>Democracy is a rather crap form of government, with several failure modes (of which the tendency to converge on an oligarchy is but one), but it has one huge advantage over other forms of government: it provides a mechanism for peacefully transferring power when a governing clique has outlived its popularity
First, I'd like to point out that by "democracy" he's referring to what we all understand by democracy right now - a democratic republic.
Now, I think the way most democratic republics work has failed. I think we need a lot more direct democracy elements implemented in the democratic republic system. He says there that even the democratic republics were formed so the transfer of power is done without bloodshed.
But what do you do when even in such a system, the people feel compelled to create massive protests, possibly even violent ones (most revolutions)? I think the answer is an even more democratic republic. And I think you can achieve that with more direct democracy elements, such as more citizen-made laws, referendums, citizen vetos of bills, and so on (some of these exist in some countries like Germany or Switzerland, but not a lot of them, and there need to be more to become "more democratic").
This way, when the citizens are really frustrated about something, they can just fight to change the laws themselves, instead of waiting for the corrupt government to do it, and instead of having to gather in the millions to protest the government in the streets.
Note: I'm not saying we should completely discard the democratic republic system, and do away with "representatives". That's what most people (mistakenly) think when they hear this type of suggestion.
What I'm saying is far from it. I just want the republics to become more democratic, and for more ways to exist to bypass the representatives in certain situations (explicitly defined in the law), when there is big frustration about something. But of course a balance must be kept, and the representatives should still handle 95%-99% of the policies.
An idea I find promising is delagate system. Every voter starts with one vote, which they can delagate to someone else (who can delagate to someone else, etc...). Additionally, you can reclaim or redelagate your vote at any time, or for a specific issue.
This system preserves the main benifits of a republic, while allowing direct democracy.
As an added bonus, it solves the problem of rebublics like the US where a party could have 5% support and 0% representation.
First, I'd like to point out that by "democracy" he's referring to what we all understand by democracy right now - a democratic republic.
Now, I think the way most democratic republics work has failed. I think we need a lot more direct democracy elements implemented in the democratic republic system. He says there that even the democratic republics were formed so the transfer of power is done without bloodshed.
But what do you do when even in such a system, the people feel compelled to create massive protests, possibly even violent ones (most revolutions)? I think the answer is an even more democratic republic. And I think you can achieve that with more direct democracy elements, such as more citizen-made laws, referendums, citizen vetos of bills, and so on (some of these exist in some countries like Germany or Switzerland, but not a lot of them, and there need to be more to become "more democratic").
This way, when the citizens are really frustrated about something, they can just fight to change the laws themselves, instead of waiting for the corrupt government to do it, and instead of having to gather in the millions to protest the government in the streets.
Note: I'm not saying we should completely discard the democratic republic system, and do away with "representatives". That's what most people (mistakenly) think when they hear this type of suggestion.
What I'm saying is far from it. I just want the republics to become more democratic, and for more ways to exist to bypass the representatives in certain situations (explicitly defined in the law), when there is big frustration about something. But of course a balance must be kept, and the representatives should still handle 95%-99% of the policies.