• Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      No doubt. I think an easy way to counter that is to put a “deliberation” time on legislation. I’m spitballing but maybe require two votes 3 months apart, and they must both agree (otherwise there’s a third tiebreaker vote another 3 months later)? That would help kill off the flash fire effect that a viral meme can create and focus more on fixing problems that occur over a longer period of time.

      I mean I’m no political scientist so I’d love to hear more about what methods are proven for direct democracy.

      • Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Was it… the Persians? Maybe? Anyway, they had to make two choices on any decision, once when drunk and again sober a few days later. If rhe choice was the same both times it was deemed a good idea.

        I have zero idea if this is fact, but it sounds similar to your idea.

      • Hagdos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Making a second decision mandatory makes it harder to change existing laws. This can be a good thing in some cases, but not always. It increases conservatism (in that it’s harder to change things).

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          No doubt. The goal is to make it harder for memes to affect the outcome of a decision.

          Another way to approach it is if a supermajority votes for something, no secondary confirmation vote is required. Eg. reproductive choice would easily pass with one vote because it has such widespread support.