zlacker

It's interesting how the idea of some form of direct democracy never even comes up in conversation. Of course I wouldn't expect any current or former politician to suggest the idea, but even in conversation on HN or in the general public, I'm not sure if I've ever encountered it before.

Of course, there will be no shortage of overly enthusiastic (and absolutely confident) defeatism "We 'can't' do it because x, y, z" (complexities with security, ensuring the person casting the vote is indeed the actual person, excess amount of uninformed populism, etc.) So how about this: for the first <x> years, make it non-binding and simply observe the results. If the votes have no power, so much for the disingenuous claims that "we don't dare try it, and it won't work anyways", because it completely derisks the situation.

So then, when you have people still guaranteeing doom, I reckon there's a pretty good chance that would make a good shortlist of people who should no longer be allowed anywhere near the political process.

I would love to know why people are adamantly opposed to having a honest, transparent, and fact-checked public conversation on the idea.

>>mister+(OP)
Unfortunately most people do not really believe in ability of other people to make rational decisions, even though they say that they support democracy. There is zero hope that any politician at power to suggest an idea that would remove all of his power, but a few days ago i have realized that we do not need to implement this on government level from the start, a group of parties who do not have a chance to be elected can implement this on a party level and increase their chance of being elected.