system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: We should vote in ideas instead of people

(Edited to clarify popular questions/debate topics)

\*\*The Proposed System:\*\*

Instead of voting for people, we could be voting for ideas/stances. Why do we even have elected leaders? What is the point? It seems like a relic from time past when we tried to make dictators less able to be oppressive, so instead of removing them, we just made things that kept them in check.

Imagine a political system where there was no leader and no voter representatives such as congress and the electoral college. This would look similar to a technocracy but without the leaders and representatives that still vote on behalf of everyone. Read more below for details...

\*\*The Voting Process:\*\*

On topics that are out of the general public's wheelhouse we could make it so only those educated and/or impacted by the topic are able to vote on them. For example a hundred thousand architects in the US as well as the individuals such as repair workers and engineers and construction people, and anyone else who would be impacted by the law are the ones who vote on each specific law since they are the ones who know enough and would be affected by it.

We could still have the general public vote on said law that they are not educated and impacted by, and this could be a separate vote. We could use these two voting outcomes as a first draft vote which can then be used as a gauge for discussion/debate if the two voting outcomes are mismatched. If this were to occur, we would then survey any general public that wanted to participate to see why they voted opposite to those educated/affected by the proposed law. Finally, the official vote would be had by both parties again, averaging the two and balancing for population percentage variance for the end result.

Voting happens online via a reinforced blockchain system (on the voting side and on the counting side). There is no campaigning, so instead of wasting millions on that, it can go towards actual good causes instead of smear campaigns.

\*\*The Legislation & Debate:\*\*

Each niche group would elect members from it to be part of a think tank that then assists legislators to write the bills effectively and engage in private and public ideation/debate. We would curate the think tankers similar to jurors to help add more diversity and avoid corruption.

We would still have legislator officials who serve short terms that are in charge of documenting voted in laws but with no voting power besides their individual citizen vote. These guys could also hold public debates with thought leaders elected by the think tanks on the issues and these are televised and we get the day off from work to watch the debates and then vote in american idol style!

\*\*To those that helped refine this with me so far:\*\*

Thanks for the great discussion and getting me to refine and clarify this beyond a shower thought, and while it is a bit much to respond to all of the proposed problems with this system, it is necessary to talk this through...and I hope you can realize that I recognize where my knowledge ends and a team of people taking years to hash out all of the potential flaws in this system begins. I can do my best to try and answer your proposed problems, but do recognize I'm not a career politician or systems analyst...just a dude who has an idea that is worth considering.
gpt
Democracy can be slow. Holding a referendum, and going through potential court challenges, takes time. 

Many issues, can wait, but many cannot. Especially as it relates to national defense, and foreign policy. 

Military decisions, often need to be made in the moment. Do you take the shot or not, the target will only be in range for the next 30 seconds and then we'll lose them? These sorts of decisions cannot be made by democratic referendum.