I’m in favor of your position but this

You can either believe the shit you just said

is just rude and that way, you won’t generate support for your position among people who don’t already agree with you. I think that’s counterproductive, because cooperation is the most effective weapon you have against a repressive state.

I asked a simple question to understand the situation and you start insulting me.

My argument would be that people definitely would make bad decisions in the beginning. But that wouldn’t be that far off of the status quo, would it?

My hope would be that this system gives an incentive to ACTUALLY get informed about the matter you vote on since you’re actively choosing to get involved instead of voting on every topic (also the ones you have 0.0 interest in) every 4 years. Another point, which may be a bit far fetched idk, could be that you theoretically could use LLMs to summarize the various proposed solutions and their justifications. In the system I have in mind, the experts you mentioned would also submit proposed solutions.

Based on your example:

Problem formulated for the petition: “Rents are too high.”

If the petition goes through, anyone could propose solutions. For example, “rent control” (proposed by someone on the left), “foreigners out” (proposed by someone on the right), “revise building standards and invest in public housing” (an expert).

The population might follow the populists at first… However, if the problem is not solved after 10 years, you can’t blame “those at the top” for the solution not working, and hopefully there will be a rethink.

Maybe this is just a utopian fantasy of mine. But I have the feeling that our democratic systems are not up to the challenges of the digitalized 21st century and growing inequality… this is the best solution I have come up with so far.

Isn’t it the other way round: ICE pruposely bullys blue states (Among other reasons, because the red states need illegal immigrants as laborers) ?

Create an open source platform where everyone can vote on every matter. Matter to be voted on are chosen by petitions. If a petition indicates societal need for change (x supporters in y time frame) anyone can propose a solution. Then a vote is taken. The solution with the most votes is implemented. If there is a new petition on the same topic, the fun starts all over again.

Advantages from my point of view:

1. No potentially corrupt representatives

2. No deflection of one’s own bad voting decisions (aka. it’s the fault of those at the top)

3. Citizens once again have a motivation to inform themselves about issues more than just once every four years.

Will everyone always be able to vote on everything? Certainly not, as individuals’ time and resources are limited. Therefore, those who vote on a decision are likely to be affected by it themselves, or at least feel that they are. In this way, people who have informed themselves beforehand, or at least would do so, tend to vote more.

We would use the real-time communication possibilities that the internet has given us for something positive instead of slop and brain rot.

My problem with anonymous leaders is that we’d completely lose track of who’s to be made responsible. It would basically create a shortcut for elites to rule without having to hide their corruption/influence.

A group/institution would probably also face the same problem as we have today with single persons: Big money would simply buy influence in these new organizations instead of bribing single individuals.

A direct democracy would mean you have to bribe a big part of the population to cover your ideas… the worse your idea is and the more support you need to buy for it the more translates from bribery to paying a majority to accept your idea. At some point the amount of bribes extends the gains to be made by your manipulation and it becomes uneconomical… we’d basically use capitalism against bribery.

II would put it the other way around: as long as representative systems exist, it will always be more likely that egoists and narcissists will establish themselves in leadership positions, even if they only make up a small part of the population. Today, this is encouraged by the fact that we reward these character traits, which are actually harmful to the community, with fame, money and prestige.

Personally, I think the internet is both a blessing and a curse: while it is currently being used to sow discord and spread lies, it will also enable us to do without representatives and the corruption that goes with them in the foreseeable future. I believe that internet- and open-source-based direct democracy is the model of government of the future.

I get your point. But the question that comes to my mind: Is your experience with the world a reason to devalue his excitement for his ,old boring" quarry? Does one always need to chase the ,best and biggest" things in life to be content an ought to feel imperfect if he/she didn’t experience them? I’m fairly sure you didn’t mean it this way but to me it sounds like you belittle others due to the fact that you believe to know better… and that, frankly said, is also something not to be celebrated.

I don’t mean to attack you but I’m curious weather you thought about these aspects?