Drekynol

It wouldn’t stop them from expressing their views, it would just stop a small percentage of the people from trying to be the loudest in the room. Thus opening the door to intellectual debate. It would not restrict too many people from participating, it would simply allow government to work a little bit faster. Then people can protest or debate how the government forums are run in their own time. I just want to open the door. I’m not trying to make a perfect solution.

I have a solution to this. We could have a mandatory test that determines if you are fit to have direct influence. It would take a while to make this test in such a way that it can’t be cheated on, but I feel like this is the best way to solve this issue. Sure, there will be whining about social rights, but given time, this could become accepted. (The only consequence of this test would be being locked into a “spectator room” if you will where they cannot say anything, but will still be able to watch what’s happening.) Another solution would be to allow people to vote to suspend one’s permission to partake, and enough suspensions will result in a permanent block. If someone gets enough votes to be suspended, a third party would investigate the person in question and decide if they should be. This would deter excessive aggression and trolls as well.

I feel that all democracies would be greatly benefitted by allowing open forums, perhaps online, that would allow the people to influence the way the country is run.