In theory.
In practice we kinda tried it in Italy (not me, I always thought it was a scam) and the party pushing for it was able to elect the mayor of Rome.
It has been the worst mayor of Rome since Rome was founded.
Thanks, but no thanks.
(also: since founded? that's a while :))
In the case of Virginia Raggi, people believed her lies about "not trying to win the candidacy to the Olimpic games because they are all about corruption and stealing from the taxpayers"
For a little time it worked, but it was simply to hide her incompetence as administrator.
She spent 5 years in the office arguing over minutia, while the important stuff was left there to rot.
From subway stairs that have been broken for over a year to buses catching fire[1] to unkempt public gardens.
Her political identity has been inaction: to hide her lack of competence she found refuge in doing nothing of importance, taking credit for everything good happening that was planned before she was elected! while also blaming those before her when something went wrong (it happened literally everyday!).
So routinely things like this happened [2] because she could not afford to take counter measures, every group could say "we put you there" and she had no interest in doing what's best for Rome, only what's best for her.
In the end even those that gained from her election realized that a city like Rome needs a good administrator, because even if we call it "the eternal city", neglect can do a lot of damages in a very short time.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44041597.amp
[2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895104/Fury-Italia...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Rome_escalator_accident
It also simply says that people know nothing about govern, they should only vote once for themselves to protect their personal interest.
And that liquid democracy doesn't work at all, when applied to practice,unless you have proof of the contrary.
Because I have proof of what I say, you can ask the majority of romans what they think of Virginia Raggi's cabinet, she went from 50% of the votes to 14% in 5 years.
Also: the same party that elected her has been critique of how she managed the City since few months after her election.
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-sack-of-romes-mayor/amp/
Please,if you wanna criticize something, at least make the effort of informing yourself on the matter.
But most of all your answer proves why liquid democracy doesn't work: you seem to know virtually nothing about Rome and yet you expressed your opinion as it was a fact, because instead of checking if what I said was true or not, you simply found an angle to argue.
Now imagine million of people doing the same while voting on important matters that impact the lives of the citizens of a large city like, say, New York.
"I don't like face masks so let's delegate my vote to my friend who owns a pizza restaurant and let me eat there without wearing one".
Now tell me that it's actually what you wish for the big apple.
> But most of all your answer proves why liquid democracy doesn't work: you seem to know virtually nothing about Rome and yet you expressed your opinion as it was a fact, because instead of checking if what I said was true or not, you simply found an angle to argue.
I wouldn't be voting on Rome, which isn't something I really need to know about today. You said you had liquid democracy, so I assumed you did; apparently you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't be complaining.
1. I said kinda
2. You're wrong again. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse. Lucky us she had to respond to the laws and the hierarchy of powers, not only to her supporters or we would be all f***ed by now.
For once: they said she could be removed if she didn't do what she said she would, when they tried she refused.
End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like.
We already had these arguments decades ago, "Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation" explains it well, "Tiranny of the structureless" explains why (the) lack of structure, disguised an informal, unacknowledged, and unaccountable leadership and ensured its malefaction by denying its existence
Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less.
Looks to me that every 5 years someone rediscovers politics and propose solutions that have already failed both in theory and in practice, since the 60s of the past century.
It's either liquid democracy or not. It seems the fact that it was not was a big problem for you.
> 2. If we had liquid democracy, the situation. would have been even worse
If you say so.
> End of liquid democracy! there's no way to bind an elected representative to the voters opinion, if you live in democracy. It would be far to easy to "buy" or "force" the elimination of someone "the occult leaders" don't like.
Liquid democracy doesn't have representatives. You've misunderstood what it is, which explains why you think having elected a mayor has anything to do with it.
> Delegates are unaccountable leaders, nothing more, nothing less.
That's why you should have liquid democracy, where you can withdraw your vote at any time for any reason and don't need a delegates permission.
this makes absolutely no sense.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
> Liquid democracy doesn't have representatives.
I love when people don't realize that changing names to things doesn't magically make those things disappear...
Edit: to make it clear why you're wrong. In Italy they tried to implement what you talk about, but when they tried to enforce those rules, elected went straight to justice that deliberated that it is incompatible with the constitution to remove an elected person before the terms have expired based on a private vote - not officially recognized (before you blame Italy it is incompatible with virtually all western constitutions, that basically represent all the liberal democracies in the World!)
But it's even simpler than that: elected have ways of opposing to their leaders because every constitution recognizes their freedom and independence.
Take for example filibustering in the US senate. Those are simply senate rules, they could change them because justice said that simple.majority is enough, but it is hard to change the rule of the game while you are playing the game so filibuster is still there.
Technically, these are beliefs that you have formed, not facts demonstrated by your example.
For proof:
> ...unless you have proof of the contrary.
How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing?
technically democracy is all bout that.
millions of people forming beliefs based on the action of those in power.
Virginia Raggi has constructed her reputation of worse mayor ever by herself, you should investigate what she's done, if you really are interested.
> How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing?
by proving the thesis that "liquid democracy solves that"
I presented a case where it didn't.
It's enough to disprove it.
> technically democracy is all bout that.
For now, to some degree (the degree that it is true, which is unknown).
But if you won't exert effort towards sound logic and epistemology, or show any interest when you are mistaken, should you be criticizing others? Granted, Western Culture is also "all about that", but it's not a great excuse.
>> How would him providing proof change the epistemic state of underlying reality that you are allegedly describing?
> by proving the thesis that "liquid democracy solves that"
Note that I was challenging this: "It simply says that people know nothing about govern, they should only vote once for themselves to protect their personal interest. And that liquid democracy doesn't work at all, when applied in practice..."
...but now you are addressing this different claim:
>> However, given the kind of people we have running Congress... this system doesn't seem to work that well. Geriatic insider traders who owe their positions to various corporate conglomerates (finance, energy, defense, pharmaceuticals, etc.) have ended up running all the committees, and the evidence that this is a failure can be easily seen by looking at America's crumbling domestic infrastructure.
> Yeah, this is what liquid democracy solves. Please make sure you understand the concept before arguing against it.
Note that by politicians being removed by the equation that specific problem is solved by definition (opening up new problems, of course).
As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think a big benefit of some form of direct democracy is that it would offer an opportunity for people to develop skills in various forms of thinking that are taught in philosophy, but not in schools.
No you didn't. Electing a mayor isn't liquid democracy. Not being able to withdraw your vote isn't liquid democracy.
So we can definitely conclude that since liquid democracy only exists when it has been enforced once and for all without modifications under the rule of the High Priests of the Liquid Democracy church, it is incompatible with democracy as we know it.
If nobody ever wanted that and when they tried in a not so insignificant western country it failed to be accepted in its pure form and has become worse than the other parties after only a decade, are we allowed to believe that LD is not something people want or should want, or not? Do I risk to be prosecuted by the Spanish inquisition for saying it or do I get by with an excommunication and three days under the snow? [1]
Is it giving people what they want, or giving people something that they are happy with later?
Virginia Raggi failed at both.
I think that failing at everything it's pretty much a good definition of failure, do you agree?
The question is did the people want raggi and did they get raggi
She was a failure that won thanks to the lie that "liquid democracy" would empower the people.
It didn't.
So they both failed.
> The question is did the people want raggi and did they get raggi
Are you familiar with the idiom “be careful what you wish for”?
Now people know that they do not wish Raggi and all her idiotic ideas ever again.