Iceland's Pirate Party secures more election funding than all its rivals as it continues to top polls: 'We don't care. Democracy doesn’t revolve around getting loads of money from the government. We funded our campaign at a flea market before the last elections and that was fine.'

How does one ensure enough have voted to reach majority decision? 50%+1 of the cast votes or 50%+1 of the population? Do you need a quorum? What counts as quorum? How do we establish which version of a proposal gets voted on? How many petition signatures to move it to a full vote? Is there a chance for counter-argument? Do we get to amend proposed bills? How long do we get to examine? Do we have to hear all of the dissent? How much time do we give voters? Do voters need to vote on EVERYTHING? Or just MOST things? Is that even a true direct democracy anymore?

Imagine the 200 million+ eligible voters in America arguing over which bills we'll vote on. We'd never get anything done. Everybody would demand a voice. Slight differences of opinion would cause massive fragmentation in the language of a bill. Philosophical differences would cause further fragmentation. Spirit of law vs letter of law. Etc, etc.

Direct Democracy is wildly ineffective outside of small groups. I'm not even sure Iceland could do it with 300,000 citizens (~70-75ish% being eligible voters based on age).

Running a government isn't easy, and it gets harder when more people are involved. Democracy is a borderline utopian concept considering it becomes wildly impractical to embrace a true populist/direct democracy at very high numbers; Representation is the closest we can get to an effective democracy. These democratically elected Republics are the worst form of government, except compared to all the rest (paraphrasing Churchill).

I don't get why many Redditors fawn over Direct Democracy for all things. Imagine the shitshow in getting a gun bill past the signature phase of a petition if we all get to argue and we all get a say. Imagine the same for religion. Or healthcare. Or homosexual marriage (which is still controversial despite the SCOTUS ruling). Controversy would become even more polemic if we gave everybody direct control over how we approach it - "Fucking Jimmy is against my bill and he keeps dissenting!" It's a big enough shitshow right now when we only occasionally vote on something as a state, such as Prop 8 in California, or as a general population for political leaders (president being a good one).

The popular vote would be a great element to bring to the table. Incorporate some parts of direct democracy - do away with the Electoral College for president & make it 100% Popular Vote! That'd be fine! But for every national bill? State legislature would be a big enough shitshow anyways.

/r/worldnews Thread Parent Link - independent.co.uk