Direct Democracy

[bush_cheney2004]

No different to anywhere else at any other point in time. "We the People" has always been an American myth; the constitution of the United States was never voted on by the people and didn't even get unanimous consent from state representatives....

"We the People" in the preamble of the US Constitution was intended for the direct establishment of a republic with sovereignty derived from citizens, not the "myth" of a biological (blood-line) monarch.

[myata]

We are educated, but you still have large numbers of people who don't know who the PM is, how Canada works and so on. My view is: these people aren't interested, so we shouldn't try to include them.

We would do well to involve those with opinions, such as those on MLW.

Somehow I doubt that MLW can be a meaningful replacement to empowerment and responsibility conveyed by direct participation in democratic process. It's more like venting out with no consequence in reality. Just the opposite of what's need to make busy self absorbed people spend more time on things political.

I agree with the point of the thread that we're certainly lacking in direct democracy much more than can be written off to the challenges of technology. For instance I would make any military participation in combat role abroad a matter of unconditional referendum.

Edited October 19, 2010 by myata

[Michael Hardner]

Somehow I doubt that MLW can be a meaningful replacement to empowerment and responsibility conveyed by direct participation in democratic process. It's more like venting out with no consequence in reality. Just the opposite of what's need to make busy self absorbed people spend more time on things political.

It's already a replacement.

It replaces television, and thus represents a more interactive and responsive medium to debate politics. I don't see how it's the opposite of what's needed - it's an update of the colonial small-town meeting hall, which was the foundation for American democracy.

I believe this was quoted elsewhere today:

Alexis de Tocqueville quotes:

"In towns it is impossible to prevent men from assembling, getting excited together and forming sudden passionate resolves. Towns are like great meeting houses with all the inhabitants as members. In them the people wield immense influence over their magistrates and often carry their desires into execution without intermediaries."

The townhall you see during elections is a sham. MLW and similar forums are more like the town halls that de Tocqueville references.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[myata]

It's already a replacement.

It replaces television, and thus represents a more interactive and responsive medium to debate politics. I don't see how it's the opposite of what's needed - it's an update of the colonial small-town meeting hall, which was the foundation for American democracy.

First we need to debate the difference between debating and actually making the decision.

[Michael Hardner]

First we need to debate the difference between debating and actually making the decision.

We all make the decision in the voting booth - that hasn't changed, nor should it.

[myata]

We all make the decision in the voting booth - that hasn't changed, nor should it.

The quality of the decision is at issue. If I feel that my decision does not change anything - I'll avoid spending unnecessary cycles even trying.

[Michael Hardner]

The quality of the decision is at issue. If I feel that my decision does not change anything - I'll avoid spending unnecessary cycles even trying.

Your decision is one of millions of decisions that feed into the end result. If you feel that democracy is useless unless your candidate wins, then we probably don't need your participation.

[ToadBrother]

Your decision is one of millions of decisions that feed into the end result. If you feel that democracy is useless unless your candidate wins, then we probably don't need your participation.

A-men! And beyond that, even if we went to direct democracy, your vote on an issue still is one of millions. Myata doesn't really want democracy, he wants a shortcut for his desires to become law.

[jbg]

We have the technology to allow everyone to have the opportunity vote on every piece of legislation, so why are we still electing people to make our decisions for us? Why not have a referendum on every issue? We no longer need to elect anyone to make decisions just to implement them.

The problem I have with direct democracy is the risk of tyranny of the majority. Any liberal system has to in some manner protect the rights of ethnic, political or religious minorities.

[myata]

A-men! And beyond that, even if we went to direct democracy, your vote on an issue still is one of millions. Myata doesn't really want democracy, he wants a shortcut for his desires to become law.

If one doesn't understand the difference between a vote that counts (even out of a million or ten or hundred) and the one that's thrown away, then indeed faith in the mercy of All-Mighty is all they should count on. For however long the mercy would last before they finally find that well bitten path of the dinosaurs.

[g_bambino]

If one doesn't understand the difference between a vote that counts (even out of a million or ten or hundred) and the one that's thrown away, then indeed faith in the mercy of All-Mighty is all they should count on. For however long the mercy would last before they finally find that well bitten path of the dinosaurs.

Well then, I hope you enjoy playing with your pet Brontosaurus.

[ToadBrother]

If one doesn't understand the difference between a vote that counts (even out of a million or ten or hundred) and the one that's thrown away, then indeed faith in the mercy of All-Mighty is all they should count on. For however long the mercy would last before they finally find that well bitten path of the dinosaurs.

Direct democracy predates representative democracy, and was rejected a long time ago because it lead to mobocracy. It seems what you want is dinosaurs.

[eyeball]

Well, as Churchill's old saying goes: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others."

How does this translate into a prescription for never trying to enhance or improve or even tweak democracy on occasion?

It'll probably be just as pointless as those others if it doesn't change with the times.

[g_bambino]

How does this translate into a prescription for never trying to enhance or improve or even tweak democracy on occasion?

It doesn't.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Direct democracy predates representative democracy, and was rejected a long time ago because it lead to mobocracy. It seems what you want is dinosaurs.

Nonsense! It was abandoned because it was found unworkable on a scale much larger than that of a village. They had no functional means of communication beyond word of mouth, at the time. That has changed, as well as we have.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nonsense! It was abandoned because it was found unworkable on a scale much larger than that of a village. They had no functional means of communication beyond word of mouth, at the time. That has changed, as well as we have.

Except all our technology that allows this is very open to tampering. Actually let's do it, me and my friends will single handedly control the country.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Except all our technology that allows this is very open to tampering. Actually let's do it, me and my friends will single handedly control the country.

It doesn't need to get too complicated in order for the system to work. What is truly desired is a system where the citizens are afforded the opportunity to participate, not legislated to do so. Folks that take the time to inform themselves of the issues, study them, and finally vote on them deserve the right to legislate as much as the next person or politician.

This system is not for kids to mess around with, it is not for the faint of heart either. No more powerful democratic system exists, another of the reasons of its demise was indeed mob rule.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It doesn't need to get too complicated in order for the system to work. What is truly desired is a system where the citizens are afforded the opportunity to participate, not legislated to do so. Folks that take the time to inform themselves of the issues, study them, and finally vote on them deserve the right to legislate as much as the next person or politician.

This system is not for kids to mess around with, it is not for the faint of heart either. No more powerful democratic system exists, another of the reasons of its demise was indeed mob rule.

And how would you set up a system that would give everyone the potential to vote in such matters without it being easily susceptible to tampering?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And how would you set up a system that would give everyone the potential to vote in such matters without it being easily susceptible to tampering?

Perhaps we step back and think about it for a moment. We have numerous already proven secure systems from which to choose from. The financial sector comes to mind as the prime source of existing system we could utilize. You can now access your bank account from your cell phone so now it seems to me that its already in the works.

Look at it as a paradigm and you will see what can really be done about it.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Perhaps we step back and think about it for a moment. We have numerous already proven secure systems from which to choose from. The financial sector comes to mind as the prime source of existing system we could utilize. You can now access your bank account from your cell phone so now it seems to me that its already in the works.

Look at it as a paradigm and you will see what can really be done about it.

If you think those systems are secure you've got another thing coming.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

If you think those systems are secure you've got another thing coming.

No system is perfect, but there are probably a billion people who utilize such systems everyday, for their own personal affairs. Surely you would find some collective trust in it.

[myata]

Direct democracy predates representative democracy, and was rejected a long time ago because it lead to mobocracy. It seems what you want is dinosaurs.

Nope, just want my vote count. And I'm note going to play into any system where it does not. And hope that everybody who values their time and intelligence will stop, eventually. It seems to be the only way to make some real change happen.

[Michael Hardner]

Folks that take the time to inform themselves of the issues, study them, and finally vote on them deserve the right to legislate as much as the next person or politician.

This system is not for kids to mess around with, it is not for the faint of heart either. No more powerful democratic system exists, another of the reasons of its demise was indeed mob rule.

'Deserve' to legislate ? Millions of people can't ALL legislate, it's unworkable.

Democracy is a responsibility as well as a right. The idea that you deserve anything from voting, other than an elected party and leader is, to my mind, a reflection of consumerist society onto civic life.

And the reasons given for this on this thread continue to be airy, and non-specific calls for "more democracy" without explaining specifics. I ask again for a specific example of how such a system would take an idea, process it through debate and make it law. And how would our society change as a result ?

[Michael Hardner]

Nope, just want my vote count. And I'm note going to play into any system where it does not. And hope that everybody who values their time and intelligence will stop, eventually. It seems to be the only way to make some real change happen.

Again, this is abstract. You can only make change happen if you have numbers behind you. Your vote counts every time. 5% of the country doesn't get to dictate to the other 95% - that isn't workable.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

'Deserve' to legislate ? Millions of people can't ALL legislate, it's unworkable.

Democracy is a responsibility as well as a right. The idea that you deserve anything from voting, other than an elected party and leader is, to my mind, a reflection of consumerist society onto civic life.

And the reasons given for this on this thread continue to be airy, and non-specific calls for "more democracy" without explaining specifics. I ask again for a specific example of how such a system would take an idea, process it through debate and make it law. And how would our society change as a result ?

Its called referendum. Happens all the time in the States, with damned near every election, works fine for them. Happens with very nearly all legislation in Switzerland and they love it. WE had one referendum here in my life, about Quebec.