article about that article you linked

```Author's claim is that Thunberg's activism is antidemocratic because she privileges action over argument. But his strategy to persuade you of that is to (very explicitly) disqualify her, listing a series of attributes that make her unsuited to be a partner in democratic debate.```

When you limit representation in a decision you limit democracy. That was completely nonsensical.

no, it's about widening democracy and having less represenTATIVES

as in more direct democracy

fewer buffer layers inbetween

You could just limit congressional terms and have more luck there

no that's the wrong axis, temporal, you want to increase the surface area of contact

in the us, maybe have 1305 reps instead of 435, so 3 x more

or just do more direct voting since tech has advanced beyond pony express

``` Industry-backed climate denier Steve Milloy chimed into the op-ed debate on August 3 by tweeting:```

```She's ignorant, maniacal and is being mercilessly manipulated by adult climate bedwetters funded by Putin? ```

https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1129109415200731136

More direct democracy would be more like mob rule though, in regard to less representatives. Just keep the representative count we have but have limits to their terms. This would do wonders on the corruption in the government and could also incentivise voting more by restoring faith in a (hopefully) less polarized governmental system.

Voting is mob rule?

That meme is terrible

Direct voting yes

Why is it mob rule? It's how many US states do it

like in Cali with propositions

legislators craft the bill, population at large votes yes or no

Term limits address a different issue. You can REALLY help anti-corruption by increasing the surface area to attack

if congress grew 3x, they would have to bribe more people than currently vote in congress

How would increasing the size of congress fix corruption exactly? How exactly would that be too many people to bribe? Seems rather risky.

It doesn't FIX it, but it means more people to bribe, it drives up the cost of bribery, how many people have to be in on something, etc

there is no risk in increasing size of congress, it would lower the ratio of population to representatives

What is risky about lowering ratio of population to rep?

IT would lower it back down to what it was in say 1900

so roughly 1920 ratio by that chart

and we have much better communication today

ratios for other OECD countries

are they are risk?

Why do that when you could just have term limits and have restrictions on lobbying? It doesn't make sense to widen the attack my making the target even larger, attack it at the source

it's not like shooting at a bigger target to score one hit, you have to hit more targets to get a 'kill'

if you have to bribe 51%, you have to bribe say 350 people rather than just 218

the fixed cost of bribing to an outcome goes way up

and it's not an either or, all of the above can and should be done, unless there is some argument to be made for having experienced politicians but maybe they can operate like the counsels do

and why should americans have 750,000 to one rep versus say japan at 270k?

if it's RISKY for the US, japan should be totalitarian by now right? mob rule and all that

and fucking iceland omg