Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Should citizens be able to crowdsource laws?
Citizens should be able to crowdsource the laws in their nation - collaborating and debating their language online. (The ratification of laws online is not necessarily implied - just online co-creation of proposed legislation).
This would significantly enhance the push for broader internet access as it would be seen as a necessary tool for political participation.
In a democracy, all citizens by definition have a right to participate in their government.
This could significantly enhance the civics education of the national population.
Referendums and petitions would be much easier to hold, with much more visibility.
Crowdsourcing laws would bring more citizens into the process of lawmaking as active participants.
Speeding up the legislative process would allow trying out more and bolder solutions, embracing what works and overturning or fixing mistakes.
It would help repoliticize citizens who lost faith in politics.
A whole population cannot be bribed.
This allows for laws to be created that are difficult in the current structure of government, thanks to special interests or the reelection fears of legislators.
Citizens lack the knowledge and skills to draft good laws.
Participation is inherently and unfairly biased towards those with free time and easy internet access.
Online systems are vulnerable to cyberattacks.
It would be difficult to limit the participation to citizens of the country.
Online political discussion tends to be toxic, and the quality of online discussion on law-making platforms would be so bad as to be unusable.
There are significant examples of direct democracy violating the rights of minorities.
The established system of representative democracy has filters and professionals who draft implementable laws. Crowdsourcing this process would just result in noise.
Unlike elected officials, citizens cannot be held accountable for the policies they create.
It would be at an inherent risk of being hijacked by either sides to enact archaic draconian laws - for example the death penalty.
Especially in a multiparty system it might be expected that the parliamentary debate covers the arguments quite well which would have been as well introduced by the not-mandated citizens during an online debate.
Should civilians be able to physically unlawful arrest, search, or seizure?
Men should be able to take a stand in the abortion debate
Should Religious Exemptions to Discrimination Laws Be Abolished?