on steroids. I know a lot about people because I am one. I have hopes, regrets, skills, and faults just as our species does as a whole. I have never been in your shoes, but it makes sense to me that you are just as human as I am, whether you are a sheik, tailor, doctor, or murderer. There is definitely bad stuff in the world, just as part of me is bad (I’m not perfect) but the majority of humanity, and me, is good.
I’m not saying that Hitler was good. He is an example of why we need government: to keep dangerous people from the means to do harm. We have free speech, but we need laws that censor dangerous people (Ron DeSantis) from harming people (the entire LGBTQ community).
Back to the source of laws: Government.
We all want some control of government but how? What voting system is best? But first, do we trust people to make the call, or do we need a nanny state that usurps election results?
Let Democracy live and run its course. Trust me it will create such a heaven on earth that organized religions will be scrambling to continue to sell their superstition of the “after life.”
Side note about heaven: Not clouds, robes and harps but people being able to live their lives without fear of climate devastation, poverty, war or (easily curable) illness. Heaven, to me, is simply a good life for all people. In heaven the 20% right wing haters and the 20% left wing reactors both join the 60% middle who just want to live a good life and be left alone.
With Democracy we can love more. Help more. Care more. And we can finally manage this planet effectively and productively to enrich the lives of all people. Maybe we have too many billionaires? Maybe there shouldn’t be any? I digress.
So, if we were to let the people rule (by government proxy), how to do it? Going from the electoral college to ranked choice or winner take all states (even proportionalizing the senate) is not gonna do it. Let’s get to the heart of the matter: how do we have you, the reader, be an equal part of foundationally controlling our government, at all times?
One person, one continuous binary vote, cradle to grave. One world leader immediately abdicates upon the simultaneous disapproval of >half of all people. One day, when the world is one big happy Democracy, we’re all going to say, “can’t believe we didn’t do this sooner.”
Have a great day and stay warm if your in the NE like me! -
@mosbrooker said in Me again...:
laws that censor dangerous people (Ron DeSantis) from harming people (the entire LGBTQ community).
I'm on your side (....?), but still I think this is more political than I recommend for this group. Not everyone agrees on whether the person you mention is harmful. He's currently a fairly likely to win (25% or so, according to prediction markets) the us presidential election.
And I'm not necessarily on your side in terms of thinking we should "censor" such people.... censure, maybe.
Democracy can actually put divisive figures into power if it is to "run its course", unless that democracy is specifically designed to not do so. That's why I stay interested in this topic, the ability to shape the democracy so it actually works. There is no one best way, but some are certainly better than others. Some systems, such as the "first past the post"/"plurality" one that is so common in the US, actually drive people apart. Unfortunately, a lot of people think the word democracy means plurality. (although they often mislabel it "majority")
But it does seem rather weird to say "let democracy run its course", while also saying "we need laws that censor dangerous people". Who is going to put those laws in place? Elected people? But clearly our democracy will elect people who don't agree with your idea of what a dangerous person is (while claiming that all kinds of things that you probably support are dangerous)
