Thread: Direct Democracy

As it stands, we all cast our votes every # of years to elect someone that supposedly represents our interests. The problem with this is:

· They break their promises.
· There is a poor choice of parties.
· You often have to vote for national politics rather than local politics.
· They're all too easy to be corrupted in some way or another.
· You are highly unlikely to find a party that represents you on every single issue.
· People are manipulated.
· The public is virtually powerless.
· Far too centralised.

Alternative Form Of Democracy:

Direct Democracy, similar to that which was practiced in ancient Athens (minus the exclusion of women and slaves). Now, I'm not saying it would work in the modern world or on such a grand scale, but on paper it certainly seems like it's something worth trying, and I believe Switzerland and Iceland may practice it to some level (I need to do some research). All laws, all taxes, all allocation of budget spending, all accepting or rejecting what is built where, all decisions on foreign policy,wars, and so on, would be decided directly by the people.

Members of the public would be expected to attend a local community meeting at least twice a year unless an adequate case is made for why they cannot do so. Every day, there would be a range of issues that would be on the agenda, including both local issues and state issues.

The public would be made aware of the days and times when each particular issue would be discussed, and should they have an interest in a particular side of the issue, they would be expected to turn up, hear the two sides of the argument, and then vote accordingly (the argument would be presented by former local politicians and fact-based presentations on the pros and cons).

Should people not turn up, or should they make stupid choices, then so be it. They will learn from their mistakes and over time will become more politically motivated, and they have no one to blame but themselves when things go wrong.

Thoughts?

Being a Libertarian, I'm really really really really tired of the two party system. With that said, though, direct democracy is not a good alternative. California has direct democracy and they're drowning in red ink. Everyone loves to spend everyone else's money.

The biggest problem is that we have a lazy populace who votes without research. Had they done their reasearch, they:

A) Wouldn't have voted Obama in

B) Wouldn't let the GOP get away with fielding a very poor candidate

C) Would've insisted that the GOP put together an all star team at the convention (name the cabinet-Romney on Treasury/Commerce, Palin on Interior, Powell on Defense, Rice as President, Huckabee as VP)

Originally Posted by Dudester

Being a Libertarian, I'm really really really really tired of the two party system. With that said, though, direct democracy is not a good alternative. California has direct democracy and they're drowning in red ink. Everyone loves to spend everyone else's money.

The biggest problem is that we have a lazy populace who votes without research. Had they done their reasearch, they:

A) Wouldn't have voted Obama in

B) Wouldn't let the GOP get away with fielding a very poor candidate

C) Would've insisted that the GOP put together an all star team at the convention (name the cabinet-Romney on Treasury/Commerce, Palin on Interior, Powell on Defense, Rice as President, Huckabee as VP)

Any one who had does their research without prejudice would never ever vote for a GOP candidate. Obama is the right person for the job at the right time. Challenge me!

InsanityStrickenWriter - At what level would you consider direct democracy practical? How would you manage to govern a nation like the U.K. or the U.S. with direct democracy?

I live in a village of 106 people, about half of whom are old enough to vote. We elect a five-member Village Council with a Village Chairman. Could we run the village without the Village Council? No, because we need an official voice to negotiate with the Ministry of Works to keep the street graded, and with the Lands Department to allow the survey of new building lots, and with the Ministry of Transport to license a school bus, and with the Ministry of Education to allow children from the village to enroll in schools in Corozal Town, and on, and on.

Having a representative form of government, even on a tiny scale, allows us to do as a group that which we cannot do, or cannot do as well, as individuals. If we elect bad leaders who work only for themselves and not for us, that's our fault as citizens, not the fault of the system. That holds true no matter how big or how small the village, town, city, or nation happens to be.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Being a Libertarian, I'm really really really really tired of the two party system. With that said, though, direct democracy is not a good alternative. California has direct democracy and they're drowning in red ink. Everyone loves to spend everyone else's money.

The biggest problem is that we have a lazy populace who votes without research. Had they done their reasearch, they:

A) Wouldn't have voted Obama in

B) Wouldn't let the GOP get away with fielding a very poor candidate

C) Would've insisted that the GOP put together an all star team at the convention (name the cabinet-Romney on Treasury/Commerce, Palin on Interior, Powell on Defense, Rice as President, Huckabee as VP)

I did a bit of research on California just now, and that doesn't really count as direct democracy. Partly because California is still subject to Washington (I'm not very clued up on American politics though so I don't know how much power the individual states have), and partly because you still have elected representitives that vote on their own political views. If I understand correctly, the public only get to vote on an issue if the representitives come to a stale-mate or decide to pass it on. Plus, they expect the voters to read through giant leaflets posted through their doors, and allow the voters to be subject to corporate campaigns. A true direct democracy would only work by banning biased campaigns and money wars, and forcing the voters to take part in a debate and watch a short video with pros and cons before they actually vote.

Originally Posted by garza

InsanityStrickenWriter - At what level would you consider direct democracy practical? How would you manage to govern a nation like the U.K. or the U.S. with direct democracy?

I live in a village of 106 people, about half of whom are old enough to vote. We elect a five-member Village Council with a Village Chairman. Could we run the village without the Village Council? No, because we need an official voice to negotiate with the Ministry of Works to keep the street graded, and with the Lands Department to allow the survey of new building lots, and with the Ministry of Transport to license a school bus, and with the Ministry of Education to allow children from the village to enroll in schools in Corozal Town, and on, and on.

Having a representative form of government, even on a tiny scale, allows us to do as a group that which we cannot do, or cannot do as well, as individuals. If we elect bad leaders who work only for themselves and not for us, that's our fault as citizens, not the fault of the system. That holds true no matter how big or how small the village, town, city, or nation happens to be.

Direct democracy does not equal anarchy. You'd still have representitives, they'd simply have to act on the behalf of the people, (and I mean truly on behalf of the people). As many powers as possible would be decentralised to local communities, which is how large countries such as mine and the USA would be governed efficiently while increasing democracy. As it stands the world is far too geared towards centralisation, which strips people of both their oppinion and democratic rights. Just because the country as a whole may decide they want to use *insert town name here* as a nuclear testing site would not mean the people of that town would agree. (Btw, great example of the worrying centralisation trend can be seen with the EU).

It's all about anarchy and gang rule. If we weren't so split by the BS the media puts out everyday then this would be clear.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Being a Libertarian, I'm really really really really tired of the two party system. With that said, though, direct democracy is not a good alternative. California has direct democracy and they're drowning in red ink. Everyone loves to spend everyone else's money.

The biggest problem is that we have a lazy populace who votes without research. Had they done their reasearch, they:

A) Wouldn't have voted Obama in

B) Wouldn't let the GOP get away with fielding a very poor candidate

C) Would've insisted that the GOP put together an all star team at the convention (name the cabinet-Romney on Treasury/Commerce, Palin on Interior, Powell on Defense, Rice as President, Huckabee as VP)

Actually, I would have voted for Obama (and I did) just because he's "black." The exception would be if he were a total idiot. But given that he's an intelligent man and one of the best orators in U.S. political history, the choice was easy.

And I don't care how many people take issue with my comment about voting on race. Blah, blah, blah.... the issues and race shouldn't matter. It matters enough Obama had to identify as "black" or else Black-American voters, and likely liberal White-Americans, would not have voted for him. It matters enough that had he been married to a white woman few to no one in the U.S. would have voted for him. And race matters enough that if you're a dark$##, short, mestizo living in Mexico the odds are you were born into poverty. At conception your odds - even in the United States - are preset based upon race and sex. The United States might be willing to elect a female President today but that was not so throughout all of U.S. history up until now.

You can stick a 12 year old in the Presidency of the United States and the country will still function sufficiently.

I'd probably vote for a midget woman or a post-op transsexual (male-to-female) for the U.S. Presidency if one were a candidate, just on the strength of their difference. Same with a drunk, homeless bum living the streets of DC.

I don't even think I'll vote anymore. I can came to the enlightened realization a year or so ago that it's absolutely useless to me. I had a Black-American partner (friend) that never voted, didn't read books either, and didn't even vote for Obama. He gotten tons of p____ from black women. Because he wasn't an addict his life was not self destructed or unmanageable like mine.

And like a glorious wave of heavenly light it came over me . Only I can change my life. Voting is like prayer - at least respective to my life but perhaps not for others - it's not going to change a singular thing in my life. I can never vote and still live the most pimpish life in the U.S. imaginable if I do the right things, which generally partly requires making big bred (money).

So, it makes perfect logic for me to vote for Obama on the strength of his race or a midget woman on the strength of her difference. Not to mention Obama's wife - the First Lady - has a nice round ____. She's athletic built too, which is unusual for a First Lady. She's the best looking First Lady since Kennedy's wife. What was her name... Jane Kennedy?

Democracy is a rubbish system, for a start how do you decide who takes part, women and slaves? As someone pointed out they were barred in Athens, the so called cradle of democracy. Lunatics? Who decides they are too mad to vote? then the system lets every one with the right age and status qualifications vote, whether they know anything about what they are voting for or not, they really ought to let children vote as well, why not, they probably can take as good a guess as anyone? Can you imagine your health care being decided in that sort of way? Of course not, you want the most knowledgeable , best informed person taking the decisions, not Joe Soap. Trouble is the sort of questions being decided are are the sort that there are not definitive answers to, only opinions and we don't have a better way of going about it. As Mr Churchill once observed Democracy is a lousy system, but it's the best we have, that shouldn't qualify it for being presented as the be all and end all answer to all problems, as it tends to be, sometimes non-democratic systems work very well, and who knows, maybe there is one we have not tried yet that will knock it into a cocked hat.

Originally Posted by garza

I live in a village of 106 people, about half of whom are old enough to vote. We elect a five-member Village Council with a Village Chairman. Could we run the village without the Village Council? No, because we need an official voice to negotiate with the Ministry of Works to keep the street graded, and with the Lands Department to allow the survey of new building lots, and with the Ministry of Transport to license a school bus, and with the Ministry of Education to allow children from the village to enroll in schools in Corozal Town, and on, and on.

Having a representative form of government, even on a tiny scale, allows us to do as a group that which we cannot do, or cannot do as well, as individuals. If we elect bad leaders who work only for themselves and not for us, that's our fault as citizens, not the fault of the system. That holds true no matter how big or how small the village, town, city, or nation happens to be.

The question before the House was on the subject of direct democracy. Your comments have nothing to do with that subject.

So, pointing out the advantages of representative democracy has nothing to do with the question of whether we should have direct democracy?

Originally Posted by InsanityStrickenWriter

As it stands, we all cast our votes every # of years to elect someone that supposedly represents our interests. The problem with this is:

· They break their promises.
· There is a poor choice of parties.
· You often have to vote for national politics rather than local politics.
· They're all too easy to be corrupted in some way or another.
· You are highly unlikely to find a party that represents you on every single issue.
· People are manipulated.
· The public is virtually powerless.
· Far too centralised.

Alternative Form Of Democracy:

Direct Democracy, similar to that which was practiced in ancient Athens (minus the exclusion of women and slaves). Now, I'm not saying it would work in the modern world or on such a grand scale, but on paper it certainly seems like it's something worth trying, and I believe Switzerland and Iceland may practice it to some level (I need to do some research). All laws, all taxes, all allocation of budget spending, all accepting or rejecting what is built where, all decisions on foreign policy,wars, and so on, would be decided directly by the people.

Members of the public would be expected to attend a local community meeting at least twice a year unless an adequate case is made for why they cannot do so. Every day, there would be a range of issues that would be on the agenda, including both local issues and state issues.

The public would be made aware of the days and times when each particular issue would be discussed, and should they have an interest in a particular side of the issue, they would be expected to turn up, hear the two sides of the argument, and then vote accordingly (the argument would be presented by former local politicians and fact-based presentations on the pros and cons).

Should people not turn up, or should they make stupid choices, then so be it. They will learn from their mistakes and over time will become more politically motivated, and they have no one to blame but themselves when things go wrong.

Thoughts?

The state is too large for direct democracy. Even ancient athens had problems with this.

The Swizz like the US are federal a federal democracy and like us representatives from direct constituencies ( federal, state and local) represent the individual. If they do a poor job they are removed at a plebiscite.

The quality or caliber of the individuals native intellectual capacity is never a matter under consideration. Because we have competing factions ( read federalist 10) the hope is the individual is educated on the issues and vote on that basis.

You are voicing your personal opinion that it is the "uninformed" who put Obama in office. McCain did not appear a bright light. It is troubling to me that he was never seem to have a firm philosophical grounding on anything and changed his opinion depending on where he perceived the wind is blowing. I guess one can reflect on the abject absurdity of him stopping his campaign for a week to come to Washington to address our fiscal collapse.

As a libertarian you ought to reflect on the phrase we hold these truths self evident that all men are created equal. There is a basic proposition and it prohibits means testing. The failure of libertarians or Democrats or Republicans to educate their constituencies of their firmly held opinions is not to be cast as a failure of democracy.

Democracy is messy. It is a free for all and it happens to be the best human intellectual creation in terms of a means to govern a nation.

It is a failure of ourselves also since it is imperative we educate those around is of the issues we hold dear. Unfortunately, and not meaning to insult anyone but simply stating a self evident fact, the world is populated with the mediocre; those that shine are a rarity and geniuses are the most rarest of gems. We have to deal with what we have and for that, democracy is all that stands between freedom as a property of the elites and and serfdom for the morons. I being in the later category am pleased with democracy.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Actually, I would have voted for Obama (and I did) just because he's "black." The exception would be if he were a total idiot. But given that he's an intelligent man and one of the best orators in U.S. political history, the choice was easy.

And I don't care how many people take issue with my comment about voting on race. Blah, blah, blah.... the issues and race shouldn't matter. It matters enough Obama had to identify as "black" or else Black-American voters, and likely liberal White-Americans, would not have voted for him. It matters enough that had he been married to a white woman few to no one in the U.S. would have voted for him. And race matters enough that if you're a dark$##, short, mestizo living in Mexico the odds are you were born into poverty. At conception your odds - even in the United States - are preset based upon race and sex. The United States might be willing to elect a female President today but that was not so throughout all of U.S. history up until now.

You can stick a 12 year old in the Presidency of the United States and the country will still function sufficiently.

I'd probably vote for a midget woman or a post-op transsexual (male-to-female) for the U.S. Presidency if one were a candidate, just on the strength of their difference. Same with a drunk, homeless bum living the streets of DC.

I don't even think I'll vote anymore. I can came to the enlightened realization a year or so ago that it's absolutely useless to me. I had a Black-American partner (friend) that never voted, didn't read books either, and didn't even vote for Obama. He gotten tons of p____ from black women. Because he wasn't an addict his life was not self destructed or unmanageable like mine.

And like a glorious wave of heavenly light it came over me . Only I can change my life. Voting is like prayer - at least respective to my life but perhaps not for others - it's not going to change a singular thing in my life. I can never vote and still live the most pimpish life in the U.S. imaginable if I do the right things, which generally partly requires making big bred (money).

So, it makes perfect logic for me to vote for Obama on the strength of his race or a midget woman on the strength of her difference. Not to mention Obama's wife - the First Lady - has a nice round ____. She's athletic built too, which is unusual for a First Lady. She's the best looking First Lady since Kennedy's wife. What was her name... Jane Kennedy?

I am perplexed at what you are saying here and a bit confused if I should feel offended by some of your statements or not.

First it is your responsibility as a citizen to vote. Lacking that you have no right to complain. This democracy is not perfect but if you travel you see why this is such a wondrous construct.

I am not white and I cannot say I ever had a drought of P....of whatever hue. That says little of democracy or why come idiot who does not read a book is able to attract women. It is the first time I am hearing that is a criteria to the seductive process! He could not be getting a good caliber of P....if he is an idiot unless he is foraging among the dredges of skid row. Black women are not unlike white women and they seek similar things with respect to a better life. And to say that he got some twat because he was not addicted or in jail is patently racist. Having lived in the ghetto by choice, I know beyond doubt that those homies and thugs and pretend thugs do get their fair supply of women of every kind. You make generalizations from too little information.