Asklemmy

43893 readers

944 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Alternatives to congress (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 months ago by Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What alternative ways can you think of to handle making legislation and passing laws that would negate the increasingly polarized political climate that is happening in more and more countries?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Hm, interesting take on the random group. The US has citizen initiated referendum. Just takes signatures. But the money spent on advertising for or against has a massive impact. I had to look up the uk campaign finance laws. They limit 3rd party spending, but I don’t see that as stopping someone from spinning off hundreds of organizations that each buy like one Comercial or something.

[–] Joshi@aussie.zone 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I can't say that I'm very familiar with the UK laws in depth other than that they have been in operation for many years and are generally considered effective.

For referenda there's no reason you can't have a publicly funded campaign for yes and no and limit private advertising, we have something like that here in Australia.

Sortition, random selection, when combined with an elected body has a lot of benefits. It has the advantage of having professional politicians with institutional knowledge and relationships while also having a body the that is actually representative of the larger population.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Not sure the US can limit private advertising unless the Supreme Court changes it's interpretation of the 1st ammendment (free speech). I am guessing that in the UK and Australia that free speech doesn't cover advertising. Maybe that is the lynchpin.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 1 points 2 months ago

Legislators have been ignoring the vote, too.