Direct Democracy and Rep Democracy

It depends how intelligent they are.So part of me thinks people should only be able to vote on things they actually know facts about.

Who says you have to vote on anything? Just let whoever feels like showing up for the assembly or voting booth do it. At any rate some elements of both would be fine. Affairs of a commune could be generally handled by some small committee but calling a popular congress occasionally for the most major decisions would be fine too.

I dont think you understand what direct democracy means in partiality. So what about in representative democracy if you're elected representative's decided it is the will of the people to further ignore you're own interest and collectively decide to advance their own standings in a society as well as further ignoring people's actual demands?

That's a pretty dangerous line of thinking comrade. You could easily get people mobbing voting polls in order to enforce their views against another aspect of the populace, who might be more apathetic and thus not do a threatening turn out. I'd rather not have groups of people suddenly deciding that there should be no non-white citizens in the city or that gay people should be thrown into mental hospitals, that reeks way too much of random contingency for me. The whole point of a good representative democracy for me is to mellow out any immediate populist discourse and try to have informed people discussing issues, not for those issues to be decided by the whims and fancies of the population who, even under socialism, will not really know how to correctly manage anything outside their workplaces and households.

If they will not be immediately recalled when a vote regarding their ousting is taken, then it is up to the people and the rest of government to jail or kill that representative. That kind of self-serving attitude should not be tolerated in a socialist society at all.

Communes should proliferate not only in the workplace but in all areas of society. Some level of bureaucratization is necessary, but it must be answerable to the bottom and only the bottom. The power of representatives should be curtailed through them being assigned for set terms by lot rather than elections, and of course have them recallable should abuse of power and position become evident.

We should have direct democracy where you can choose a dedicated political candidate to vote for you on minor issues (eg. if 15% of the public choose them they have 15% power), you can overrule them or change to someone else at any time. Major issues will be put to the people directly.

There we go, problem solved.

They are the government, they look out for each other lest the structural integrity of that institution be subject to split and collapse at worst.
Ok, suppose a mob of people pointed out the particular Representative that they have deemed corrupt on some level and are now trying to kill them. This is a democracy after all, some people are obviously going to be against this action and obviously the Representative, being member of the most most powerful institution in the land is going to not want to be killed, so they'll either get the police to protect them untill they're eventual dead of old age or assassinated.

Now lets assume for a brief moment that that representative is killed quite easy and with a large amount of support form the people. The people of that Republic have essentially taken power away from the institution that is supposed to be governing them in form of a more direct approach. This kind of action cant obviously be tolerated by the Republic state, what to stop every other mob of people who dosnt like them from just killing the representatives without consequence?

Thats the problem, it dosnt matter how things SHOULD be, it matters how human function. Now im not gonna get into the whole human nature argument but its safe to say human beings are usually more interested in their own well being than those of others, self preservation is after all pretty much the only thing that keeps us going.

I think that you're thinking too much about how people act now in a society where the media they receive and whatnot is heavily slanted so they cannot think for themselves. I think that in a socialist society where news and information are much more based upon actually helping people get the info they need to make smart decisions this wouldn't be as a big of a problem as Zizek and others say.

So why in the name of all holy fucks, are you a leftist?

It certainly won't be as big of a problem but it will still be a problem, in a socialist society politics will still exist, people will still have their opinions and many of those opinions will be ill-informed, or will benefit some and disadvantage others, this is just a part of human nature. It's an inherent flaw in democracy that those with the greatest influence have a greater ability to skew things towards their own position even in a free direct democracy, and as long as the media exists the influence will be in their hands.

I think would be ideal would be essentially the death of the "media" as an exclusive entity, and I think we are even seeing that today with modern phone and broadcasting technology in general. We will only see a truly fair media when every man has their own news station, and that is becoming a reality with the likes of easy live broadcast using smartphones and such. I think through this easy access to broadcasting platforms we can obliterate the monopoly on information that the media holds today, and through that we can make democracy a lot more flexible and workable, with every person having easy access to as many "news outlets" as there are people there would be less inclination to trust obviously biased "reputable" sources and experience a whole spectrum of opinions instead of those of a select few big news corporations like we see today. That will be true freedom of the press, the death of big media bias, and I see it as inevitable at this point even in our current capitalist society.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dyer-d-lum-the-fiction-of-natural-rights

Representative democracy is neither representative nor democratic.

Read Rousseau faggot

Both can easily be subverted by propaganda. Democracy relies on the assumption that the emperor cannot force people to keep voting for him, but this is becoming less and less true as psychology becomes better understood.

Also this.

How do you guys feel about liquid democracy?

youtube.com/watch?v=fg0_Vhldz-8

>>>/gulag/

But what about the psychoanalyst midget lady?

And you'd rather have an aristocracy do it instead? Fucking reactionary.

All our positions are pointless if they are not also accompanied by direct democracy.