There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Ziggurat ,

Randomly drawing citizen. Sure politics require some training, but it can be done on the job

Also, countries with proportional votes tend to force politicians to talk with each other more than countries with single representative per district.

Limiting elected official mandates to one or two. If you couldn’t do something in 10 years no reason to think you’ll do it latter

QuarterSwede ,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

Have you worked with people recently? A decent amount can’t learn anything and don’t take personal accountability. I guess that does sound like Congress.

Joshi , (edited )
@Joshi@aussie.zone avatar

No. This sort of arrogant rubbish needs to be shut down.

In my job - a doctor - I routinely discuss difficult and complex topics with people of all backgrounds and education levels. With very few exceptions people are able to understand difficult topics.

It is my experience that the most difficult people to work with are not ordinary people but those who hold the opinion that everyone else is stupid.

With very few exceptions sortition and participatory democracy have worked well whenever they’ve been tried.

GarbageShootAlt2 ,

I disagree about sortition, but I appreciate pushing back on elitist, misanthropic bullshit like you did. I think elections with a strong ability to quickly recall faithless representatives is a much better solution because it involves the decision-making of the whole community, rather than a community member chosen at random.

QuarterSwede ,
@QuarterSwede@lemmy.world avatar

I’m a branch manager in the trades and I see this daily. We’ve had to let go plenty because they wouldn’t take personal accountability for their actions and instead it was always someone else’s/thing’s fault. Maybe it’s just the current field I’m in. Who knows.

Cowbee ,
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

Soviet Democracy. Workers elect delegates from among themselves, who can then be subject to instant recall elections at any time. Remove the “career politician” aspects from government.

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/1cde6b45-3192-4b44-a52b-c7a3ec280f48.png

Aatube , (edited )

Could work if you remove the democratic centralism part, which is an effect of one of the main reasons the USSR was undemocratic most of the time

Cowbee ,
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

Almost every democratic structure practices Democratic Centralism, it just means the group is bound to the democratic results.

Aatube ,

Just like many things in the USSR, It was perhaps that way in principle, but nefariously twisted in practice, where it means that everyone must vote whatever the elite thinks, majority requirements be damned. Like the ancient parable of Yu the Great choosing a successor, a dictating elite are bound to self-perpetuate and stray away from the proletariat, even if that's what they were once.

Cowbee , (edited )
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

Nah, it was democratic, moreso than Capitalist countries. You can read This Soviet World if you want a look at it.

Aatube ,

Without a specific page or chapter number, I'm assuming you're pointing to the only paragraph that mentions "centralism". It just seems to repeat what I already replied to.

I'll explain further, then: At first, the lower body elects the upper body. The upper body decides everything. Then:

  1. Why not just skip the waste of time of the lower body voting on stuff? I can't find any time something like jury nullification of a really awful presidium policy happened.
  2. Since whoever disagrees with the upper body gets expelled, the lower body will perpetually elect whomever the upper body wants. While this may have enabled a dictatorship of the proletariat for a while, this behavior blocked out a ton of new ideas and became problematic after Stalin's straight-up purging of opponents and entrenched an oppressive old guard, by whom Khrushchev got ousted trying to get rid of.
Cowbee ,
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

I’m referring to the book itself, you have a lot of confused ideas about the USSR itself. Blackshirts and Reds is another great “Myth Debunker.”

I’ll explain further, then: At first, the lower body elects the upper body. The upper body decides everything.

Wrong. The lower bodies also decide things among themselves particular to issues specific to them, and elect delegates for the larger area. Imagine a soviet of a single factory, then a soviet of a city composed of delegates from all of the factories, then a regional soviet, etc. Each rung governs their respective areas with matters exclusive to them. These were workers with instant recall elections if needed.

  1. Why not just skip the waste of time of the lower body voting on stuff? I can’t find any time something like jury nullification of a really awful presidium policy happened.

Because the lower bodies vote on matters pertaining to themselves that don’t affect others.

  1. Since whoever disagrees with the upper body gets expelled, the lower body will perpetually elect whomever the upper body wants. While this may have enabled a dictatorship of the proletariat for a while, this behavior blocked out a ton of new ideas and became problematic after Stalin’s straight-up purging of opponents and entrenched an oppressive old guard, by whom Khrushchev got ousted trying to get rid of.

That’s not really accurate. Diverse opinions were held and discussed, what was purged was liberalism and fascism, which were dangerous currents deliberately infiltrating the USSR, as well as wreckers like Trotsky who collaborated with fascists and liberals.

Secondly, Stalin fought against beaurocracy, it wasn’t until WWII where the population was decimated and the USSR needed to be rebuilt that a beaurocratic class of “career politicians” began to take hold.

Again, I suggest reading more on the subject, you seem to be confused on the basic structure itself, causing other confusions to spring forth.

Aatube ,

I appreciate that you're taking the time to politely respond.

Obviously, the lower bodies decide more minutiae and local stuff and can't go against the upper bodies' decisions, and that goes for pretty much every democracy, just like you said. I was talking about specifically the Supreme Soviet and its Presidium, which could also be abstracted into the presidiums of every soviet. I think that's the source of our confusion here. I'm looking at principles in making wide-ranging decisions, which are the things that can cause division. Not sure why I said üpper body".

what was purged was liberalism and fascism

Ah yes, known liberals and fascists such as the other two people who ruled with Stalin and whoever believed in genetics. If diverse opinions were allowed, what was the entire focus on eradicating factionalism?

Could you cite some sources or elaborate on fighting against bureaucracy? Why was bureaucracy established and why did it remain after the war? How wasn't Stalin before Lenin's death a career politician?

I have to sign off now until tomorrow.

GarbageShootAlt2 ,

where it means that everyone must vote whatever the elite thinks

citation needed

TexMexBazooka ,

Dunno, we’ve never seen anything go wrong with the Soviet system of representation before have we?

Cowbee ,
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml avatar

Definitely became overly-beaurocratized after WWII, but was generally far more democratic than Capitalist states

Modern_medicine_isnt OP ,

IMO anything with a direct vote of the people will end up as spending wars between special interests with the funds to advertise.

GarbageShootAlt2 ,

Seems like campaign finance reform is a more pertinent question then.

dillydogg ,

I honestly wonder if sortition is actually the answer.

Joshi ,
@Joshi@aussie.zone avatar

A bicameral legislature, one house elected by mixed member proportional system and the other selected at random from the voting age population. Legislation must pass both houses, if it passed one house but not the other it can go to referendum at the same time as the next general election.

You can also have things like citizen initiated referenda. Campaign finance laws similar to those in the UK are also desirable.

electric_nan ,

Greatly expand congress (like at least 10x), and have it work like jury duty.

multifariace ,

End FPTP. House of representatives actually representing the people instead of state or party. Senate still representing states but not parties.

AbouBenAdhem ,

Direct democracy—except instead of directly voting on legislation, voters vote on the desired effects of legislation and a metric for measuring if those effects are being achieved. The actual legislation is then written by specialists trained on effective policy implementation, who can adjust the legislation on the fly if it isn’t having the desired effect. Their mandate is limited by the associated metric—if they can’t meet the goals, they lose their mandate and the case goes back to voters for review.

Modern_medicine_isnt OP ,

Hm… I can’t see voters being able to understand metrics enough to choose what is in their best interest. Also, anything where everyone votes will be dominated by special interests that have the money to advertise.

Aatube , (edited )

Anarchy’s free association. We simply have them split and control their own part of land unless there’s agreements to use certain parts of common land. Would work for everything except global warming.

ryathal ,

A bit is specific, but you can probably adapt them.

  1. Bring back pork spending, it’s over all cheaper to spend 100 million on some garbage than beating people into submission to pass something.
  2. Increase number of representatives significantly, makes some things less efficient, but also massively reduces the power of lobbying, and increases the power of localized activism.
  3. Limit length of allowed legislation per vote. Smaller more focused bills are ultimately better than sweeping legislation that attempts to address everything. More votes also makes working together easier with lower stakes and more opportunities to collaborate.
P00ptart ,

Well my good-faith arguments would be direct democracy (i.e. everyone votes on every change) or ranked choice, but that has its own problems. However, you didn’t say it has to be serious. So I suggest a system that locks a chimpanzee on LSD into a room with signs (options) and blinking lights. Chimp starts rolling and points to the blinky light he likes (or hates) either way, your government is operating far more efficiently than hairless apes doing something that is apparently too much work, and most are just as ill-informed as acid-chimp. I honestly think acid chimp accidentally gives you a better (albeit random) set of values than capitalism/democracy ever has.

BearOfaTime ,

You, I like you.

xmunk ,

A parliament.

PeepinGoodArgs ,

There’s a few ways in practice.

  1. Court decisions are binding broadly. The conservative capture of the Supreme Court is political genius, honestly. They tend to have the final say regarding policy.
  2. Federal agency rules are also broadly binding. EPA rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions, for example, apply everywhere in the country.
  3. State legislatures are often less polarized, which facilitates a more productive legislature.
  4. State agencies, like a state environmental department, mirrors its federal counterpart but is more localized.
  5. Non-state organizations can get things done, though their interests are often limited and not necessarily in the interests of the broad public as state and federal institutions are.
  6. International institutions can ‘set the tone’. They may not have any power to actually do anything within a specific jurisdiction, but people within those jurisdictions can draw policy inspiration from international organizations and try for something locally binding.
HobbitFoot ,

The only alternative to an elected legislature (parliaments are different from congresses) is either direct democracy or one party rule.

over_clox ,

What’s the opposite of congress?

Progress

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •