Direct Democracy

[Seth1968]

In the few years that I've been an active member at Beyond, I've noted overwhelming sentiments that support direct/pure democracy.

That opinion is not exclusive to this forum, but to all Canadians who have become frustrated and angered by out of touch and "bought out" politicians.

Like I've said many times before, "Democracy my ass".

[FixedGear]

you mean direct/pure instead of representative democracy?

even a perfect democracy is a flawed idea though, because ultimately politics are determined by the various media that control citizens' worldview.

EDIT: it seems that no perfect system has been proposed yet. I think humanity is just now coming to realize the problems inherent in democracy, especially given the modern media. it will be interesting (a few hundred years into the future) to see what effect internet communications have on this.

[Seth1968]

even a perfect democracy is a flawed idea though, because ultimately politics are determined by the various media that control citizens' worldview.


You've just realized your contradiction. Right?

[FixedGear]

^^no, what do you mean?

EDIT: it's still a democracy if I hold a gun to everyone's head and make them vote my way for whatever issue is at hand. or do you mean something else?

[Toma]

Direct democracy would be very easy to do today with the internet.

However.... what will happen is the majority would vote away the rights of the minority. That's why constitutional democracy is the way to go and the ballot choices must adhere and respect those absolutes.

But before we can implememt direct democracy, we must properly educate the voters starting in elementary about formal logic. Criticial thinking and the methods and techniques of propoganda and persuasion and influence to prevent media brainwsshing.

Also fear based news must be constitutionaly banned.... ie terrorist are out to get us.

Then it might work.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[ZenOps]

Could be done fairly easily.

Current governments would never let it happen. It would mean that they would be redundant and useless (like they aren't already, but they still get paid to be redundant and useless)

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

However I think we would WAY better off if voting wasn't a right and instead an earned privilege. Instead of having Joe Blow the idiot (which represents enough people to swing a vote) going in and voting for his party with no real knowledge of what they actually stand for... a quiz or test should be required where you read and answer questions about each candidate in your riding. A web based program that allows you retry as many times as you need to get to the next question would at least educate voters on what their candidate stands for... and maybe open some eyes at the same time.

Just think if only educated voters were going to the polls... we might actually have a well run country for once.

you know, this is what i think too. But I get called a "fascist" when I say stuff like this haha.

this is actually how the voting worked long ago in the US.

[Feruk]

Direct democracy would be a DISASTER. People would vote "yes" to every tax cut and "no" to every cut in services. See: California.

[ZenOps]

Direct world democracy.

Give the vote to the billion people who make less than $2 per day. It may be what the new pope has in mind.

Can't say that I'd look forward to it, but if it prevents WWIII that may be the way it has to go.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Feruk
Direct democracy would be a DISASTER. People would vote "yes" to every tax cut and "no" to every cut in services. See: California.
Why? California is not a direct democracy.

[Seth1968]

Switzerland seems to be doing just fine.

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

[Xtrema]

Ok, Directy Democracy means we try to eliminate parties, correct? So people can't vote along party line?

Or are we trying to direct vote for PM?

[FixedGear]

OP still hasn't defined exactly what a direct democracy is... does this mean it is not a representative democracy, and that every citizen votes on every single decision? I don't see how that would ever work, and even if it was implemented, it would really be no better than the representative democracy we have now - it would only change how the representative are "chosen," so to speak.

EDIT: but as I said before, democracies don't really give the power to the citizens anyhow. the ones with the power are the media that provide the information used by the citizens to form the opinions on which they vote. :dunno:

[Seth1968]

A direct democracy still needs some sort of representation.

Once again: http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

[FixedGear]

honestly i don't have time to read that website. great job starting this dumb thread without even being willing to define wtf the subject is about. why anyone would start a thread and then be completely elusive whenever someone asks them to clarify the point is beyond me.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Seth1968
A direct democracy still needs some sort of representation.

Once again: http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

Yeah. what I can read is, 1.2% of the population can fuck up the will of 98.8% if we adopt that system.

Or am I getting it wrong?

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by FixedGear
honestly i don't have time to read that website. great job starting this dumb thread without even being willing to define wtf the subject is about. why anyone would start a thread and then be completely elusive whenever someone asks them to clarify the point is beyond me.

It's not that hard lol.


Direct Democracy can be defined as a form or system of democracy giving citizens an extraordinary amount of participation in the legislation process and granting them a maximum of political self-determination.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Yeah. what I can read is, 1.2% of the population can fuck up the will of 98.8% if we adopt that system.

Or am I getting it wrong?

Yes.

What you're describing is more akin to our political system.

[tirebob]

Comparing us to Switzerland is impossible. Compare 8,000,000 people in an area of 40,000 square KM's to 34,000,000 people in an area almost 10,000,000 square km's and try and make it equal for all is impossible. Too many variables... With a country as large and as diverse in people, industry, population base as our is, you would give even more power to the two most populous provinces in our country in controlling the rest of us...

No political system is perfect nor could it ever be, but I get a laugh out of people who get all worked up about how horrible things are here in Canada... Really? Look around the world and see how good we really have it!

[Feruk]

Originally posted by Toma
Why? California is not a direct democracy.
They have a version of direct democracy in a very real way as per Economist article:

California cannot pass timely budgets even in good years, which is one reason why its credit rating has, in one generation, fallen from one of the best to the absolute worst among the 50 states

the main culprit has been direct democracy: recalls, in which Californians fire elected officials in mid-term; referendums, in which they can reject acts of their legislature; and especially initiatives, in which the voters write their own rules. Since 1978, when Proposition 13 lowered property-tax rates, hundreds of initiatives have been approved on subjects from education to the regulation of chicken coops.

Many initiatives have either limited taxes or mandated spending, making it even harder to balance the budget.

Source:
http://www.economist.com/node/18586520

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Feruk

They have a version of direct democracy in a very real way as per Economist article:

California cannot pass timely budgets even in good years, which is one reason why its credit rating has, in one generation, fallen from one of the best to the absolute worst among the 50 states

the main culprit has been direct democracy: recalls, in which Californians fire elected officials in mid-term; referendums, in which they can reject acts of their legislature; and especially initiatives, in which the voters write their own rules. Since 1978, when Proposition 13 lowered property-tax rates, hundreds of initiatives have been approved on subjects from education to the regulation of chicken coops.

Many initiatives have either limited taxes or mandated spending, making it even harder to balance the budget.

Source:
http://www.economist.com/node/18586520

This is exactly what I thought about direct democracy. Nothing will ever gets done.

I like our demo-dictatorship. Sure something may not go your way but at least shit gets done. And if you don't like it, you have a chance to get rid of them every 4 to 5 years.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Xtrema


This is exactly what I thought about direct democracy. Nothing will ever gets done.

That article from The Economist is horribly biased and misleading. Here's a briefing of the comments:


Switzerland's arguably well-deserved reputation as the “best run country in the world”, stems less from direct plebeian involvement in governing, but almost entirely from extreme democracy in its representative institutions.


Unfortunately, California's fiscal troubles are the result, not of direct democratic referendums (although Arnold Schwarzenegger was a result of recall initially, and a fiscal disaster himself) but the result of the legislature being unable to control their habitual and outrageous spending.


What a puff piece. What's your game TE? I am serious. What's your game? You cannot have thought of this article as anything more than a glib piece to make you feel better in your damp, cold neck of the woods. If you think that making us look like a bunch of bumbling dilettantes in direct democracy will enlighten your readers about statecraft in California, you failed miserably.


The Paternalist decides to run a series on Democracy, and from the very outset it starts by saying: “Now, what are the very worst stories we can dig up on Democracy? OK. Let’s make that the focus and title of our series.” As professional journalists, have you no shame?

Why focus on California (in the past three decades) as your principal example of Democracy? To begin with, California is not fully democratic. It is forced to operate under the savagely non-democratic US federal constitution. That has, amongst other things, created two parties of ambitious politicians committed to wielding power – at both state and federal level – with all the disastrous consequences such government entails.

[Toma]

The Economist is a trash rag imo. They wouldn't know what direct democracy is if it slapped them in the pee pee.

As I said, it could work, with people trained in logic and certain provisions in the constitution (which everyone in Canada ignores anyway)

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Toma
s.

But before we can implememt direct democracy, we must properly educate the voters starting in elementary about formal logic. Criticial thinking and the methods and techniques of propoganda and persuasion and influence to prevent media brainwsshing.


Spot on. I can just imagine if the soccer moms and elderly had all the control, because everyone else would be "too busy" to vote on everything required.

[themack89]

Originally posted by Toma
But before we can implememt direct democracy, we must properly educate the voters starting in elementary about formal logic. Criticial thinking and the methods and techniques of propoganda and persuasion and influence to prevent media brainwsshing.

You have been brainwashed into thinking this is the best way to do it. lol

==================

Eliminate parties and instead candidates run for separate elements of government? IE People elect finance minister, environmental minister, education, etc. As it is right now, we vote for a "bundle" of policies and political beliefs, we cannot pick and choose the parts we prefer, but instead take the good with the bad. This might be a step towards correcting that.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Toma
But before we can implememt direct democracy, we must properly educate the voters starting in elementary about formal logic. Criticial thinking and the methods and techniques of propoganda and persuasion and influence to prevent media brainwsshing.

I've always found it ludicrous that are education system doesn't teach those skills.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by themack89


You have been brainwashed into thinking this is the best way to do it. lol

==================

Eliminate parties and instead candidates run for separate elements of government? IE People elect finance minister, environmental minister, education, etc. As it is right now, we vote for a "bundle" of policies and political beliefs, we cannot pick and choose the parts we prefer, but instead take the good with the bad. This might be a step towards correcting that.

Yes, there would be no political parties.

Switzerland (Direct Democracy) is arguably one of the best governed countries, and one of the best to live in. Can you actually imagine being able to participate in law making and the whole political process? Wow, now that's freedom.

One last quote from the comments in that propaganda article from The Economist:


This article, along with other articles like "Rise of the Parliamentarians" concerns me about the Economist editorial state of mind.

To me, it seems that your institution is advocating a more elitist and dictatorial form of government like the system we have in Canada.

In my country of Canada, our government appoints Senators who are tasked with maintaining checks and balances. It is a joke of a system. As well, our MPs are not accountable and can stray greatly from the will of the people who elected them and not get fired for up to four years. As well, citizens have no say in Canada in proposed legislation. In return, our elections have reduced voter turnouts with each passing election.

Many may praise Canada and Australia for coming thru the great recession relatively unscathed but it is important to note that they did so because both countries had ample natural resources. Not because they had great financial and governance systems!

Effective government requires:
1) Checks and balances with both a legislature and a Senate that are occupied with elected officials.
2) Accountability of MPs and Senators who can be recalled and removed from their post prior to their term ending.
3) With proper thresholds, voter involvement in the creation of legislation is crucial to getting the political system to react to the needs of the represented.
4) Term limits to bring in new blood and rid the system of dead wood.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I've always found it ludicrous that are education system doesn't teach those skills.
Not actually.

It makes perfect sense. DON'T teach the skills, and our market based consumer economy survives.

Teach logic and critical thinking, and suddenly, marketing fails, propaganda fails, war fails, CONTROL fails....

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by themack89


You have been brainwashed into thinking this is the best way to do it. lol

==================

Eliminate parties and instead candidates run for separate elements of government? IE People elect finance minister, environmental minister, education, etc. As it is right now, we vote for a "bundle" of policies and political beliefs, we cannot pick and choose the parts we prefer, but instead take the good with the bad. This might be a step towards correcting that.

The problem is that the ministers' goals are still at the mercy of parliament. If we elected a CPC majority but a NDP finance minister things just aren't going to get done, certainly not the way the minister would want them done. While your system would be great in a perfect world, there would just be too many parts that are not compatible.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Switzerland (Direct Democracy) is arguably one of the best governed countries, and one of the best to live in. Can you actually imagine being able to participate in law making and the whole political process? Wow, now that's freedom.


Certain systems work differently based on demographics. Switzerland is a low population area that’s fairly small and centralized with a relatively homogenous population and culture. What works for them would not necessarily work for say, the US or the UK. The more limited the powers of government the better a democracy can work. The more power a government has, the more your democracy becomes a tyranny of the majority. The last thing I want is the average idiot on the street dictating the way I should live my life.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Switzerland (Direct Democracy) is arguably one of the best governed countries, and one of the best to live in. Can you actually imagine being able to participate in law making and the whole political process? Wow, now that's freedom.
Can you imagine the damage that Quebec & Ontario would do to the West? Your direct democracy would end up with BC/Alberta/Sask having NO say in Federal policies. We would end up being complete economic slaves.

It'd be the two wolves (Ontario & Quebec) and the chicken (Western Provinces) voting over what to have for dinner.

I like this quote..

Expecting "wise" or fair-minded outcomes when the masses are allowed to give free rein to their prejudices at the ballot box is as sensible as expecting to find a literal pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Of far greater importance than adding the voices of the indifferent, the ignorant and the immature to the cacophony of idiocy which already comprises most public discourse, is institutionalizing safeguards which will help to rein in the worst tendencies of the canaille electorate, safeguards such as a solid constitution, judicial independence, a division of political powers which serves to immobilize the political classes in stalemate much of the time, and an electoral system which effectively silences the most extreme voices.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by codetrap

Can you imagine the damage that Quebec & Ontario would do to the West? Your direct democracy would end up with BC/Alberta/Sask having NO say in Federal policies. We would end up being complete economic slaves.

Hello again Codetrap.

We would end up being economic slaves?

There is no "we would become economic slaves", as we already ARE slaves to Quebec.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Hello again Codetrap.

We would end up being economic slaves?

There is no "we would become economic slaves", as we already ARE slaves to Quebec. Yeah LOL.. I guess that's true. But if direct democracy were to take root, then we would most likely end up being literal slaves. There would be nothing preventing the complete pillaging of the Western economies in order to feed the Quebec appetie' for handouts, and Ontario's pretensions of being the center of the universe.

Case in point.. the direct democracy inside the telus union during the merging of the unions. Almost to a man the Alberta unions voted against merging, and the BC unions voted for it, because alberta was outnumber almost 2 to 1, guess what happened. No more alberta union.. next thing up was a strike.

Or the safeway strike.. every single part-timer that was able voted to accept the deal, and NOT go on strike. The lifer's overrode them, and in the end the part-timers got the complete shaft in order to appease the lifers. The kicker, the lifers in charge of scheduling set it up so that the part timers were unable to vote by bringing in almost every single part-timer to work shift during the votes.