A direct democracy where moderators are assigned randomly for random intervals of time. Where reputation is gained based on the intelligence and acceptance of positive contributions. Where the best ideas, not the best orators, can prevail.
Where budgets, and distribution of taxes, are wholly transparent. Where the benefits and drawbacks of policies can be debated and discussed at length. Where the moderated masses can revise content. Where decisions are made based on the best scientific evidence at hand, not on the ill-founded misunderstandings of ignorant, or corrupt, politicians.
In this digital era where more people are connected to the Internet than contribute to voting for the electorate, we need to consider whether we want to continue to vote by paper ballot in 50 years. The environmental impact alone may well be worth going to a direct, digital democracy.
"Where the benefits and drawbacks of policies can be debated and discussed at length."
This sounds like a great way to turn the law making process into Reddit. Reddit attracts a certain type of person and drives away others. A Digital Democracy would do the same.
"Where decisions are made based on the best scientific evidence at hand"
I don't see how this is possible. Whether in person or online, most decision making processes are based on emotion and not logic.
"Where reputation is gained based on the intelligence and acceptance of positive contributions."
How? Is there somebody deciding how intelligent and how positive the contributions are? Or are we going to rely on upvotes? Those upvotes are going to be based on emotion, not logic. It's a great way to determine how popular an opinion is, but not how intelligent or constructive.
A problem with condensing a complex arena into a few terse paragraphs is that many details must be abandoned favouring a broader scope. You have raised a number of issues, and I would encourage you to think about my response not in terms of absolute answers but in terms of possibilities that, while imperfect, would move us closer to an ideal policy-creation system than what currently exists throughout the world.
Debate Mentality
Where you see Reddit, I see StackOverflow, complete with a system of reputation and moderation. Unlike Reddit where anyone can post a comment, this policy-creation system is akin to StackOverflow where a person must achieve a certain amount of reputation before making a moderated post. With moderators selected at random, for a random interval, there is little chance for hive-mentality to fester.
Scientific Evidence
I understand that you don't see how it is possible to infuse scientific evidence with policy review. Especially given how politicians today seem to shun science. Part of the problem is that there is no centralized location for public discourse on a subject that brings together all vantage points. Fortunately, we can leverage DOI links on a policy while debating it, and include a wiki for each benefit and drawback. Consider:
This could include video evidence, calculations, budgetary impacts, and other details necessary to make an informed decision on whether the benefit or drawback is sound. The culmination of benefits and drawbacks are succinctly summarized so that people can still make an informed choice without delving too deeply. (But people can go deeper if they want, assuming the topic interests them.)
Opinion vs. Fact
Part of the issue here is that I think you're looking at the system from "opinions" being presented. The system caters more to facts than opinions, in the same way that StackOverflow emphasizes correct answers over opinions. The example I gave illustrates how this would work: "Some consider marijuana use to be morally wrong." This is an opinion, which is easily countered with: "Enforcing the status quo morality may reflect and reinforce deep-rooted prejudices," with a citation.
There are a number of ways reputation can be earned in a given subject-matter: For a presenting a fact that gets a large number of up-votes; for graduating an accredited university; for proposing drawbacks and benefits that pass moderation; by attaining up-votes on drawbacks and benefits. Reputation can be lost by casting down-votes or by receiving down-votes.
Institution
I believe you assumed that this system would be initially available to the general public, but that need not be true. It could, to start, be opened to politicians, lawyers, and scientists, who have a vested interest in ensuring the system does not get abused. Effectively as a means to facilitate the communications process around proposing and accepting policies. This would eliminate your concerns regarding a Reddit-style law.
Self-Referential
The system could be made self-referential whereby changes to the system can be proposed using the system.
Conclusion
Pointing out the flaws in a system is a great way to open discussion, and I thank you. Pointing out how the system can be improved to eliminate or mitigate those flaws is even better.
A direct democracy where moderators are assigned randomly for random intervals of time. Where reputation is gained based on the intelligence and acceptance of positive contributions. Where the best ideas, not the best orators, can prevail.
Where budgets, and distribution of taxes, are wholly transparent. Where the benefits and drawbacks of policies can be debated and discussed at length. Where the moderated masses can revise content. Where decisions are made based on the best scientific evidence at hand, not on the ill-founded misunderstandings of ignorant, or corrupt, politicians.
In this digital era where more people are connected to the Internet than contribute to voting for the electorate, we need to consider whether we want to continue to vote by paper ballot in 50 years. The environmental impact alone may well be worth going to a direct, digital democracy.