Hacker News Reader

Comment by KSteffensen | Hacker News Reader

While I agree with you that the risks are not worth it, there is the counterargument that votes are expensive. If votes were made less expensive it might be feasible to put more things out for popular vote

Edit: typo. Stupid autocorrect set for the wrong language

View on HN

A counter argument to expanding popular votes, the reason for a representative democracy is so we _don’t_ have to vote on everything. If we’re electing representatives that we distrust so much we want to directly vote on more of the laws I think we should fix the election of representatives.

If we can't elect good representatives, yeah, I'd hesitate to assume we'd be any better at direct democracy.

Which is a very bad idea referendums are a terrible way to make decisions see Brexit

You're arguing there should be fewer public votes in a democracy?

If you don't trust the public to make decisions like Brexit, why trust them to elect representatives? Note that some of the most shameless brexiteers were publically elected MPs.

1 A small number of mp's where Brexit most where not.

2 Yes I am saying there should be no referendums in an elected democracy its a terrible idea - Germany even outrights bans them in its constitution.

1. It seems like the tories have been at civil war since the referendum so the number can't be that small. Corbyn doesn't seem too unhappy about the idea either, although for different reasons than, say, David Davies.

2. Germany may ban them in its constitution, but it seems to work for Switzerland. Again, if you don't trust people to handle referendums maturely and responsibly, why trust people to elect representatives that will handle the same issues maturely and responsibly?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com