Referendum 2.0 with reservations

    Totally agree with all the arguments it is evident in the topic Referendum 2.0 or include a head , but I would like to make a few of his thoughts in the protection of the instigator of debate.

    The first one. Let's remember Roman democracy. Patricians can vote, plebeians have no voting rights. To put it mildly, cynical. But think, how can you equate the voices of a professor of economics and a cleaning lady? I believe that if there is a hypothetically referendum 2.0, then the votes of citizens should have different weight depending on education, social status and level of affluence. The latter, I think, is obvious.

    The second one. A person may not understand one area of ​​lawmaking, but excellently understand another. At least in the subject of discussion. I think it is necessary to introduce a certain system of tests that will help determine whether a citizen is competent in solving a particular issue.

    The third. Not everyone has cell phones, not from any place of our immense you can go online, not everyone has computers. But the situation is changing 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 fraction of the rational. Need to think further. Of course, such a system must be introduced gradually. So that the errors are not critical. Of course, our society is completely unprepared for such changes. But this does not prohibit us from proposing, discussing and, if you like, dreaming.

    Also popular now: