It's not a new idea. We actually had a candidate like this in SF last cycle, I think for state senator. His schtick was that, if elected, he'd set up a site where his constituents could vote on every bill he saw and he would always follow what they said.
There's a huge number of problems with such a candidate. Here's a few:
* Technical problems. You can't hand-wave these as minor issues. They're practical/implementation issues, yes, but they're so difficult and pervasive that they elevate to the level of being fundamental problems with the idea. Spam, constituent authentication, Internet access for every constituent, Russian/Chinese tampering... These are problems that the major Silicon Valley companies have spent tons of resources on and not totally solved for their use, let alone for a use that controls the US military.
* The average American does not have any clue how government works. I do not want them directly voting on or writing laws. I wouldn't want me directly voting on or writing laws without a lot of time to study up first, and I think I know a lot more about US laws and history than most voters.
* The average American, even assuming potential competence, does not have enough time to read and understand all the things that go across a legislator's desk. This gets especially impossible when compromise deals need to be struck - "no unrelated amendments" is a great idea, except that then nobody would actually ever pass anything.
While I see the issues and have my doubts about feasibility, here's some thoughts:
> * Technical problems. You can't hand-wave these as minor issues. They're practical/implementation issues, yes, but they're so difficult and pervasive that they elevate to the level of being fundamental problems with the idea. Spam, constituent authentication, Internet access for every constituent, Russian/Chinese tampering... These are problems that the major Silicon Valley companies have spent tons of resources on and not totally solved for their use, let alone for a use that controls the US military.
Depending on what level the candidate operates, perhaps a solution would be to take great effort to develop a 'platform', demographically, that represents the constituency. Perhaps some form of compensation might be necessary to make this work (for, say, constituents who usually don't have time for this kind stuff).
> * The average American does not have any clue how government works. I do not want them directly voting on or writing laws. I wouldn't want me directly voting on or writing laws without a lot of time to study up first, and I think I know a lot more about US laws and history than most voters.
It could be a demand that everyone who is part of this 'platform' has to spend time understanding the problem. I recall reading some articles on how, when 'regular citizens' are given time to deliberate and receive information, they come to pretty sensible conclusions. Maybe the 'average voter' isn't as dumb as they seem when given the opportunity to think things through and be heard. I think learned helplessness plays a big role in the generally negative perception of the 'average voter'.
> * The average American, even assuming potential competence, does not have enough time to read and understand all the things that go across a legislator's desk. This gets especially impossible when compromise deals need to be struck - "no unrelated amendments" is a great idea, except that then nobody would actually ever pass anything.
The above might make this a little more achievable perhaps.
It's possible that I'm naive, but I believe it's possible for the 'average joe' to make informed decisions and strongly agree with people like Chomsky who argue that the problem is not lack of knowledge or interest, but rather the (correct) feeling that 'our' opinions don't matter or have much of an effect.
I think most people opt out of politics because of this, whether justified or not.
But go strike up a conversation about football, the intricacies of the show Westworld, or whatever else holds their interest, with the 'average joe', and it becomes immediately clear that they're not as dumb as they seem and quite capable of complex thought.
I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure that quite a few of the great thinkers in our past would imagine that the 'average person' is not capable of literacy or something like using a computer, and yet here we are.
There's a huge number of problems with such a candidate. Here's a few:
* Technical problems. You can't hand-wave these as minor issues. They're practical/implementation issues, yes, but they're so difficult and pervasive that they elevate to the level of being fundamental problems with the idea. Spam, constituent authentication, Internet access for every constituent, Russian/Chinese tampering... These are problems that the major Silicon Valley companies have spent tons of resources on and not totally solved for their use, let alone for a use that controls the US military.
* The average American does not have any clue how government works. I do not want them directly voting on or writing laws. I wouldn't want me directly voting on or writing laws without a lot of time to study up first, and I think I know a lot more about US laws and history than most voters.
* The average American, even assuming potential competence, does not have enough time to read and understand all the things that go across a legislator's desk. This gets especially impossible when compromise deals need to be struck - "no unrelated amendments" is a great idea, except that then nobody would actually ever pass anything.