Should the State of California Adopt a Republican Parliamentary System

[beneficii]

Like those in Germany or Italy?

[Free Palestine]

Not sure about changing the system, but the size of the Assembly should certainly be increased.  We have only eighty representatives, for close to forty million people.  That is not a very representative legislature.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I think California has bigger problems than the size of their assembly.

[Torie]

I think California has bigger problems than the size of their assembly.

Wow. I'm shocked! Who knew?

[Free Palestine]

I think California has bigger problems than the size of their assembly.

And these same problems can be avoided in the future by making California's government more representative.  We can have a representative in the Assembly for every fifty thousand people, but instead we have one for every four-hundred thousand.

[Torie]

I think California has bigger problems than the size of their assembly.

And these same problems can be avoided in the future by making California's government more representative.  We can have a representative in the Assembly for every fifty thousand people, but instead we have one for every four-hundred thousand.

Increasing by a factor of eight the clowns in the California state legislature would make for better policy decisions?  Wow, now that is a leap of faith.

[Free Palestine]

I think California has bigger problems than the size of their assembly.

And these same problems can be avoided in the future by making California's government more representative.  We can have a representative in the Assembly for every fifty thousand people, but instead we have one for every four-hundred thousand.

Increasing by a factor of eight the clowns in the California state legislature would make for better policy decisions?  Wow, now that is a leap of faith.

It would make for greater representation in the Assembly.

[Scam of God]

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

[Free Palestine]

Direct democracy isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Scam of God]

Direct democracy isn't necessarily a good thing.

It's the fullest possible application of the "one-man, one-vote" principle and liberal individualism more generally, and, if administrated correctly, vastly superior to representative systems, which almost always tend to get stymied in partisanship and factionalism. I have a very specific plan to implement it, moreover, which I am positive is superior to the one presently established in America

[Free Palestine]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

[Scam of God]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

Watch here.

Each territory/township of a certain size is given a server with fully proxy admission. Each individual in that territory/township is given a randomly-generated password that logs them into the voting booth, hidden behind a proxy so as to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Each territory/township votes for moderators who regulate what legislation passes through the booth, serving as a check against populist sentiment. Using a Wiki/sandbox format, each individual is capable of writing their own legislation, which, provided it meets certain requirements, the moderators then pass on to be voted on. Thus there is a horizontal, rather than vertical, structure of checks-and-balances.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

We already tried this direct democracy thing. It didn't work out so well. Thanks to direct democracy, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the legislatur eto pass a budget, but putting bigotry into the Constitution only takes a simple majority of those who bother to show up for a given election. Prop. 13 benefits the old at the expense of the young. The list of failed Propositions goes on and on.

[Scam of God]

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

We already tried this direct democracy thing. It didn't work out so well. Thanks to direct democracy, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the legislatur eto pass a budget, but putting bigotry into the Constitution only takes a simple majority of those who bother to show up for a given election. Prop. 13 benefits the old at the expense of the young. The list of failed Propositions goes on and on.

The problem with the current structure in California isn't that individuals are able to submit legislation for the vote, but that there is no serious moderation of voter-initiated legislation by elected officials competent in their area of expertise.

[Free Palestine]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

Watch here.

Each territory/township of a certain size is given a server with fully proxy admission. Each individual in that territory/township is given a randomly-generated password that logs them into the voting booth, hidden behind a proxy so as to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Each territory/township votes for moderators who regulate what legislation passes through the booth, serving as a check against populist sentiment. Using a Wiki/sandbox format, each individual is capable of writing their own legislation, which, provided it meets certain requirements, the moderators then pass on to be voted on. Thus there is a horizontal, rather than vertical, structure of checks-and-balances.

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

We already tried this direct democracy thing. It didn't work out so well. Thanks to direct democracy, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the legislatur eto pass a budget, but putting bigotry into the Constitution only takes a simple majority of those who bother to show up for a given election. Prop. 13 benefits the old at the expense of the young. The list of failed Propositions goes on and on.

The problem with the current structure in California isn't that individuals are able to submit legislation for the vote, but that there is no serious moderation of voter-initiated legislation by elected officials competent in their area of expertise.

So, you're proposing that there would be a committee of sorts to decide the constitutionality of proposed bills?  With everything else being in the form of direct democracy?

Sounds like an interesting idea.  Internet democracy.

[Scam of God]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

Watch here.

Each territory/township of a certain size is given a server with fully proxy admission. Each individual in that territory/township is given a randomly-generated password that logs them into the voting booth, hidden behind a proxy so as to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Each territory/township votes for moderators who regulate what legislation passes through the booth, serving as a check against populist sentiment. Using a Wiki/sandbox format, each individual is capable of writing their own legislation, which, provided it meets certain requirements, the moderators then pass on to be voted on. Thus there is a horizontal, rather than vertical, structure of checks-and-balances.

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

We already tried this direct democracy thing. It didn't work out so well. Thanks to direct democracy, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the legislatur eto pass a budget, but putting bigotry into the Constitution only takes a simple majority of those who bother to show up for a given election. Prop. 13 benefits the old at the expense of the young. The list of failed Propositions goes on and on.

The problem with the current structure in California isn't that individuals are able to submit legislation for the vote, but that there is no serious moderation of voter-initiated legislation by elected officials competent in their area of expertise.

So, you're proposing that there would be a committee of sorts to decide the constitutionality of proposed bills?  With everything else being in the form of direct democracy?

Sounds like an interesting idea.  Internet democracy.

Essentially, yes. The biggest difficulty in implementing such a method would be devising full-proof mechanisms to prevent hacking of the system. A truly randomly-generated password, using a combination of both letters and digits, ought to suffice, though it would need to be slightly more complicated than our present Social Security structure.

[Free Palestine]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

Watch here.

Each territory/township of a certain size is given a server with fully proxy admission. Each individual in that territory/township is given a randomly-generated password that logs them into the voting booth, hidden behind a proxy so as to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Each territory/township votes for moderators who regulate what legislation passes through the booth, serving as a check against populist sentiment. Using a Wiki/sandbox format, each individual is capable of writing their own legislation, which, provided it meets certain requirements, the moderators then pass on to be voted on. Thus there is a horizontal, rather than vertical, structure of checks-and-balances.

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

We already tried this direct democracy thing. It didn't work out so well. Thanks to direct democracy, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the legislatur eto pass a budget, but putting bigotry into the Constitution only takes a simple majority of those who bother to show up for a given election. Prop. 13 benefits the old at the expense of the young. The list of failed Propositions goes on and on.

The problem with the current structure in California isn't that individuals are able to submit legislation for the vote, but that there is no serious moderation of voter-initiated legislation by elected officials competent in their area of expertise.

So, you're proposing that there would be a committee of sorts to decide the constitutionality of proposed bills?  With everything else being in the form of direct democracy?

Sounds like an interesting idea.  Internet democracy.

Essentially, yes. The biggest difficulty in implementing such a method would be devising full-proof mechanisms to prevent hacking of the system. A truly randomly-generated password, using a combination of both letters and digits, ought to suffice, though it would need to be slightly more complicated than our present Social Security structure.

Potential system errors and outages are also a problem.

[Scam of God]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

Watch here.

Each territory/township of a certain size is given a server with fully proxy admission. Each individual in that territory/township is given a randomly-generated password that logs them into the voting booth, hidden behind a proxy so as to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. Each territory/township votes for moderators who regulate what legislation passes through the booth, serving as a check against populist sentiment. Using a Wiki/sandbox format, each individual is capable of writing their own legislation, which, provided it meets certain requirements, the moderators then pass on to be voted on. Thus there is a horizontal, rather than vertical, structure of checks-and-balances.

I concur. The course of human history generally will be from representative to direct democracy, and nowhere in the United States is that transition more likely to begin than in California. We ought to do everything in our power to aid it.

We already tried this direct democracy thing. It didn't work out so well. Thanks to direct democracy, it takes a 2/3rds vote of the legislatur eto pass a budget, but putting bigotry into the Constitution only takes a simple majority of those who bother to show up for a given election. Prop. 13 benefits the old at the expense of the young. The list of failed Propositions goes on and on.

The problem with the current structure in California isn't that individuals are able to submit legislation for the vote, but that there is no serious moderation of voter-initiated legislation by elected officials competent in their area of expertise.

So, you're proposing that there would be a committee of sorts to decide the constitutionality of proposed bills?  With everything else being in the form of direct democracy?

Sounds like an interesting idea.  Internet democracy.

Essentially, yes. The biggest difficulty in implementing such a method would be devising full-proof mechanisms to prevent hacking of the system. A truly randomly-generated password, using a combination of both letters and digits, ought to suffice, though it would need to be slightly more complicated than our present Social Security structure.

Potential system errors and outages are also a problem.

True, but no more of a problem than physical difficulties in attending Congress. In the first century of this nation's existence representatives would often have to come from all over the country on horseback or by coach, regardless of weather or climate conditions (or the Civil War or native strife). I hardly think it could be any worse than that.

[Хahar 🤔]

At lunch today, I was considering a system for California modeled after the one proposed by that professor in an episode of Yes, Prime Minister.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[quote author=Scam of God link=topic=112376.msg2397990#msg2397990
True, but no more of a problem than physical difficulties in attending Congress. In the first century of this nation's existence representatives would often have to come from all over the country on horseback or by coach, regardless of weather or climate conditions (or the Civil War or native strife). I hardly think it could be any worse than that.
[/quote]

Well, it did take the 1st Congress a month get quorum.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

California is already closer to a direct democracy than any other state. I used to think the Swiss style direct democracy model was great, but then after realizing that's basically what California has I realized it wasn't so much.

[Verily]

The problem with direct democracy is that it lacks the system of checks and balances that exist in a representative democracy.  Fifty-two percent of the population can deprive the other forty-eight of their rights.  And often the popular will is subject to undue influences from special interests.  Most voters aren't exactly well-informed.

Funny, given that you've advocated restricting rights in the past so long as the majority supports such restrictions.

Anyway, increasing the legislature size is objectively a good thing so long as the system used is FPTP or some other constituency-based system. (Under a proportional system, a smaller legislature is probably ideal, although really only for reasons of controlling overhead costs.)

Why? Because it is far easier to remove a corrupt or incompetent or otherwise problematic legislator who has an electorate of 50,000 than one who has an electorate of 500,000. Campaigning becomes less costly--and thus less about who foots the bill for campaign work. Politicians who primarily cater to those footing the campaign bills will be able to overwhelm an underfunded good government campaigner in a large constituency. But, in a small constituency, high-cost advertising is less effective, and the keys to good government elections, like a strong door-knocking operation, become paramount.

Not that there won't still be corrupt/ineffective/incompetent politicians in office. Indeed, in total there will probably be more of such. But they will comprise a smaller percentage of the enlarged legislature.

[Bo]

Yes