Now imagine a world where every taxpayer can vote where their money goes, and there are institutions making sure that this money is spent where it's meant for, like: education, healthcare, local infrastructure, research, military, military operations, etc I wonder if things would be different..
yakubin|3 years ago
elil17|3 years ago
More seriously, I don't think our current decision-makers are informed and the average person wouldn't be either. But I trust the average persons values way more than I trust those of a politician. Maybe we still wouldn't get enough funding for roads and bridges. We don't get that now. But perhaps the average person would put more money towards education and food and less towards war.
theptip|3 years ago
That's true as far as it goes. However if we had the ability to individually vote on allocations, presumably most people would delegate the details to an expert of their choosing, while taking a stance on high-level classes of expenditures, for example "I will vote for the <insert expert> budget because it reduces military spending and increases healthcare spending", or whatever your policy preference is. Basically Liquid Democracy[1] of some sort (whether the partial delegation is built into the system or implemented outside the allocation voting system).
I do agree with your general point that direct democracy can be problematic, particularly when a binary choice is presented rather than a continuum of options. E.g. see the CA ballot measure system which often results in "choose A&C or B&D"-type choices which exclude certain preferences from being expressed. I think a more granular direct democracy might enable better decision frameworks though, specifically by enabling more options for delegation.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
MC68328|3 years ago
The non-experts elected by non-experts know better than the non-experts.
Pakdef|3 years ago
bckr|3 years ago