A believe that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum is performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). If the population votes to ban a mass media, so be it; and vice versa, if the population votes to fine people who slander this mass media, so be it. I hope my logic is clear.
However, with this system new problems will arise due to the Condorcet and Arrow's theorems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox

https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk

These theorems can be illustrated by the following example. The voters have three candidates - A, B and C. A third of voters think that A is better than B and B is better than C; a third of voters think that B is better than C and C is better than A, and a third thinks that C is better than A and A is better than B. It is easy to show that it is a "rock, paper, scissors" situation, i.e., depending on who goes to the second round, anyone of A, B, C can confidently win.
Theoretically, this problem can be solved as follows: the voter does not just vote for one of the candidates, but gives each candidate a score on a ten-point scale. If these scores were honest, everything would work well. But voters can lie with these scores, i.e., for example, if there are many candidates, a voter can give one a 10 and all the others a 1. It is quite unclear how to solve this problem; but this will be a formulated scientific problem for future generations. For example, I can suggest the following solution: select three hundred voters by lot after voting and ask them to take a lie detector test.
Such a system would be necessary in case of implementation of the "dictatorship of the majority" that I propose: so that, roughly speaking, it does not happen that 90% vote to make the remaining 10% slaves.
I want to find a word to name this hypothetical correct political system, please help me with this.

27 minutes ago, Linkey said:

an online referendum is performed at least each week

How do you avoid “survey fatigue”?

https://blog.hubspot.com/service/survey-fatigue

“Survey fatigue is when respondents lose interest in your surveys due to the large number of survey requests they receive or the number of questions and effort required to complete them. Fatigue usually leads to low response rates, rushed completion, or abandonment, which can affect your survey results”

 

27 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Theoretically, this problem can be solved as follows: the voter does not just vote for one of the candidates, but gives each candidate a score on a ten-point scale

Ranked choice voting

https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

 

The issue of protecting minority rights can be addressed with a constitutional democracy

11 minutes ago, Linkey said:

A believe that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum is performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). If the population votes to ban a mass media, so be it; and vice versa, if the population votes to fine people who slander this mass media, so be it. I hope my logic is clear.
However, with this system new problems will arise due to the Condorcet and Arrow's theorems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox

https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk

These theorems can be illustrated by the following example. The voters have three candidates - A, B and C. A third of voters think that A is better than B and B is better than C; a third of voters think that B is better than C and C is better than A, and a third thinks that C is better than A and A is better than B. It is easy to show that it is a "rock, paper, scissors" situation, i.e., depending on who goes to the second round, anyone of A, B, C can confidently win.
Theoretically, this problem can be solved as follows: the voter does not just vote for one of the candidates, but gives each candidate a score on a ten-point scale. If these scores were honest, everything would work well. But voters can lie with these scores, i.e., for example, if there are many candidates, a voter can give one a 10 and all the others a 1. It is quite unclear how to solve this problem; but this will be a formulated scientific problem for future generations. For example, I can suggest the following solution: select three hundred voters by lot after voting and ask them to take a lie detector test.
Such a system would be necessary in case of implementation of the "dictatorship of the majority" that I propose: so that, roughly speaking, it does not happen that 90% vote to make the remaining 10% slaves.
I want to find a word to name this hypothetical correct political system, please help me with this.

So you advocate mob rule, then? 

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do you avoid “survey fatigue”?

I think that a good decision would be to fine people for not taking participation in a voting. But these fines can be used only together with an option "I don't know" in the voting: this option means that the voter considers himself not sufficiently informed for a decision, but he has honestly logined to the app for voting and read the basic information about the voted suggestion.

2 hours ago, Linkey said:

I think that a good decision would be to fine people for not taking participation in a voting. But these fines can be used only together with an option "I don't know" in the voting: this option means that the voter considers himself not sufficiently informed for a decision, but he has honestly logined to the app for voting and read the basic information about the voted suggestion.

So a recessive tax on the poor, who can least afford to take the time to vote. Even if this is internet-based, they’re more likely to not have home access and need to take time to go somewhere to participate 

3 hours ago, Linkey said:

I think that a good decision would be to fine people for not taking participation in a voting.

"The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Ranked choice voting

This is a good idea, but maybe I don't fully understand the principle from your link. For me, the best system can be as follows: if we have e.g. 3 candidates, each voter ranks each candidate with 1-3 numbers, and rank 1 means score 10, 2 means 5, 3 means 0. So this will be similar to the vote with scale I proposed, but the voter will be unable to choose 10 for one candidate and 0 for each of two others.
In my example in the op with A, B, C candidates, with this system, each of them will finally get 33%.

19 minutes ago, Linkey said:

This is a good idea, but maybe I don't fully understand the principle from your link. For me, the best system can be as follows: if we have e.g. 3 candidates, each voter ranks each candidate with 1-3 numbers, and rank 1 means score 10, 2 means 5, 3 means 0. So this will be similar to the vote with scale I proposed, but the voter will be unable to choose 10 for one candidate and 0 for each of two others.
In my example in the op with A, B, C candidates, with this system, each of them will finally get 33%.

Your example is one version of ranked choice. As the link says, there’s more than one way to do it; they focus on the most common one. I was pointing out that there’s a name for such systems

The problem with allowing 10/0/0 is it potentially leaves you with the same problem you have in the paradox, since it allows casting a vote for only one candidate. You need to force actual ranking

8 hours ago, swansont said:

The problem with allowing 10/0/0 is it potentially leaves you with the same problem you have in the paradox, since it allows casting a vote for only one candidate. You need to force actual ranking

Probably I think the same, and I want to formulate this again. If the voters have e.g. three candidates and the voting with the scale, it is possible that they will tend to vote "10 for one, 0 for two others". This vote seems selfish, and the state must try to fight the egoism of voters. If the ranking system is used. each voter will have to vote "10 for one, 5 for second, 0 for third"; and this distribution seems more fair for most cases, it represents a more common distribution of opinions. If there are not 3 candidates but e.g. 100, but most of them are spoilers, the ranking vote wil not help.

At the same time, for referendums, the ranking vote can't be used. I think that the voting with scale will be not bad for the referendums anyway, but the state must try to solve the problem of unfair voting (vote 10 instead of 6).

Edited October 20, 20241 yr by Linkey

13 hours ago, Linkey said:

A believe that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum is performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments)

This would mean laws change from week to week, according to popular opinion. Problem 1: nobody knows what's legal today, since there isn't time to publish the information before things change again. Problem 2: the legal system can't keep up with the changes. If what was illegal and carried a 2-year sentence three weeks ago and it's just become legal, do all of those prisoners have to be let out? Problem 3: News broadcasters, tabloids, celebrities and social media personalities would have immediate influence on everything. Even women's fashions last at least six months! Shouldn't the law of the land be at least as durable? 

This is completely different from elections.

14 hours ago, Linkey said:

But voters can lie with these scores, i.e., for example, if there are many candidates, a voter can give one a 10 and all the others a 1.

How is it a lie to prefer one candidate overwhelmingly? If I had to rate the current presidential candidates in the US, I'd be hard-pressed to refrain giving one of them a -10. That's no lie. What percentage of voters is likely to feel this way? A large percentage doesn't indicate insincerity, it indicates the relative popularity of candidates. 

 

14 hours ago, Linkey said:

Such a system would be necessary in case of implementation of the "dictatorship of the majority" that I propose: so that, roughly speaking, it does not happen that 90% vote to make the remaining 10% slaves.

In no way does this follow. It's unlikely that the majority of voters prefer a candidate who would enslave their fellow citizens.

47 minutes ago, Linkey said:

If the voters have e.g. three candidates and the voting with the scale, it is possible that they will tend to vote "10 for one, 0 for two others". This vote seems selfish, and the state must try to fight the egoism of voters.

Why not also punish them for vanity, procrastination, lust, ambition, a short temper and a taste for chocolate? It's not the state's job to second-guess why each voter made the choice they did and correct them.

7 hours ago, Peterkin said:

This would mean laws change from week to week, according to popular opinion. Problem 1: nobody knows what's legal today, since there isn't time to publish the information before things change again.

A lot of legislation doesn’t become active immediately. You could easily implement things months later, for most changes. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You could easily implement things months later, for most changes.

By which time, six more referenda have muddied the issue beyond recognition.

Current idea of modern (representative) democracy is simple and looks fine: the population choses between several professional politicians in power via voting. However, in fact this does not work: these professional politicians establish a “cartel agreement” (often even unconscious) and a monopoly of elites on information, and  this prevents people who do not belong to elites from starting a political career (only Zelensky as exception). Here I suggest “democracy 2.0”, and the main aspect of it is a big number of referendums, which are performed maybe each week. This system will motivate common people to study sciences like economics for more competent voting.

The referendums can be performed online; currently some IT decisions like DeFi can be used for guaranteeing  that the votes will be calculated both closed (anonymous) and confidently/honestly (I can explain this later). Here is most important idea: these multiple referendums will not be referendums in strict meaning, because they will not have a legal force; instead, they will reveal what people want, and the power will have to fulfill the will of nation. If a referendum was “profane”, theoretically the power can reject is in the interest of people, but it will have to explain this later, after leaving the power – otherwise the politicians who ignored the will of nation will be imprisoned via a decision of people via a new referendum. I mean that the people will be able to either imprison somebody, or vice versa give somebody a juridical immunity, via a referendum.

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

Current idea of modern (representative) democracy is simple and looks fine: the population choses between several professional politicians in power via voting. However, in fact this does not work: these professional politicians establish a “cartel agreement” (often even unconscious) and a monopoly of elites on information, and  this prevents people who do not belong to elites from starting a political career (only Zelensky as exception). Here I suggest “democracy 2.0”, and the main aspect of it is a big number of referendums, which are performed maybe each week. This system will motivate common people to study sciences like economics for more competent voting.

The referendums can be performed online; currently some IT decisions like DeFi can be used for guaranteeing  that the votes will be calculated both closed (anonymous) and confidently/honestly (I can explain this later). Here is most important idea: these multiple referendums will not be referendums in strict meaning, because they will not have a legal force; instead, they will reveal what people want, and the power will have to fulfill the will of nation. If a referendum was “profane”, theoretically the power can reject is in the interest of people, but it will have to explain this later, after leaving the power – otherwise the politicians who ignored the will of nation will be imprisoned via a decision of people via a new referendum. I mean that the people will be able to either imprison somebody, or vice versa give somebody a juridical immunity, via a referendum.

We’ve been over this before. It’s obviously unworkable, due to the number and the complexity of the issues a government has to resolve. Most people won’t have the time, the expertise or the interest to make informed choices. Furthermore, your idea runs the obvious risk that on-line referenda might be hijacked by coteries of activists, leading to highly unrepresentative outcomes.

Forget it.

Edited July 13Jul 13 by exchemist

8 hours ago, exchemist said:

We’ve been over this before. It’s obviously unworkable, due to the number and the complexity of the issues a government has to resolve. Most people won’t have the time, the expertise or the interest to make informed choices. Furthermore, your idea runs the obvious risk that on-line referenda might be hijacked by coteries of activists, leading to highly unrepresentative outcomes.

Firstly, you should read about the Easterlin paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox

The economic growth itself does not do anybody happier. During last 500 years, the productivity of labour of the planet has increased maybe 1000 times, but the people haven't become happier because of this. So, an inefficiency of governing the country will be only a small problem with the referendum democracy. Only psychological factors can make the society happier, and they include the aim in life, which helps people gather friends (for friendship people need to have common aims).

10 hours ago, Linkey said:

Firstly, you should read about the Easterlin paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox

The economic growth itself does not do anybody happier. During last 500 years, the productivity of labour of the planet has increased maybe 1000 times, but the people haven't become happier because of this. So, an inefficiency of governing the country will be only a small problem with the referendum democracy. Only psychological factors can make the society happier, and they include the aim in life, which helps people gather friends (for friendship people need to have common aims).

What does that have to do with using referendums?

11 hours ago, Linkey said:

Firstly, you should read about the Easterlin paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox

The economic growth itself does not do anybody happier. During last 500 years, the productivity of labour of the planet has increased maybe 1000 times, but the people haven't become happier because of this. So, an inefficiency of governing the country will be only a small problem with the referendum democracy. Only psychological factors can make the society happier, and they include the aim in life, which helps people gather friends (for friendship people need to have common aims).

As @swansont points out, this does not seem to have anything to do with the thread topic, let alone the points I have made. Can you explain its relevance?

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

As @swansont points out, this does not seem to have anything to do with the thread topic, let alone the points I have made. Can you explain its relevance?

I created a thread "Referendum democracy - how it can work", but Swansoft moved my post here.

2 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I created a thread "Referendum democracy - how it can work", but Swansoft moved my post here.

So what? The Easterlin paradox seems to have nothing to do with referenda.

56 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I created a thread "Referendum democracy - how it can work", but Swansoft moved my post here.

Because you had an existing thread on referendum democracy, as I hope you can see. No need to cover the same ground all over again, but any new ground should actually be on-topic.

On 10/20/2024 at 1:24 AM, Linkey said:

I think that a good decision would be to fine people for not taking participation in a voting. But these fines can be used only together with an option "I don't know" in the voting: this option means that the voter considers himself not sufficiently informed for a decision, but he has honestly logined to the app for voting and read the basic information about the voted suggestion.

Here in Australia we have to participate - it is our civic duty and a legal obligation. But that obligation is to turn up at voting place, get issued with and put ballot papers in the appropriate receptacle or submit mail in ballot papers - at the risk being fined if not. We do not have to fill out the ballot papers (equivalent to "I don't know" or "I don't want to") and staff at polling stations are explicitly NOT permitted to look to see whether you have. Rude remarks or drawings are not unknown along with 'donkey votes' - what we call simply numbering the candidates in the order they appear on the paper, a small advantage to candidates at the top and a valid vote nonetheless. Only a few percent of votes are ever invalid, ie most people do vote.

Specific ballot papers are numbered as they are passed out but cannot be linked to specific voters; names on the electoral roll get a strike through line at the time, but which voter got which one is not recorded, nor is the order they came and voted.

We also have ranked choice voting, where the candidate with the least votes gets eliminated and their ballots are recounted with their second choice. And around again until one candidate gets more than half the valid votes.

None of this is a cure for voter disinterest and being uninformed or misinformed. Pressing people's buttons on one issue whilst downplaying other, often more significant issues remains an effective way to induce voters to vote against their own best interests.

6 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Here in Australia we have to participate - it is our civic duty and a legal obligation. But that obligation is to turn up at voting place, get issued with and put ballot papers in the appropriate receptacle or submit mail in ballot papers - at the risk being fined if not. We do not have to fill out the ballot papers (equivalent to "I don't know" or "I don't want to") and staff at polling stations are explicitly NOT permitted to look to see whether you have. Rude remarks or drawings are not unknown along with 'donkey votes' - what we call simply numbering the candidates in the order they appear on the paper, a small advantage to candidates at the top and a valid vote nonetheless. Only a few percent of votes are ever invalid, ie most people do vote.

Ok, that seems good. I am sure that a person must be obliged only to read some amount information in the voting application and choose any decision including "I don't know". This choice will be equal to not voting for the decision, but it increases the voting turnout.

I suppose, it is not necessary to force people to study something that helps to vote competently, because there is one more mechanism: people need to have a common aim for friendship, and it will be an easy way to get friends - participate in some political club where each referendum is discussed. In these clubs the people will voluntary study sciences like economy or history.

People often claim that the referendum democracy is a bad idea, because common people are profanes and can't vote competently. I have an argument against this: as far as I know, during last 170 years, only one time people in Switzerland voted on a referendum for increasing the social benefits.

6 hours ago, Linkey said:

People often claim that the referendum democracy is a bad idea, because common people are profanes and can't vote competently. I have an argument against this: as far as I know, during last 170 years, only one time people in Switzerland voted on a referendum for increasing the social benefits.

That’s not the argument (or the only one), and I don’t see how one vote in 170 years is an endorsement of your plan. Governments make a lot more decisions than that.

As I have already explained, a referendum will be performed each week, but these referendums will not be "referendums in strict sense" (they will not have legal force). If the government considers a referendum as "profane", it can reject it; but it will have to explain its position to the people, otherwise the ruling politicians possibly will be imprisoned after leaving the power - through a new referendum. And this leads to the following conclusion. If a ruler (President) rejects a referendum selfishly (e.g. because he does not want to loose money, etc), he will realize, that after leaving the power, he will be soon imprisoned. And this will easily make him a dictator - he will use the force (administrative resource) to keep his power. This means, that the proposed model of referendum democracy can work properly only in conjunction with the Ukrainian political model, "ideology of Maidan", the readiness of population to overthrow any power if it becomes corrupted. That's why the survival of Ukraine is critically important for the human civilization...