Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Are politicians obsolete?

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 10:41:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I don't know how original this idea is, but a comedian on the radio was talking about how we could hypothetically just electronically vote for any issue we want from our cwell phones without the need for politicians. In this day and age of electronic communication, are our politicians obsolete?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Lynx_N
Posts: 276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 8:46:57 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
If it hadn't been for hackers, phishing and all that crap then sure, in our modern day and age we should be able to electronically vote for that which we consider the tax payers money should go to.
Bronto?
Congrats.

poet
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 10:00:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 10:41:09 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I don't know how original this idea is, but a comedian on the radio was talking about how we could hypothetically just electronically vote for any issue we want from our cwell phones without the need for politicians. In this day and age of electronic communication, are our politicians obsolete?

You'll still need chatterboxes to explain the issues.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 10:25:38 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Who would forward the proposals, debate the complex matters, design the budgets, negotiate trade with other countries etc etc?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 4:50:59 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 8:46:57 AM, Lynx_N wrote:
If it hadn't been for hackers, phishing and all that crap then sure, in our modern day and age we should be able to electronically vote for that which we consider the tax payers money should go to.

So technology is effectively self-defeating?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 4:51:41 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 10:00:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/16/2016 10:41:09 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I don't know how original this idea is, but a comedian on the radio was talking about how we could hypothetically just electronically vote for any issue we want from our cwell phones without the need for politicians. In this day and age of electronic communication, are our politicians obsolete?

You'll still need chatterboxes to explain the issues.

The media?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 4:53:23 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 4:51:41 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 9/17/2016 10:00:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/16/2016 10:41:09 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I don't know how original this idea is, but a comedian on the radio was talking about how we could hypothetically just electronically vote for any issue we want from our cwell phones without the need for politicians. In this day and age of electronic communication, are our politicians obsolete?

You'll still need chatterboxes to explain the issues.

The media?
I suppose. Also you need people to come up with proposals.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 4:58:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 10:25:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Who would forward the proposals, debate the complex matters, design the budgets, negotiate trade with other countries etc etc?

Ideally, we would use a town-hall format. Proposals are discussed publically and guided by a leader - we would still need executives of course. But instead of a congress, we give everybody a voice.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 5:06:57 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 4:58:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 9/17/2016 10:25:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Who would forward the proposals, debate the complex matters, design the budgets, negotiate trade with other countries etc etc?

Ideally, we would use a town-hall format. Proposals are discussed publically and guided by a leader - we would still need executives of course. But instead of a congress, we give everybody a voice.

The thing is the public are largely ignorant on most matters. Politicians are paid to be informed. Guiding the economy for example is actually an extremely complex processes which requires a lot of work and expertise. If you make decisions via popular vote you drown out the expert decisions in a flood of inferior choices.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 3:11:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 5:06:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/18/2016 4:58:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 9/17/2016 10:25:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Who would forward the proposals, debate the complex matters, design the budgets, negotiate trade with other countries etc etc?

Ideally, we would use a town-hall format. Proposals are discussed publically and guided by a leader - we would still need executives of course. But instead of a congress, we give everybody a voice.

The thing is the public are largely ignorant on most matters. Politicians are paid to be informed. Guiding the economy for example is actually an extremely complex processes which requires a lot of work and expertise. If you make decisions via popular vote you drown out the expert decisions in a flood of inferior choices.

1. The person on the opposite side of the aisle is going to call your "expert" a fool and a crook (and since they are also an expert, doesn't that make them right?). If these people really were experts then our problems would be getting better instead of worse. I don't see much risk in handing decisions over to the people.

2. Voting is arguably less important than the actual decisions we make on a daily basis regarding where we spend our money and how we treat others. Right now a presidential election brings in about half the population to vote, and every other type of election has negligible participation. That is absolutely pathetic. By increasing the public's ability to participate, we will stimulate new conversation, debate, and awareness. We might not make everybody an expert, but exponentially more people will be aware and knowledgeable about what is going on as they continually participate. It will become natural to hold townhall style sessions in order to keep people informed. The news will begin to shift away from entertaining stories and move more towards informational ones. And our purchases will begin to reflect our ideological positions as opposed to random indulgent whims mostly controlled by advertisement.

Why not enlighten the public?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 3:17:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Our system worked great for people in the 18th century. It was a time where our population and economic influence was small, technology was limited, and our actions had entirely local implications. If we cling sentimentally to the old ways then we are sure to fail.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 3:22:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 10:41:09 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I don't know how original this idea is, but a comedian on the radio was talking about how we could hypothetically just electronically vote for any issue we want from our cwell phones without the need for politicians. In this day and age of electronic communication, are our politicians obsolete?

I would say the brains of our politicians are obsolete.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 3:24:25 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/18/2016 3:11:39 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 9/18/2016 5:06:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/18/2016 4:58:06 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 9/17/2016 10:25:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Who would forward the proposals, debate the complex matters, design the budgets, negotiate trade with other countries etc etc?

Ideally, we would use a town-hall format. Proposals are discussed publically and guided by a leader - we would still need executives of course. But instead of a congress, we give everybody a voice.

The thing is the public are largely ignorant on most matters. Politicians are paid to be informed. Guiding the economy for example is actually an extremely complex processes which requires a lot of work and expertise. If you make decisions via popular vote you drown out the expert decisions in a flood of inferior choices.

1. The person on the opposite side of the aisle is going to call your "expert" a fool and a crook (and since they are also an expert, doesn't that make them right?). If these people really were experts then our problems would be getting better instead of worse. I don't see much risk in handing decisions over to the people.

No really, politics are far more complex than you think. You're commenting as someone who hasn't apparently seen the decision making processes of parliament. For example, let's say you want to draft the budget. Okay, how much funding of GPD will be allocated to the millitary? What incentives will the government create to stimulate growth? How will we protect our corporate interests? What funding will be committed to the tens of thousands of projects, services and departments the government operates?

Who the fvck is going to make the proposals to begin with?

2. Voting is arguably less important than the actual decisions we make on a daily basis regarding where we spend our money and how we treat others. Right now a presidential election brings in about half the population to vote, and every other type of election has negligible participation. That is absolutely pathetic. By increasing the public's ability to participate, we will stimulate new conversation, debate, and awareness. We might not make everybody an expert, but exponentially more people will be aware and knowledgeable about what is going on as they continually participate. It will become natural to hold townhall style sessions in order to keep people informed. The news will begin to shift away from entertaining stories and move more towards informational ones. And our purchases will begin to reflect our ideological positions as opposed to random indulgent whims mostly controlled by advertisement.

You're going to decrease participation if you increase the amount of work available to do. If you want participation in electoral voting, make it compulsory.

Why not enlighten the public?
Exactly, there are people in the public who think they are able to do the job of a politician. They think that politicians are fundamentally different people to everyone else, when they aren't, they think it's easy being a politician, they think that nationally important policies can be done by popular vote. Politics describe a highly complex and very important profession, something you need the very best in your country for.

You realise China's rapid growth of 8% GPD annual was on the back of some extremely well executed long term plans by their government. They would be a third world country if their nation was operating by popular vote, and so would the USA.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...