Some of your questions are trivial. — Linkey

Please list in order of triviality.

Concerning the necessity to gather information before voting, I have an idea of using a lot: a group of 200 random people would be chosen, the state will give them the money for studiing the subject, and possbly they will vote instead of the whole population. — Linkey

Government by focus group... How is that an improvement over the current system, wherein every adult has at least a theoretical opportunity to participate? You want to take away from citizens even that illusion of control?
Of course, that doesn't address the implementation problems.

these 200 people will perform a vote, also they can vote for spending some state money for creating a video illustrating their argues and decisions; — Linkey

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.
This idea just keeps getting less plausible.

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

As far as I know, in ancient Greece the "lottocracy" was trusted more than democracy, because in usual democracy, usually not best but the worst people come to power. You can clearly see this in the US now. This phenomenon is explained by the fact, that in usual democracy, for comong into power a man must become a part of some elite which already has the power. With the "lottocracy", average people come to power and the average is better than the bad.

As far as I know, in ancient Greece the "lottocracy" was trusted more than democracy, because in usual democracy, usually not best but the worst people come to power. — Linkey

Do you know what sortition means? Public offices were drawn by lot - not a bunch of people to argue about an issue on film. Very different concepts.

I'm in favour of selecting governing bodies the same way that we select juries. But you don't actually seem to be clear on your proposed system. At all. I recommend more time at the drawing board.

What I like about it is that my vote really matters and no one cares about yours. — Hanover

Yes, this is true. My daughter lives in Michigan, another state where votes matter. I had just moved here when "Don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" became a popular bumper sticker.

As far as I know, in ancient Greece the "lottocracy" was trusted more than democracy, — Linkey

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.

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

Are you sure with these numbers? Why onle 30 000? I thought the right to vote had all free men (not slaves), and this must be approximately 60% of men or 30% of all population.

Are you sure with these numbers? — Linkey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Athens

Not sure this has been mentioned but a referendum is usually a binary choice, greatly influenced by the question asked. In almost all cases it reduces complex problems to idiotic simplicity. If the Brexit referendum would've been worded as follows: would you like more inflation, and more hassle to travel to Europe, yes or no? The result would've been different.

The ACT - the capital territory of Australia - had it's local election last week.

We use Hare-Clark voting. This works by assigning a quota, calculated as one more than the the result of dividing the number of electors by the number of available vacancies. A candidate who receives a quota is elected, and votes are redistributed when no candidates receive a quote. The result is that each party can expect to have a number of seats in the legislature that represents the proportion of votes it received.

It is very unlikely that any one party will receive an absolute majority of votes, so minority government is almost inevitable. This means that the parties must negotiate with each other in order to form government and pass legislation. The buggers actually have to do some work.

The Condorcet paradox is bypassed, becasue there is neither the expectation nor the need for someone to receive a majority of the vote.

Not sure this has been mentioned but a referendum is usually a binary choice, greatly influenced by the question asked. — Benkei

I asked who would set the question of the week, among other things worth considering, but my questions were considered 'trivial' and never answered.

We will have a first referendum on the quorum necessary for a referendum to pass. It's questionable this is resolved because it doesn't answer if this referendum meets the quorum. If it is resolved, the quorum will be set high for fear or tyranny of the majority. Then a referendum on the question. Then the quorum will not be met and there will be deadlock. A new referendum will be started if people should be obligated to vote in a referendum. If it passes, the deadlock is resolved if not the deadlock remains. And probably not, because those in favour of "Free-dumb" don't think we should obligate people. Instead, they will go back to the first referendum and see if we can lower the quorum. 80% of people just zoned out by the time the 3rd referendum is started.

I think the whole idea grossly overestimates people's interest in having an opinion on every political subject all the time when they are busy getting shit done - like writing obvious critiques of dumb ideas. Even voting once every 4 years is apparently too much of a hassle for large segments of the population.

I think the whole idea grossly overestimates people's interest in having an opinion on every political subject all the time — Benkei

:up:

Oh, people have opinions on everything within their line of sight, so if you ask them a question about something that they happen to be aware of, and giving an answer is as easy as striking a few keys, they'll be happy to tell you what they think in that moment. Of course, it's an uninformed and only half-formed opinion, and they may think very differently after supper or after talking it over with a teenaged daughter with stronger opinions, or after somebody points out that the solution they chose will cost them money.
If you ask them a question about something they're unaware of and/or don't care about, some of them will still throw out an opinion, relevant or not. If it happens every week, many people will play it like a game, while many others get bored and stop participating.

Is there any way for ordinary people to dispossess the rich of their wealth? Sure -- some sort of revolution. This has happened a few times. Societies operated for the convenience of wealthy people, however, discourage revolutionary thinking. It generally gets nipped in the bud, so to speak. — BC

I'm afraid there's always a ruling class, if only because not everybody is willing to deal with the (often very boring) business of government. Revolutions just install a new ruling class. The best you can hope for is a ruling class that is sufficiently intelligent to realize that keeping the people reasonably happy is in their self-interest. The best way to deal with them is to have a way of getting rid of them when they become intolerable or incompetent (as Popper so wisely pointed out). That's the single greatest advantage of democracy.

Some of your questions are trivial. Concerning the necessity to gather information before voting, I have an idea of using a lot: a group of 200 random people would be chosen, the state will give them the money for studiing the subject, and possbly they will vote instead of the whole population. This is one implementation of the "lottocracy", for me there are better ones, but they are more difficult for explaining. — Linkey

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

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

From this link it is not fully clear for me, what principles do these assemlbies use. Firstly, using a lot (random selection) has a problem: if a small number of people who received the offer accepted to participate in this group, these people are not a representative sample, and their opinions do not represent the opinions of the whole population. To solve this problem, sufficient sums of money must be offered to these people for participating in these groups.

Firstly, using a lot (random selection) has a problem: if a small number of people who received the offer accepted to participate in this group, these people are not a representative sample, and their opinions do not represent the opinions of the whole population. — Linkey

My impression is that the selection is random, but weighted so that the assembly overall is representative of the population. Men/women. Old/young. Class. and so on, as long as you wish.

The aim is not to represent the existing opinions of the whole population, but to enable the members to work out their own views and negotiate with others who disagree. (Negotiation with other points of view is difficult to impossible in the public forum). The result is expected to be a view that is likely to be at least acceptable to as much of the population as possible.

To solve this problem, sufficient sums of money must be offered to these people for participating in these groups. — Linkey

Participation is time-consuming. I don't know whether paying people for work-time lost is practiced, but it obviously could be.

My point was only that something quite like your suggestion is practiced already, and is proving useful - at least to policy-makers.

You want to take away from citizens even that illusion of control? — Vera Mont

I agree with you. I don't think anyone is suggesting that citizens' assemblies like these should acquire any legislative powers. Their effect is only on the people developing policy. But the reform of abortion in Ireland is a good example of how influential they can be.

The constitutional and legislative provisions were discussed at a Citizens' Assembly in 2016–17, and at an Oireachtas committee in 2017, both of which recommended substantial reform and framed the debate of the referendum in May 2018.[5] — Wikipedia - Abortion in the Republic of Ireland

But the reform of abortion in Ireland is a good example of how influential they can be. — Ludwig V

The assemblies only made recommendations how to frame the debate for a referendum. The referendum itself asked all the citizens one important question

Do you approve of the proposal to amend the constitution? The amended text would read: “Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy”

After many hearings, arguments, information releases, articles and pamphlets, one question, simple and direct.

Referenda have their place, can be very useful if done properly (not like brexit!). You can't do it with every issue and you can't do it often.