zlacker

>>mwseib+(OP)
"I’ve heard some suggest that the recurrent problem of racial bias in our criminal justice system proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time. I couldn’t disagree more. The point of protest is to raise public awareness... But eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices — and in a democracy, that only happens when we elect government officials who are responsive to our demands."

Laws are just a consequence of an actual cultural change, and can only succeed (and not precede) the conversion of hearts and minds. Voting and democracy should not become a device to placate the dissatisfied masses into silence, make them lineup for ballot, to choose a lesser evil who, in most likelihood, will turn out to be a egotistical power-seeker. We shouldn't conflate voting with "will of the people."

>>kajumi+5o
One big problem is that the elected after being elected, choose to not follow or dilute those promises. There is no accountability. So time and again, democracy fails as they just change their minds after being elected.

There is this "damping" factor like a mechanical system, that takes the energy out of the people's hands and dampens it with lobbying, dishonesty, unaccountability and complete neglect for public interest. The response of the system is now steady state with little change. We need a public roster of each politician and their promises written in notarized documents, that can be used to strip them of relection and penalize them in some way so that future politicians cannot weasel their way out of promises.

I would also vote for public presentations with slides + data by each politician instead of these stupid debates and speeches. They should be documented and scrutinized for accuracy of data and their claims. We have startup decks, but yet politicians don't have to make presentations. Instead they trade blows on a debate stage with polished repertoire which has now become an entertainment show, at least at the presidential level.

>>system+Uq
> One big problem is that the elected after being elected, choose to not follow or dilute those promises. There is no accountability. So time and again, democracy fails as they just change their minds after being elected.

One solution to this is more direct democracy. When people can propose initiatives and vote on them in referendums, it is harder for politicians to ignore that agenda. This works pretty well in Switzerland.

>>js8+NQ1
>This works pretty well in Switzerland.

The place where women couldn't vote in federal elections until 1971, and in local elections as late as 1990?

>>Liquid+I02
The source which told you that should also have explained that you can actually have women voting in direct democracy as any other citizens, there is nothing preventing that. You don't need to do it in person on a square, either.

(It's a known fact, yes, in general, people do vote more socially conservatively in referendums, often backing up status quo. But that doesn't prevent progressive politicians to come up with better proposals.)

In any case, if we use your logic, US would be perfect country for this, being one of the last countries on Earth that doesn't have universal health care system.

Interestingly, many U.S. states do have some direct democracy provisions, courtesy of the progressive movement at the beginning of the 20th century. But what I heard it was sabotaged at federal level by the administration at the time, because U.S. wanted to get a bit involved in WW1 and it could potentially prevent that.