> But the problem is not confined to referendums: in an election, you may cast your vote, but you are also casting it away for the next few years. This system of delegation to an elected representative may have been necessary in the past – when communication was slow and information was limited – but it is completely out of touch with the way citizens interact with each other today.
This sounds very much like an area of human communication in need of a technological update. (And I'm not talking about using insecure/rigged voting machines at elections.) I'm not confident that more frequent referenda is the answer (a monthly Brexit/Nobrexit doesn't sound like the best idea for a number of reasons), but surely there's some way to decrease the political communication/feedback latency.
But the real insight for me was this quote from British sociologist Colin Crouch:
> public electoral debate is a tightly controlled spectacle, managed by rival teams of professionals expert in the techniques of persuasion, and considering a small range of issues selected by those teams. The mass of citizens plays a passive, quiescent part, responding only to the signals given them.
There is a double-dissolution (ie, all seats in both houses of parliament are up for re-election) federal election in Australia happening this weekend, and the electioneering over the past few months has been exactly as Mr Crouch described: The leaders of the two major parties have chosen a few uncontroversial campaign issues that fail to address any of the real problems (rising socioeconomic inequality, a vocal minority undercurrent of racial/religious tension & bigotry) in Australia. All the leaders will discuss during their campaigns are these superficial issues. The people are simply expected to react to these few selected issues, agreeing or disagreeing as appropriate for their political party affiliation, without asking for any discussion of broader/deeper issues.
There are a few minor parties & independents that are attempting to broaden the discussion, but the two major parties are openly advising voters to vote "for stability" (ie, them) rather than "instability" that might result in a minority government.
