Bad idea. You want the system to be viscous, to respond slowly to pressure put on it. Too fluid, and it turns into populist-driven mob rule.
If you want to argue that the system currently is too viscous and needs to move somewhat toward liquid, I might agree. But it is dangerous and destructive to go all the way to liquid.
This system exists all around the world - Brazil, Switzerland, Finland and other parts of europe, Japan... it doesn’t make a huge difference when the government itself defines which five issues will be voted on, and I don’t think it could be any different.
Personally, I think the focus should be on education. How can you have vast masses of the world in 2021 electing dumb, retrograde populist leaders? learning history for real, stimulating independent though and intelectual freedom - but that’s way “too leftist” for anyone to take on right now.
And on top of that, accountability for politicians. It should not be a life career, and gross mistakes should mean stepping out so new heads can come in.
"learning history for real, stimulating independent though and intelectual freedom - but that’s way “too leftist” for anyone to take on right now."
I don't think it's "too leftist". I think it's that both sides want their own views "taught" in school. The way some issues are taught or graded border on indoctrination. I would love to see independent/critical thinking taught in schools. This next part might be controversial, I also think that every citizen should have to pass the citizenship test (provisional citizenship as a child of a citizen up until 18, or if disabled, etc). How can we have a effective government if the people don't understand tha basics of it or how to hold it accountable when it fails?
You did not discuss money in politics, which present significant challenges.
The US sees many struggles, and does so in a way that impacts most of the population. These things go unaddressed despite majority support for solutions.
Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle.
"Populist ideas need not be dumb, and the term itself has roots in politics that would be valued and beneficial, in terms of reducing unnecessary struggle."
What unnecessary struggle?
I can see how popular ideas are good from the standpoint of the majority of the population liking them. Some of that is being eroded now. For example, wanting to eliminate the 60 votes in the senate related to the filibuster as they already did with some conformation hearings (how can they use a 51 vote to abolish a 60 vote rule anyways, that seems to undermine the point). So now, we are reducing the amount of people necessary to like the law and reducing the likelihood of compromises to make laws less partisan and more acceptable to all. The downside to populist laws is that the people may not be educated in even the basics of how the system works (or is supposed to). Maybe it was a populist idea that things should be segregated by race. That doesn't make it right, and it infringes on the minority faction.
Can you effectively participate in a game if you don't understand the rules and objective? I don't think so. You wouldn't drop someone into a car, a job, or really anything important without some knowledge or training. If we did, we would expect poor outcomes. I think we are seeing that now. For example, people don't know the basic differences of statute, code, and case law, or how they work. They can't define or explain basic legal principles. I'm many cases, they don't even know what rights they have. How can you demand your rights and proper treatment if you don't know them, nor how to effectively communicate about the law?
I'm also saying that populism has some issues with what percentage does it take to pass something, thus alienating a very large minority (like 51/49). That populist policies can trample the rights of others.
I had no input on the economic struggle as that was not even defined, so I find it odd that you would try to link my statement to that. I had asked what kind of "unnecessary struggle" the parent meant. I guess here you are saying it is economic. Can you elaborate on what is unnecessary? If it is unnecessary then there must be some obvious solution - can you define that too?
You are saying exactly that, and frankly I reject it across the board.
I would continue with your other very debatable observations, but we have no real basis to do that in a way that makes sense, and I am not inclined to attempt to improve it at this time.
Should we somehow discuss struggle, necessary can enter again in that context.
I said what I said, not what you are saying. There is a lot of context and nuance that you simply want to misrepresent my statements and label people as stupid.
You still didnt define what you mean by struggle. How can we communicate, if you're not communicating? You have to at least define the problem and explain what you are talking about rather than assuming I'm a mind reader. Nothing personal, but I'm starting to think you are a troll.
Your arguments boil down to people being either uninformed, or of insufficient capacity, to participate in "the game"
We could simplify that to: they don't know how it works.
If you want to take a minute and get better clarity on our lack of a basis for the other discussion, I'm good with that.
There is what you said, in the literal sense, and there's what it means. All I can communicate to you is how I take that meaning.
As for troll, and any other personal judgments, I tend to avoid those.
Finally, the way I see it is simple: people can participate, and should have a voice in the democracy. There should be few limits on that, in fact the minimum possible, none ideally.
They would also benefit significantly, in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now, with improved ability to work together, understand one another better, find solidarity, and make that participation more than symbolic.
They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else.
"...in light of the very strong influence of money on policy and politics right now..."
This is an example of what I'm talking about. The reason the money is influential is because some people are naive and listen to the advertising/campaigning, which often misrepresents facts or only tells one side.
"There should be few limits on that..."
I'm not discussing limits, other than a basic citizenship test which all non-birthright citizens already take. The majority of this should be handled in schools. There's really no reason not to have the test.
"They are more than capable of sharing their life stories, policy preferences, needs, and other things same as anyone else."
Not if they are being manipulated because they don't understand the system or investigate claims. Then you end up with policies built off of lies and misrepresentation.
If you want an example, look at the PA ballot question from a few years ago about retirement age for judges. They manipulated people by rewording the question. The integrity of the system and the strength of the country is dependent upon knowledge citizens in a democracy. To make this clearer to you, here's another example. Why is consensual sex with a minor a crime? It's because the minor is consider to be incapable of comprehending the totality of the situation and giving informed consent. The same can be true of electing people. How can you give your informed consent for a person to represent you on issues if you don't even understand the basics of it? This undermines the general public's right to be governed by a fair and effective system.
"Attorneys do that all the time; namely, represent people who lack understanding."
For large sums of money. They are also held to higher professional conduct standards than politicians. They also only need to represent the best interests of the client. This also involves detailed explanations of the issue at hand (hey look, the education I was talking about) so that the client can make an informed decision.
So now the elected representatives cannot represent, because they are not expected to? Does this not make it very unlikely for any person to actually make an informed decision?
Next move is money in politics, who do the politicians actually work for and why do they work that way?
You wrote it above, large sums of money.
What's an ordinary person to do but conclude they are not getting good, or even reasonable representation? (And they aren't overall)
What do they do to combat that?
I can assure you taking some test is not the answer here. At. All.
"So now the elected representatives cannot represent, because they are not expected to? Does this not make it very unlikely for any person to actually make an informed decision?"
You really have a habit of going off on some random tangent and misrepresentating what was said. The dynamic is different. You have a 1 to 1 vs a 1 to n (thousands to millions). This allows lawyers, the example you brought up, to interact in a meaningful and even educational way. The rules of professional conduct are also different, allowing politicians to do things lawyers cannot. If the people are educated, then they can recognize when they are being misrepresented and the steps to take to correct it. This might involve adding better candidates to the ballot or looking outside of the traditional 2 parties.
It's not the test, it's the education of the people. Passing some rule, as you suggest, isn't going to fix anything. It's not likely that the representatives will legislate away that source of funding without adding loopholes that benefit the party in power. Your plan depends on the same corrupt power hungry people to somehow oversee themselves and remove a source of their own power. So how do you see that actually working? Spoiler - it doesn't.
Movement politics made less viscous.