Is Representative Democracy Obsolete?

I pose this question after reading two chapters into one of the most ingenious philosophical books I've ever read, at probably the most lucid point in my life thus far.

I won't name the book; I fear that the title and author of it might scare people who might benefit from the knowledge it imparts. At the very least it would draw some raised eyebrows my direction and I tend to like playing the background, so to speak.

I will address what led me to this text, however.

A critical thinker at heart, I've long understood that people like myself are hard to come by. Most modern societies are encouraged into perpetual groupthink, led by political parties that do not truly represent them but instead the oligarchs that keep their coffers filled.

Understanding this, I could've easily become a tool of the system; I think what separates me from those who have "sold-out" is a deep sense of integrity. So instead of becoming a tool, I've become somewhat of an outcast - a fringe skeptic who is open to niche ideas and shunned for it by those I discreetly think myself more intelligent or virtuous than.

This distrustful character I've taken on has recently led me to study certain taboo fields of research, partly in spite of authorities whom I believe have malevolent intentions.

Along my path I've often wondered, "Why do we count on ONE MOTHERFUCKER to stand up for us?" I'm talking about Jesus. I'm talking about the President. I'm talking about the King or Queen. I'm talking about any central figure of authority that we give claim over the lives of the masses.

The answer I've accepted is that political representation was born out of necessity from populations whose access to information was restricted, if not directly by some external entity, then by the culture those established by their predecessors.

Even now in the United States of America, at the time of this writing one of the most powerful nations on Earth, we allow one person or another to represent huge swaths of America's citizenry.

And I can't stand it.

I'm starting to believe that this system must change, as all things eventually do.

Technology has brought us to a point where people from around the world can find out what's happening in places they've never been to and probably never will go, in a fraction of a second. We can also communicate with people from these places, essentially giving us the power to directly interact with and alter issues as they arise - all over the world.

I have deep conversations with people pretty often and although some of them take place online, I prefer they take place in person. That being said, I'm starting to realize that many of the people I talk to- including myself- are actually more educated than the political representatives we vote for.

I've spoken with people who can talk at length with me about the impact of environmental data from peer-reviewed studies. Another unnamed person shows me how macro and micro-economics work in tandem to produce predictable results in the stock market (knowledge which I've been applying to cryptocurrencies with surprisingly good results). I've had group conversations about the history of Marxist philosophies, while we show each other graphs that prove the outlandish statements being made from every side of the discussion.

All of this has made me wonder why we need representatives anymore... people who are often bought by large corporations the moment they enter office. It is much easier to corrupt a handful of individuals than it would be to corrupt, say, an entire labour union.

I don't like talking about a problem without presenting a solution, though.

What I'm suggesting is the implementation of a direct democracy. The direct democracy system of government is exactly how it sounds: people under this system decide on policy initiatives directly.

The earliest recorded form of direct democracy can be found in ancient Greece, Athens in particular.

These days, however, most proponents of representative democracy cite that direct democracy is much easier to implement with smaller populations but almost impossible with large populations. For a time this was true- how could we replicate the effect of ancient Greeks & Romans forming assemblies where anybody and everybody could regularly access and participate in policy decisions, when we have billions of people to work with?

Enter the Internet.

We can now utilize live streams where 8 million people are concurrently watching an event and chatting with each other about it. Many of these people, I imagine, weren't even at home and were participating in the live stream from their mobile phone.

So my question becomes, why not recreate political assemblies where anybody with access to electricity can involve themselves directly in the outcome of policies? We abandoned direct democracy because our "political technology" wasn't able to keep up with the rate of population but now that technology is outpacing humanity's efforts at an astronomical rate, I think it may be time to revisit that system of governance.

I'm not the smartest guy in the room. I acknowledge that.

But I'm probably the most open-minded and that should count for something.

Reading this book of philosophical, political notes handwritten by Muammar Qaddafi, a man demonized by Western propaganda, has led me to embrace one of the most underdeveloped opinions in Western civilization's repertoire.

I would really appreciate it if some other people could either confirm or deny my thoughts by commenting on this post. Tell me why the idea is something we should be collectively pushing for and tell me HOW we might possibly go about that, tell me why the idea is loony, tell me why it will never work. Ask me some questions, give me your two cents- just please, think about what I've written and do a little bit of your own research on the topic before commenting. Thank you in advance.

Keep up
iQ