Referendum 2.0 with reservations
I fully agree with all the obvious arguments in the topic of Referendum 2.0 or turn on the head , but I would like to express some of my thoughts in defense of the instigator of the debate.
The first. Let's remember the Roman democracy. Patricians can vote, plebeians do not have the right to vote. To put it mildly, cynically. But think, is it possible to equate the voices of a professor of economics and cleaners? I believe that if there is a hypothetical Referendum 2.0, then the votes of citizens should have a different weight depending on education, social status and wealth level. The latter, I think, is obvious.
The second. A person may not understand one area of lawmaking, but it is excellent to understand another. At least in the subject matter. I think it is necessary to introduce some kind of test system that will allow you to determine whether a citizen is competent in solving a particular issue.
')
Third. Not everyone has cell phones, it’s possible to get online, not everyone has computers. But the situation changes every day. And will change. And the time will come, such a problem will cease to be a problem. So no argument, gentlemen opponents.
Why did I write this post? Moreover, even the most utopian ideas can carry a bit of rationality. We need to think further. Of course, such a system must be introduced gradually. So that errors are not critical. Of course, our society is completely unprepared for such changes. But this does not at all prohibit us from proposing, discussing and, if you like, dreaming.
The first. Let's remember the Roman democracy. Patricians can vote, plebeians do not have the right to vote. To put it mildly, cynically. But think, is it possible to equate the voices of a professor of economics and cleaners? I believe that if there is a hypothetical Referendum 2.0, then the votes of citizens should have a different weight depending on education, social status and wealth level. The latter, I think, is obvious.
The second. A person may not understand one area of lawmaking, but it is excellent to understand another. At least in the subject matter. I think it is necessary to introduce some kind of test system that will allow you to determine whether a citizen is competent in solving a particular issue.
')
Third. Not everyone has cell phones, it’s possible to get online, not everyone has computers. But the situation changes every day. And will change. And the time will come, such a problem will cease to be a problem. So no argument, gentlemen opponents.
Why did I write this post? Moreover, even the most utopian ideas can carry a bit of rationality. We need to think further. Of course, such a system must be introduced gradually. So that errors are not critical. Of course, our society is completely unprepared for such changes. But this does not at all prohibit us from proposing, discussing and, if you like, dreaming.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/94166/
All Articles