I say we do democracy instead.

and i mean democracy. not the orwellian facade of the same name.

idk if i do succinct ever.

if necessitating specificity, i advocate for config-democracy, a dynamic form of democracy, as direct or referential/represented as you like, as elaborate an input as you like, updated when you like, and ~ variously depending how those inputs shape up, ~ put through various interpreters and implementers, and through whatever safeguards sought via it too.

then beyond that, i'd more just be saying what my "vote" preferences to input to that would be, and especially other contexts to further robustify the system, human potential, humanitarian goodness, etc., like tricorders for everybody and broad spectrum aptitude testing availed (largely, as part of facilitating the (necessary for functional democracies) fully informed public), full availing of the emancipatory technologies, education and polymathy aspiration prioritised over training specialist roles, fully freely availed facilities, all kinds of decentralisations empowering each and all, and even on to specific grand projects, not just re-greening the sahara (etc), but creating entire new vast biomes (and not just on earth)... the kind of stuff we get to do once out of the rigged game of the rentier parasites keeping us all down.

but, need not be anything so radically different. other forms of direct-democracy, e-democracy, hybrid direct/representative democracy exist, that still better fulfil the defining characteristic of democracy, that it is the ideas and will of the people, organising. not 'archy; not a mere few deciding (... and all the corruption that attracts and breeds and turns malignant by).

switzerland's probably the nearest example to democracy at scale, though still by no means ideal.

with config-democracy, there's far less burden [than e.g. the swiss system], far less noise, far less provokation, far fewer middlemen meddling... you just get to put in your ideals, your preferences, ... even with many a facility developed over time to help... so then, it, "just works". of course, the interpreters "need to be built" (oh rly, still? with llm/ai/ml tech these days?), but even without that yet, it's better to have a system that genuinely reaches out to at least hear the will of the people for a start towards democracy.

if i'd just said

config-democracy

would that have been succinct?

... but would there be any cognition of what it meant? it's not a widely known term yet afaik.

lmfao. even before i clicked on the notification, i was about 99% sure, you were gonna do that. XD

gonna tell me off for, what, i even said i cannot do, but sure, have a go at me for it again anyway. lmfao. XD XD hilarious approach.

and it gets even funnier when you UTTERLY misrepresent what was said.

it HAS to be intentional trolling and narcissistic abuse. 😛

My attempt to succinctly state your point

my what? ;]

You’d like to see us be able to cast votes on meaningful points,

no. not what i said.

but only with the truly educated, intelligent voters;

no. not what i said.

similar to the ways of the Ancient Greeks.

no. not what i said, nor like that anyway.

...

it seems utterly implausible to get that^ from:

i advocate for config-democracy, a dynamic form of democracy, as direct or referential/represented as you like, as elaborate an input as you like, updated when you like,

or maybe we're just over a Wittgensteinian horizon in our neurotypes and communication styles. ... I think you're just trolling though. maybe even just a troll bot. so implausible and formulaic are your responses.

aptitude testing's only to add weight to relevant credence, if even so sought, and to be used to fully inform the public as to who's suitable for what.
like not putting people with ill suited aptitudes on tasks or in roles where harms would be more likely, better optimising the best suited for doing what, and most especially, cluing individuals in to their own aptitude profiles, so they can better direct themselves, and be more aware where they need try harder... it basically cuts through a lot of dunning-kruger style self delusion and erroneous illusions of ones own abilities.
it's about empowering people with clarity of nuance, out of the squanderous abusive utterly wrong over-simplification of the single pecking order.
it's about getting deeper into the nuance, enriching everybody, empowering everybody, better informing everybody, ... it's not in any way about creating a bifurcated special class of haves vs the systematically deprived of a voice, as you seemed misrepresent the idea as.

I'd say I hope this clarifies that much, but doubtless your reaction's going to be "rasrdsnnksjsgn!! words!" again, gaslighting, misrepresenting, thickpeople doorstopping, over-simplifying, inverting, and complaining that your demands of how to be spoken to are not being met, and come with more demands and projected frustration. Because this is becoming a very familiar pattern. If it were not for this kind of prickly inaccessible behaviour, i'd be gleeful in the exploration of ideas, and asking you how you came to your misinterpretation... but we both, and anyone else reading, knows that wont likely proceed as an exploration of ideas. ... it'd be social dominance mode fighting, epistemic-mode disabled, in the limbic reactive fight, in the attachment to world view identified with is challenged with new ideas. when there's sign that's abated, i'll be here, eager and gleeful for the exploration of ideas. ... happy to be shown wrong there, and the pattern breaks. 😀

genuine intrigue, would be all up in the guts of this, and wanting more. not less. we've barely scratched the surface of just a tiny portion. but, maybe we should be mad at those who so stubbornly refuse to explain how the nuclear reactor works as if to a 5 year old with only 5 seconds to get it. ;P ... idk, satirical points like that, can land really well with a receptive educated mind [1], and to a narcissist seeking preservation of their self image, with no will to genuine introspection, they'd likely react quite poorly to that. all kinds of fun rope for rotters to hang themselves upon all around. ample grace awaits too...

and i'll finish this fun little exploration, with pointing out, this too, seems an obsequious adhominous blowing-smoke-up-ass buttering-up bs that narcissists do to keep their victims around:

However, your posts also seem to be
correct | truthful | good
down under there; so I wanted to explore it.

which is all the funnier in the context of the misrepresentation.
like, genuinely, depending on delivery, could be a great stand-up comedy bit. the setup, then the shock subversion of expectations. and, it's like the set-up itself, is a bit of a punchline to the prior bit too. ... all part and parcel of why i kicked off this reply with "lmfao". wasnt just the Minbari sense of humour, it was just the pure good comedy structure of it. [ ComedyWithoutErrors fan here. ;) ] I mean, it's genuinely deep level genius comedy. Intended or not. to assert "seem to be correct|truthful|good" and then propose that it means something that's a regressive inversion from the good intended. XD I know, I know... explaining it does not make it funnier. I just felt I had to, in case it was completely missed, and my laughing was taken as hostility. It's not.

[1: the mark of an educated mind, merely being able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it. ... worth noting, misrepresenting an idea, to the inverse... is not just not an educated mind... we're in bad faith territory. ]

PS a point sought, but a subtextual point apparently missed... "would" ? no. many coulds. argue over should. leave the disempowering npc spectator sport position of "would". drop the poison placatium. embrace the [for want of better words] participatory engagement. can. shall. endeavor. strive. aspire. not mere spectating what comes as if on rails, oblivious to ones own influence...

to have even said

all kinds of decentralisations empowering each and all,

... and yet still somehow, the interpretation ...

but only with the truly educated, intelligent voters;

XD

how?

XD

it has to be a tankie subversion ploy, right? lol.
or like hitler perverting nietzsche to fit his pre-decided world view. heh.
wild.

psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ou…

as of Andrew M. Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology" book

speaks to this area quite well too.

config-democracy could afford us another toolset, a different political paradigm, that inhibits the narcissists and psychopath favouring/attracting/empowering power structures. with aptitude testing, awareness of a fuller breadth of each our many aptitudes, out of the singular pecking order, out of classism, perhaps eliminating "roles" entirely, or at least as static specialisations imposed by economic coercion.

a greek special philosopher few for all things, is the special class, the narcissist and psychopath attracting power clique, static roles, inevitable slippage to pathocracy and kakistarchy. Config democracy does not intrinsically create exclusive classes, and to my mind, strongly discourages that from ever usurping it.

The weighting of the interpreters is not hitting cut-offs that exclude, not creating inclusions of special few.

Config-democracy is non-exclusionary, everybody's voice respected, and respected better for its worth into greater intricacy of nuances...

If you've a high aptitude (or several) as the interpreter (itself config-democracy managed) deems suitable for some area of concern, your input's weighted (that too config-democracy managed), and the interpreters' various interpretations of each "vote" (the fullness of all relevant parts of the entire democracy.config file(s)), and the interpolation of all "votes", are availed for review.

And so, (I hope) this shows, config-democracy is self-managing in its recursivities throughout.

... So nowhere in it need you try find a special class of smarties to make the decisions for others. It's genuinely democratic, as in, organised by the people, all people, not just a special few.

But then, there's also nothing intrinsic to it, but the wealth of wisdom of people, to not end up shipping away to narcissistic psychopathic usurpers upon their effective terror ploys, ~ other than that wisdom, having put in constitutional safeguards etc etc etc etc.... the wealth of ideas ~ many eyes make all bugs shallow, and when all voices are contributed to the whole, in as full thoroughness and intricacy of preferences as each individual wants to assert as their contribution, then the ideas that are preventative against such pathocratic usurpation seem much more likely to come to the fore [not least because aptitude tests avail means to catch narcissists and psychopaths], than if the system were a hierarchy in the hands of those narcissists and psychopaths.

And thus it seems to me, any who attack config-democracy, must surely hold the notion (even subconsciously) that they're one of the benefactors of the hierarchical system of power imbalance that rewards narcissists and psychopaths; benefactors of pathocracy; of kakistarchy, and fear the lose of this domination role, with config-democracy seeing through them, reducing their voice to the same weighting by their full spectrum of aptitudes, same as everybody else. :3

There are no dissidents in democracy. If you try be a dissident in democracy, you're just being a better democrat. ... But there can be usurpers. We'd see them better with config democracy and aptitude testing awareness. Can see why they'd want to stop config-democracy from starting.

;D

When people with personality disorders gain power.

People with personality disorders are drawn to power and are ruthless in their pursuit of it. How we can ensure that the majority don't suffer at their hands?

^{Steve Taylor Ph.D. (Psychology Today)}

lol, and only after posting that, do i see, the troll's posts are not here any more. ... did they do that? or did that happen when i put them on ignore. hah. I should have quoted them in full so people could see what was going on and make up their own minds... i say while really thinking, so people could see what damning doofus orwellian slanderous misrepresentations were happening there... like had to be an exercise in abusing cunningham's law, at best. :3

^ well, regardless how their comments disapeared, ... as depicted in that just prior comment... caught one. ;D

jungian ping too... seeing they profess hard to the contrary... gets wondering, nay, gets obvious, what's festering in their blind spot, the harder they try preen good n free. n_n

stuff like this gets healed better in config democracy too. it goes deep, wide and long.