This sounds very like what I know as citizens' assemblies. They seem to be very helpful in formulating policy. But I don't think that anyone sees them as a possible legislative bodies. For more detail, see, for example, On Citizens' assemblies — Ludwig V
The population of ancient Athens was about 250,000 people with only about 30,000 able to vote. That's comparable to a large town or small city. In the US, about 250,000 million people are eligible to vote. — T Clark
So decisions on major public issues now hinge on a video of people - 200 people! - arguing? I'm trying to imagine the sound level and clarity. — Vera Mont
So somehow you’ve gone from hundreds of millions of people voting on laws to 200 people voting. I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well. — T Clark
And who would set the question for this Friday? Do the voters get advance warning to inform themselves on the subject? It's not a lot of time to prepare. How would a new mandate be implemented, when, and by whom? Who owns the platform on which the voting takes place and how are votes tallied? What percent of the votes would it take to win, and would that be the same requirement for imposing a parking fine, changing a zoning regulation, eliminating/reinstating the death penalty and declaring war? What if the public mood shifts before the law goes into effect? — Vera Mont
Can we vote to create a representational democracy where we have a House, a Senate, and a President so we no longer have to vote on everything personally? — Hanover
Why would we possibly bring in a new system when there is an existing one, ranked choice voting, that has been in use for a long time and works well? — T Clark
There is already a better system than this in place in a number of jurisdictions. It’s called ranked choice voting. This from the web — T Clark
It does. — Paine
God bless. The "game theory" of anything-relationship must keep in mind that male and female psychology are wildly different. Women don't like, respect, or feel attraction towards push-overs. It is just another instantiation of the "nice guys finish last" universal. — Lionino
Reducing divorce by getting husbands to simp even harder? If simping harder were the solution, there would be no divorces to begin with. In fact, the opposite is much more likely to be true. As a man, you can reduce the likelihood of divorce by simping less. But then again, why sign a contract in which you are at the mercy of someone else who can just break it and then cash out on you? It is the modern incentive structure of the contract that explains why it gets broken so easily and so often. Therefore, the only way to avoid divorce is not to sign that kind of unreasonable contracts. — Tarskian
↪Linkey In your example, the husband is a simp if he doesn't go to the football match without her — 180 Proof
How do you justify that statement? Or where is the evidence? I have a book about Persia that I haven't read and no book about Macedonia. So I have no idea how Macedonia was more civilized. The Persians had impressive architecture and crafted items and art. They had religious freedom. How does that add up to being less civilized? — Athena
People vote with their feet.
They reject rule by the mob.
Millions more would want to live in Dubai and be governed by its emir instead of the mob back home, but they cannot afford it financially: — Tarskian
So essentially you are saying that even if a state is not democratic, the people living in it are likely advantaged if there is a nearby democratic state, simply due to the necessity of the government to please its citizens in order to avoid revolution? — Igitur
United Kingdom declared war to Finland in December 5th 1941. I assume the both countries were then democracies even back then. — ssu
Yet I think there are still Russians who support the war simply fearing what will happen to Russia if the war is lost. You see, Russia isn't a normal nation-state, it still is built on an Empire. That's the real problem. Still many Russians believe Catherine the Great's words: "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them." This pure imperialism hasn't yet died in your country. — ssu
The US government doesn't want to provoke a war or attempt to bring about social changes through threats. — frank
Oh, wait, another thing - opening up the possibility of a limited nuclear war makes it much more likely. — T Clark
In a conspiracist's world, perhaps. Or perhaps both a controlled by a third, hidden agent? — SophistiCat
Some many of those popular people live much better than me, I don't envy them at all. In fact I feel sorry for them having to work so hard to be popular. — Sir2u
No, Linkey, mate please. Don't feel bad about yourself in that way. There are members here who love Russia and Russian culture. Don't mix up things! Maybe politics in Russia are screwed, but your culture is awesome: pianists, painters, writers, scientists, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Shólojov, Chejov, etc... — javi2541997
What is your native language? — Paine
This sounds like an AI generated thing. — Paine
This is true, for example Switzerland, a quite stable democracy, had it's later Civil War in 1847 the Sonderbund War. Hence being a democracy (or a democratic confederacy/federation) doesn't mean that political deadlocks cannot turn into Civil Wars. Especially the case of succession can brings these things on. The insurgency in Northern Ireland successfully has been portrayed by the UK as "the Troubles" still had it's roots in a quest for secession. The UK has successfully avoided the secession of Scotland and in Spain with constitutional crisis of 2017-2018 came close to military action. So just being a functioning democracy doesn't mean that there cannot be civil wars, even if it still holds that if the majority of the people are happy with their economy and position, no need to go on to the barricades and grab those rifles. — ssu
Meaning? — tim wood
The idea is that before the Civil War, it was the United States are, and after, the United States is. — tim wood
Not really philosophy, better posted on a history board. — Lionino