Some of the most dire political issues today are caused by oligarchy, corruption and partisanship. The form of democratic deliberation described in the article values representative samples and synthesis of perspectives without sacrificing well-informed decision-making. It may be crucial to finding solutions that prioritize the greater good of a society as a whole.
DeltaForceFish on
Nah we need direct democracy. We all have smart phones. We have all done surveys. All we need to do is have a government app and vote ourselves. No politicians needed. Those measures/ideas that get the highest amount of nominations will go to a vote and everyone gets a notification they need to vote. If 60% vote yes, it passes. Otherwise it cant be nominated again for 5 years. This removes corrupt politicians and the ability for the elite and corporations to control what laws get passed. The technology is there; lets let AI replace politicians first
PhilosophyforOne on
It wont. It’s a dull solution that has no wildly utopic tech promises included, and no directly monetizable components.
It works, but it’s in no way exciting. Maybe if someone slaps a couple layers of AI and data on top of it, and gets Google to sponsor, we can get some hype. Otherwise it will languish in the darkness like a million other things we know works, but arent exciting or profitable.
Holden_Coalfield on
government is supposed to be boring
If it’s boring it’s working
If it’s interesting, it’s failing
Over-Pick-7366 on
Fine. Do this at the same time we punish those who tried to overthrow our country. Time to level the playing field for everyone. Tax the billionaires at the appropriate rate. No more tax cuts for corporations. No more politicians for life who only enrich themselves.
AceTygraQueen on
If anything I think boring sounds absolutely delightful and heavenly right now! Im burned out on living in “interesting times” , we need a rest!
vbwyrde on
I asked Leo to summarize the article, and then conduct an analysis on it. This is what it came up with:
# Potential Partisan Bias Concern
The consistent leftward movement in Fishkin’s examples—supporting renewable energy, accepting climate science, opposing deportation, and shifting from Trump to Biden—raises serious questions about whether this process contains systematic bias rather than revealing genuine “deliberative wisdom.” If the expert panels, briefing materials, or moderation subtly favor progressive framings of issues, this system could function as a **legitimization tool for one party’s agenda** rather than a neutral democratic innovation. Republicans might reasonably view “deliberative polling” as a mechanism that systematically moves public opinion away from their positions under the guise of objectivity, making it politically useful only to Democrats while undermining conservative policy preferences. Without examples showing Democrats making comparable shifts on their priority issues—or any cases where deliberation produced conservative outcomes—the process appears less like a cure for democracy’s ills and more like a **sophisticated persuasion technique** that produces predetermined results. This would make it not just useless but actively harmful to genuine democratic representation, as it could be weaponized to claim that the public “really” supports progressive policies once they’re “properly informed.”
mapoftasmania on
The biggest issue that would undermine this system (and is undermining our current system) is the drift on what constitutes objective truth and substantive facts.
With the explosion of alternative facts, propaganda and outright lies that the internet and particularly social media have facilitated, any suggestion for a new system of government must address how facts are established and analysed to form the basis of any democratic decision.
cinred on
Isn’t this just codified Tyranny of the Majority? There are heaps of reasons beyond old-timey practicality, that direct democracy was abandoned for republics.
HiggsFieldgoal on
There’s no solution to Democracy while people vote for oligarchs.
Technically, it’s Democracy working as intended, it’s just we’re electing for an oligarchical government.
But we vote for them, every single one, and then we celebrate when the oligarch representative of our team wins and lament when the oligarch from the other team wins.
Nobody ever even notices when their oligarch acts like an oligarch.
roz303 on
Or we could skip all that and develop a machine that thinks (NOT GPT) and let that be our governing system. It’s obvious humans aren’t up to the job.
PandaCheese2016 on
To have a workable deliberative democracy you first need to elect representatives willing to and equipped to participate in deliberations (under the definitions of the article), so in essence the election itself needs to be based on deliberations, basically tightly moderated debates, that voters are solely to base their decisions on, instead of soundbites through ads or other influence channels.
DanceDelievery on
People will always vote someone that agrees with their uninformed oppinion and offloading decisions to representatives does not adress this issue at all and additionally causes corruption where representatives do not represent their voters.
That’s why the only type of government that can work is a meritocracy where not everyone votes, but instead only people with the correct credentials cast a vote and votes can only be made if there is enough evidence to suggest the necessity for a vote.
Want to ban abortions but you lack any experitise in what effect that would entail on womens mental and phyiscal health? No voting right for you.
13 Comments
Some of the most dire political issues today are caused by oligarchy, corruption and partisanship. The form of democratic deliberation described in the article values representative samples and synthesis of perspectives without sacrificing well-informed decision-making. It may be crucial to finding solutions that prioritize the greater good of a society as a whole.
Nah we need direct democracy. We all have smart phones. We have all done surveys. All we need to do is have a government app and vote ourselves. No politicians needed. Those measures/ideas that get the highest amount of nominations will go to a vote and everyone gets a notification they need to vote. If 60% vote yes, it passes. Otherwise it cant be nominated again for 5 years. This removes corrupt politicians and the ability for the elite and corporations to control what laws get passed. The technology is there; lets let AI replace politicians first
It wont. It’s a dull solution that has no wildly utopic tech promises included, and no directly monetizable components.
It works, but it’s in no way exciting. Maybe if someone slaps a couple layers of AI and data on top of it, and gets Google to sponsor, we can get some hype. Otherwise it will languish in the darkness like a million other things we know works, but arent exciting or profitable.
government is supposed to be boring
If it’s boring it’s working
If it’s interesting, it’s failing
Fine. Do this at the same time we punish those who tried to overthrow our country. Time to level the playing field for everyone. Tax the billionaires at the appropriate rate. No more tax cuts for corporations. No more politicians for life who only enrich themselves.
If anything I think boring sounds absolutely delightful and heavenly right now! Im burned out on living in “interesting times” , we need a rest!
I asked Leo to summarize the article, and then conduct an analysis on it. This is what it came up with:
# Potential Partisan Bias Concern
The consistent leftward movement in Fishkin’s examples—supporting renewable energy, accepting climate science, opposing deportation, and shifting from Trump to Biden—raises serious questions about whether this process contains systematic bias rather than revealing genuine “deliberative wisdom.” If the expert panels, briefing materials, or moderation subtly favor progressive framings of issues, this system could function as a **legitimization tool for one party’s agenda** rather than a neutral democratic innovation. Republicans might reasonably view “deliberative polling” as a mechanism that systematically moves public opinion away from their positions under the guise of objectivity, making it politically useful only to Democrats while undermining conservative policy preferences. Without examples showing Democrats making comparable shifts on their priority issues—or any cases where deliberation produced conservative outcomes—the process appears less like a cure for democracy’s ills and more like a **sophisticated persuasion technique** that produces predetermined results. This would make it not just useless but actively harmful to genuine democratic representation, as it could be weaponized to claim that the public “really” supports progressive policies once they’re “properly informed.”
The biggest issue that would undermine this system (and is undermining our current system) is the drift on what constitutes objective truth and substantive facts.
With the explosion of alternative facts, propaganda and outright lies that the internet and particularly social media have facilitated, any suggestion for a new system of government must address how facts are established and analysed to form the basis of any democratic decision.
Isn’t this just codified Tyranny of the Majority? There are heaps of reasons beyond old-timey practicality, that direct democracy was abandoned for republics.
There’s no solution to Democracy while people vote for oligarchs.
Technically, it’s Democracy working as intended, it’s just we’re electing for an oligarchical government.
But we vote for them, every single one, and then we celebrate when the oligarch representative of our team wins and lament when the oligarch from the other team wins.
Nobody ever even notices when their oligarch acts like an oligarch.
Or we could skip all that and develop a machine that thinks (NOT GPT) and let that be our governing system. It’s obvious humans aren’t up to the job.
To have a workable deliberative democracy you first need to elect representatives willing to and equipped to participate in deliberations (under the definitions of the article), so in essence the election itself needs to be based on deliberations, basically tightly moderated debates, that voters are solely to base their decisions on, instead of soundbites through ads or other influence channels.
People will always vote someone that agrees with their uninformed oppinion and offloading decisions to representatives does not adress this issue at all and additionally causes corruption where representatives do not represent their voters.
That’s why the only type of government that can work is a meritocracy where not everyone votes, but instead only people with the correct credentials cast a vote and votes can only be made if there is enough evidence to suggest the necessity for a vote.
Want to ban abortions but you lack any experitise in what effect that would entail on womens mental and phyiscal health? No voting right for you.