This is the main reason for introducing the power reorganisation feature (trading)
In LD particularly, how could it work at all when to be a competent delegate you need to be across the sum total of all national issues at any one time?
Ahh, this goes beyond pure delegative democracy (or LD), by introducing catagories you naturally introduce authority. Is the Adani coal mine thing in QLD an economic issue, or tourism, or environmental, or conservation, or local employment, or ....?
One of the main innovations of IBDD is removing authority from this process, which is important because any point of authority is a point of potential corruption. And as we know, corruption is a tool in democracy.
Passive and static. It doesn't change issue to issue - it changes week to week when people activley learn of what their delegate did. Perhaps not so passive?
Also, if you're delegating based on each issue instead of each category then you need to put just as much work into evaluating the delegates as just voting the way they recommend - which is just direct democracy. There is ofc a middle ground so I'd say it's slightly less wasteful than DD, but the problem is still there and intractable.
The properties are basically these:
- You by default would give up your vote, there's a period of a week or so where you can say 'no wait, I want this'
- We then have a bidding period, needs to be active because you have to decide how much votes are worth to you
- You don't delegate and bid, either your delegate does the bidding (more likely) or you do the bidding and voting
There might be the possibility of rudimentary automation, but the reality is that too much automation leads us back to authority (just think about all the debates about facebook's algorithm for what is shown on your wall, for example).
Not a launch feature, and not necessary for IBDD working. The idea is we already have educated people out there, empower them first.
Education will come later and will be treated with caution due to the authority problems above. An education market is likely in some way (though no idea how yet)
We don't, we facilitate experts, we don't choose them. Experts is also a loose term here, it includes everyone who is particularly interested and passionate.
This needs research. A middle ground is interpretation and re-communication, but we don't know how things will play out yet.
These are all currently out of scope in the same way as above - we'll provide discussion forums but that's really it at this stage. Most of this debate won't happen in a centralised way (just like it doesn't happen in a centralised way now).
Additionally we don't need to deal with these issues till we're 50%+ of a house. Before that we just vote on the bill the government put forward, which is the same as all other legislation.
I do like anonymity for discussion, I think it's powerful when used correctly.
The budget is one of the only areas where a 'wisdom of the crowd' approach might work.
only those working within the government would know budget conditions/implications
That's never stopped anyone from doing stupid things before..