Quote:
|
You realize that this person will not get elected, right?
|
Some would. Some wouldn't.
Quote:
|
If voters are remotely rational (arguable), they will know that you can't hand someone power and then expect them not to use it because they promised.
|
That'd be a cynical rather than rational voter.
Quote:
|
A rational voter would likely also realize that their fellow voters are not sufficiently informed to be the best way to decide.
|
Any more than their representatives are well informed, or voting without undue influence from lobbyists, or based on self-interest? A rational voter would realize it's much easier for a single vote to be corrupted than a mass of them.
Quote:
|
If voter are irrational (also arguable), this person gives then next to zero emotional appeal.
|
The appeal is to honesty and transparency. "I'm not 'with you,' and you don't have to be 'with me.' I
am you. Literally.
You vote through me!" There's a huge emotional argument there about giving democracy back to the people.
Quote:
|
And then there's the logistical problem that you don't know about lots of votes - e.g., amendments - three days in advance.
|
Nothing's perfect. Where a vote couldn't be held in advance, the candidate would promise to abstain.
It can and will be done. All processes will be hacked inevitably. Whether it'll be good or bad for us is another matter.
