Is it plausible/sensible to bring back the “Roman Forum” style government?

[Drekynol]

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.

[iNow]

The same people who feel vaccines cause autism, evolution is a lie, global warming a conspiracy, Obama a Kenyan, Trump anything other than a fraud, and that chocolate milk comes from brown cows?

[Drekynol]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

The same people who feel vaccines cause autism, evolution is a lie, global warming a conspiracy, Obama a Kenyan, Trump anything other than a fraud, and that chocolate milk comes from brown cows?

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. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Drekynol

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Drekynol said:

I have a solution to this. We could have a mandatory test that determines if you are fit to have direct influence.

You do realise that the political persuasions of the persons approving the design of the test would influence the nature of the test? The point about a democracy is that, for the most part, all adults have a right to express their views through the ballot box. Now, in an effort to improve democracy you wish to restrict people's right to express their views.

[tuco]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

The same people who feel vaccines cause autism, evolution is a lie, global warming a conspiracy, Obama a Kenyan, Trump anything other than a fraud, and that chocolate milk comes from brown cows?

Well yes, the same people who .. let me think .. voted in Mr Trump or voted for Brexit. 

Direct democracy, elements of having "direct influence" respectively, can only be realized  through trial and error. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by tuco

[Strange]

10 hours ago, Drekynol said:

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.

Doesn't this already? People write letters to newspapers, appear on TV, post on the Internet, hold demonstrations, organise petitions, meet with their representatives, lobby, pay bribes, etc. All of these, and more, allow people to influence the way the country is run.

[tuco]

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Doesn't this already? People write letters to newspapers, appear on TV, post on the Internet, hold demonstrations, organise petitions, meet with their representatives, lobby, pay bribes, etc. All of these, and more, allow people to influence the way the country is run.

I would think, with regards to OP, that is "indirect influence". Direct influence would be having public debate, on "Roman Forum" then casting vote from a mobile phone. However, there are several conditions needed for the so-called wisdom of the crowd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd) as well as problematic areas. 

Personally, I consider current model of representative democracy dearly lacking elements of direct democracy. There are exceptions, but overall people, unlike corporations or other influential groups, have little direct influence. People can talk, in the media you noted, but that is mostly it. As Václav Bělohradský (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Václav_Bělohradský) noted: there are two kinds of dictate; one where word has such weight that one can be jailed for it (referring to totalitarian regimes), and second when word has no weight at all (referring to current environment). While this is simplified view of the world, I believe it has some merit. 

Edited September 27, 2017 by tuco

[Raider5678]

8 hours ago, tuco said:

Well yes, the same people who .. let me think .. voted in Mr Trump or voted for Brexit. 

Direct democracy, elements of having "direct influence" respectively, can only be realized  through trial and error. 

So.....

You what you mean by this test is that you simply eliminate the ability for the other party to vote because they're stupid?

[tuco]

3 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

So.....

You what you mean by this test is that you simply eliminate the ability for the other party to vote because they're stupid?

What test?

With technological progress allowing for concepts never before feasible (access to and speed of information for example), the most common argument against (elements of) direct democracy is that people are stupid. I dunno about that but without learning how to do direct democracy (through trial and error), people are destined to hand away their right to influence politics every couple of years. The only test I propose is .. let them burn their hand when touching stove.  

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, tuco said:

What test?

With technological progress allowing for concepts never before feasible (access to and speed of information for example), the most common argument against (elements of) direct democracy is that people are stupid. I dunno about that but without learning how to do direct democracy (through trial and error), people are destined to hand away their right to influence politics every couple of years. The only test I propose is .. let them burn their hand when touching stove.  

Currently we vote.

Is that not direct democracy?

[tuco]

Its representative democracy. For difference here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

 

 

[Drekynol]

On 9/27/2017 at 4:02 AM, Area54 said:

You do realise that the political persuasions of the persons approving the design of the test would influence the nature of the test? The point about a democracy is that, for the most part, all adults have a right to express their views through the ballot box. Now, in an effort to improve democracy you wish to restrict people's right to express their views.

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. 

[Area54]

Your proposal would disenfranchise people based upon an arbitrary test. I would oppose it completely.

(I understand it is very well intentioned and I applaud you for seeking a solution to a genuine and important problem, but this system would be ripe for abuse.)

 

[iNow]

Your claims are clear, but your reasons are not. Idealism is wonderful, but often humans are not. Ideology is strong, but intelligencias are not  

We can all agree improvement is needed. We don’t all agree on how to get there, despite well formed well supported argument and evidence.

Sometimes my self interest directly harms you, and that’s a microcosm representing the problem with your otherwise laudable proposal for direct democratic governance.