Let's face it, humans are not without their flaws...they are corrupt and illogical, invoking distrust among its citizens.

If the technology were in place, would you be opposed to a computer running the country?

yes


the absence of emotion is an absence of humanity

I prefer humans working together for humans

Emotions get in the way of logical decisions.

only sometimes

many humans with emotion make many great decisions everyday


Id rather risk those sometimes than count on emotionless , robotic , decisions void of the capacity to be humane

Value comes from emotions without value in the equation you can't make a logical conclusion

Guess it would depend on how touchy feelly they were

Let Marvin run things. He has emotions, and he isn't Human.

It would certainly be better then Hillary running the country!

Emotions are an effect of your Values,NOT the cause!

GIGO,Garbage In-Garbage Out!

Half right anyway.

GIGO. Put a Computer in charge, and the Programmers become Emperors.

That could be a problem....we should only allow it to base it's output based on input from the masses.

decisions based PRIMARILY on emotion( as the masses can sometimes vote) are no less scary as those made with none

But the "masses" don't program.

By the way, there's also a direct problem with putting the questions directly to "the masses," which many people overlook, in the same way that people overlook programming when letting computers decide things.

That is, that if we went to a direct voting system of pure democracy, allowing the general public to decide each issue, we would be accidentally putting the NEWS MEDIA into power over everyone. Since they are the source of the information everyone would use to make their decisions.

Really don't know much about Direct Democracy,do you?

However people come to have the information from which to decide, the SOURCE of that information will become the true power in the land.

That is why there are currently so many of us concerned with campaign contributors and lobbyists.

I know only the proposals for direct democracy that I have seen published so far. They all have come out of the current level of technology, which would allow almost every citizen to vote directly on proposed laws.

If you have heard of something else, instead of being coy, spell it out.

Why does it have to be an Ipresident? Why not an Android President? You know, a frickin robot....that's what we'll have if Hillary is elected...no emotion and just goes through the motions

well,Sunshine,I live in one!

Conrad: again, you claim to have specific knowledge of direct democracy which is different from having everyone vote directly on proposed laws.

Again, please elucidate, instead of making oblique accusatory statements, and describe what you are referring to.

Oh, and explain how whoever does get to vote, comes by the knowledge needed to make up their minds about each issue. That's the point we are actually debating.

well,Old Fellow,do your Own Research!
I live in a Political System that is to all intents and purposes a Direct Democracy!
And all your Obfuscations won't change that!

GOOGLE gives you 7.5 million results in less than half a second!
Ought to keep you busy for a while,while I peruse the Material for the Vote on our next Referendum!

"All intents and purposes" means "no, not really, I was kidding for effect."

It's either direct democracy or it isn't.

You made the NON-SPECIFIC claim, that my understanding of all direct democracies was wrong, but you refuse to say how. It is not up to me to GUESS what you are referring to.

It is YOUR argument, if YOU wont make it then it means that YOU are the one making spurious accusations.

Therefore my argument stands. Even in direct democracy, a limited number of people are empowered to determine the course of the government.