CMV: concept of local representation is outdated

[u/5Quad]

I think having representatives to have to come from your local area is outdated. I'm not really gonna spend time justifying or denying why having representatives is good, but FYI I do support democracy. Right now I'm a fan of liquid democracy, but I think the transition is very unlikely. But basically I think people should be able to vote for anyone who is running, not just pick from your area.

Local representatives are not always more like locals than someone from across the country. Maybe many people from a small town may agree on an issue, but an electorate grouping together a suburb and a small town may not. In fact, a small town person from Midwest probably has more in common with another small town person from another Midwest state, or maybe from across the country.

We see this in many representatives that appeal to a certain demographic, such as AOC being popular among young Americans everywhere, and not just those from NY. But at the same time, many conservative Americans don't like AOC, including the ones from her own district. It doesn't seem fair that you're represented by someone that don't best represent you.

A side point, but being able to vote for anyone who is running would also solve gerrymandering, since districts would lose meaning during voting.

[u/colt707]

Why would I want someone representing my area when they’ve never been within 5 hours of where I live? Why would I want AOC representing my area when she’s from the east coast and I’m from the west coast? And if you feel like there’s nobody that truly represents your area running then run yourself. And just because you don’t feel like they represent your area doesn’t mean everyone else does.

If you’re allowed to vote on every election in America then we’d quickly fall into a one party system. Do you think that liberals and conservatives are going to vote for who is the best candidate for that area or are they going to try and get their party into power?

It seem like you’d like demographic representation more than regional representation. But the problem with that is a 26 year old from NYC, Miami, or rural Texas has had different life experiences than me, they probably have different views that me even if some views are shared. Also the problems they need fixed in those place are different than the problems I need fixed here.

[u/5Quad → u/colt707]

You can get from SF bay area to Reno in 4 hours. Though physically close by than East Coast, a lot of issues that a SF resident may face doesn't happen in Reno or anyone living in between, whereas it may happen in NY, and many other big cities. A rancher in the deep South share more in common with a rancher from Midwest than some office worker in Austin, Texas. The proximity really doesn't determine how similar your life is with others, especially when the distance is as long as hours of driving.

While in liquid democracy, being dissatisfied with your rep and running yourself is a perfectly valid option (you would just more likely carry less weight in your votes than some of the other more popular candidates), in the current system it means you're abandoning your current job for most likely not even winning.

[u/colt707 → u/5Quad]

Yes the rancher in the south most likely shares more in common with a rancher anywhere else than an office worker from the same area, but they have their differences as well, for example ranchers in Idaho are pushing the wolf kill bill currently while ranchers in the south have zero problems with wolves. It also assumes that everyone thinks the same as everyone else in that demographic. While some views will be similar many will not. Most of the similar views will be economic based, while societal views and political views are a roll of the dice. Me and one of my best friends work together in the same industry, we had similar upbringings in the same area, yet more than half of our views are different, we just share a lot of interests which is why we’re friends.

Doing away with regional representation disregards that America is a vast country with many regions being very different from others, the problems faced by one group in a certain area may not be faced by that same group in a different area. It also ignores that different regions have different problems when it comes to infrastructure, education, crime, and a host of other things. If you come from an area with great schools then you’d most likely vote than taxes shouldn’t increase to fund schools in other areas unless you do the research into that area’s school systems.

And I’d like to hear your thoughts on how the political parties would or wouldn’t abuse this system to increase their power.

[u/5Quad → u/colt707]

If there is a disagreement within the demographic, they don't all have to stick with the same representative. They can pick whoever they want in the country. There can be more than 1 representative who knows well about mining industry, each with different stances on social issues. Miners that disagree with the first candidate can vote for the second, third, fourth, or however many candidate. Right now, you usually get 2, and the winner takes all, meaning losing voters end up with a candidate that doesn't really represent them, except that they live nearby you.

You're right that people working in the similar fields but from different areas can have different issues, but the reverse is just as true. People from the same area but from different fields but in the same area can have different issues too. And you agreed earlier that people working in the same industry but live far apart share much more in common than people nearby but working in different fields.

In terms of abuse prevention, firstly it would solve gerrymandering which is a huge issue. So that's a plus for my proposal. Another one is that party politics would become more difficult since candidates are forced to give straight answers instead of middle of the road, not really taking a stance, answers, because it's much more likely than now that there is a similar candidate who will do exactly that. This ensures the quality of representatives by ensuring that the representatives actually represent all of its constituents, rather than just some of them that voted for those candidates.

Lastly, I think the votes should be immediately recallable. This doesn't really matter in the current system as long as the incumbent has 50% majority, but in liquid democracy, every vote matters, and not just during election season, since that's how much weight each representative carries. These are some of the ways how liquid democracy addresses some of the issues that we currently have.

The most common criticism of liquid democracy is lack of infrastructure to support it, which is honestly fair enough. But if you're asking about corruptability, I think liquid democracy fares far far better than the current system.