Hacker News Reader

> Allowing say 100,000 to 1,000,000 people, who are outraged enough, to be able to at least postpone a bad bill when Congress tries to pass it quickly.

That sounds nice when you only think about "good" people opposing "bad" bills, but you can say goodbye to any kind of social reform under that system.

Repealing DADT, Repealing the Defense of Marriage act, same-sex marriage are some social reforms that would never happen under such a system because you can easily find millions of americans that are extremely outraged about those issues.

The protests against SOPA and PIPA worked because the absolute majority of the american population didn't care and didn't have an opinion either way, but the tech community had an expert opinion against it based on facts and technical knowledge.

But if you open up your suggested system to issues where everyone has an opinion and noone really knows the effects, the results are going to be abysmal.

I wonder what the US would look like with a proportional representation system instead. Where you would have an actual Tea-party party with as many seats in congress as they actually have nationwide support for. And where the other "factions" of the Democrats and the Republicans formed parties in their own right, and people could have a more active role in shaping the policies of the "block" of their choosing, instead of just voting for it because they don't want the other side to win.

I wonder what it would look like if every vote counted, if there were no swing-states, no gerrymandering, if the electoral college votes where also proportional, so that voting for a third candidate is meaningful, or a fourth, or a fifth. I wonder what would happen if the election results showed the "purple" America that actually exists, instead of the red vs. blue illusion.

Repealing DADT, Repealing the Defense of Marriage act, same-sex marriage are some social reforms that would never happen under such a system because you can easily find millions of americans that are extremely outraged about those issues.

How is postpone and force a public and (hopefully) fair debate about a subject the same as stopping it from happening?

A lot of opinion on that kind of thing is pretty much axiomatic and not changeable by reasoned debate

> A lot of opinion on that kind of thing is pretty much axiomatic and not changeable by reasoned debate.

So? Why shouldn't they have the ability to postpone things? "Postpone" doesn't mean block. In this context, it just means "takes more time".

I find it interesting that "not changeable by reasoned debate" applies mostly to positions that the speaker don't hold.

I definitely think this kind of law should be debated and balanced, and I know what you mean. Originally, I was thinking of giving these people the power to "veto" the bills. But then I quickly realized what you are saying. Heck, even the majority of population shouldn't have that kind of power too often (except national referendums) because that would mean "real direct democracy" and that system is definitely worse than the republic system.

I'm just saying we need some light direct democracy influences in the republic, to have more checks and balances against the representatives.

Maybe 6 months is too much. Maybe 100,000 is too low. I'm sure we could find a balance. And I'm only asking to postpone the bill and have set-up some kind of open debate process - like multiple hearings with the public or civil liberties organizations involved - anything like that, as long as they don't rush it through Congress.

> I'm just saying we need some light direct democracy influences in the republic

Yes, that is what proportional representation and a plurality of political parties achieve. In the last elections here, I first selected one of the major blocks of parties, and then a specific party within that block. That way my vote gets a little bit more power, I get to say something about the general political foundation, and I get to say something about specific issues that are important to me.

If the party I generally vote for does something I'm completely against, I don't have to abandon the fundamentals, I can still keep my vote within the bigger block, but shift it to another party, which means the entire block shifts direction ever so slightly.

This way, outside voter forces act on the blocks to change them and shape them, instead of that process being completely internal and driven by their perception of popular opinion.

> And I'm only asking to postpone the bill and have set-up some kind of open debate process

The biggest problem with this is that politics is all about compromise. It's about giving and receiving, about making deals. It allows parties to get their way in issues they and their voters care deeply about, in exchange for not getting their way in less important issues.

But if you add an open debate process, you lose the bigger picture. Different parts of the public, different organizations will get involved in different issues, and completely ignore others, and each organization will act as if their issue is the only important one, and not be willing to budge an inch. For every issue you can always find enough people that cares very deeply about it, but it's much harder to see the bigger picture, how many people actually care deeply about a certain issue? And I think that only by giving them the power to vote can you really find out.

The main problem with a direct representation of the society (even without a direct democracy) is that this enables the Tyranny of the majority.

Under this kind of system, every minority would be oppressed.

I have always wanted a more direct democracy, but I think the big problem with this is that a LOT of people just don't care about anything. When I asked a friend of mine, just before a presidential election, who was he going to vote, he asked me that he didn't care. He said "I don't care about politics or economics". Even when I responded that eventually, that decisions affected him, he still didn't care.

And in the other side of the spectrum, there are very heated subjects, like abortion. If you enable a way to postpone or kill a bill, based on say 3M online votes, I can bet that every church will ask their parishioners to vote. (please, I simply put this as an example) How do you stop that?

On the other hand, I can bet that some corporations are going to put incentives to vote in favor or against some legislation. (e.g.: giving bonuses to the ones who vote the desired option). Everything becomes much more harder to analyze to detect corruption.

Yes, this is why asking a national referendum for anything is not the answer. You need a minority group of say 1 million, who is very knowledgeable about the issue to know that it's a terrible bill, and which has the initiative to act against it.

But of course this could be easily abused, too, if not done carefully. That's why they shouldn't be able to veto the bill - but only postpone it and force Congress to hold a public debate about it over a number of months.

The only threat to this is getting this happening way too often, and making Congress very inefficient (not that it's extremely efficient now) by postponing everything. This is why it needs to be thought through a little bit, and as soon as there are signs of this, the numbers should be altered to balance the law.

We even have the crypto theory for safe e-voting, which is being implemented in Norway[1], which can help direct democracy to turn into a reality. The hard part is the culture change.

[1] http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/195

> The hard part is the culture change.

No that's good. At a Macro level change can only lead to reduce the power of the incumbents.

Anything we can do to fight the kind of people who actually believe that the internet is really a "series of tubes" (again, at a Macro level, this'll be the Boomers) is a GOOD thing.