Direct Democracy

[Bortron]

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.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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.

Look at the Swiss system, its been working for decades.

I only wish!!!!

[Smallc]

Look at the Swiss system, its been working for decades.

That's funny, because our system has been working for centuries.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

There are many problems with this idea. The first two I`d list are: a change like this is too risky, and there`s no one calling for it - there`s no problem happening today that this solves.

How would such a thing even work ?

Edited October 16, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That's funny, because our system has been working for centuries.

Thats right, its an updated more democratically advanced system than ours. It therefore has been around for less time.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There are many problems with this idea. The first two I`d list are: a change like this is too risky, and there`s no one calling for it - there`s no problem happening today that this solves.

How would such a thing even work ?

I would and could work, as is proven is the nation where it was first tried.

[Michael Hardner]

Thats right, its an updated more democratically advanced system than ours. It therefore has been around for less time.

Newness or oldness of things isn't - by itself - justification for anything.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Newness or oldness of things isn't - by itself - justification for anything.

Very true! The Swiss situation and its history are rather unique to say the least, yet not really relevant from other than an historical perspective.

The Swiss have justified it to themselves and adopted it. We would need to study it and reach our own conclusions of course. I favour the system over ours, but that is just me. They, the Swiss, are nuetral. No power bloc for them. Smart play.

[CANADIEN]

I would and could work, as is proven is the nation where it was first tried.

There are referendums on so many things in Switzerland (I remember reading once about a local referendum on the amount of the allocation soldiers were to receive for cleaning their uniforms!) that the turn out on cantonal referendums is not much better than what we have on our lections. When overdone, referendums do not bring higher participation.

.Besides, referendums are not always the best way to decide issues of public policies, especially when it comes to human rights. To use Switzerland's example, it was the last Western republic where women were granted the right to vote, after various attempts had been defeated in... yes, referendums.

Edited October 16, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Jerry J. Fortin]

There are referendums on so many things in Switzerland (I remember reading once about a local referendum on the amount of the allocation soldiers were to receive for cleaning their uniforms!) that the turn out on cantonal referendums is not much better than what we have on our lections. When overdone, referendums do not bring higher participation.

.Besides, referendums are not always the best way to decide issues of public policies, especially when it comes to human rights. To use Switzerland's example, it was the last Western republic where women were granted the right to vote, after various attempts had been defeated in... yes, referendums.

It like any other system is not perfect. The only thing is the citizens DO have a say in legislative efforts.

[grainfedprairieboy]

.Besides, referendums are not always the best way to decide issues of public policies, especially when it comes to human rights. To use Switzerland's example, it was the last Western republic where women were granted the right to vote, after various attempts had been defeated in... yes, referendums.

Only a Liberal would argue that a benevolent left wing dictator is better then the wishes of a collective but conservative democratic population.

Don't you ever tire of the end's justify the means regardless of how unethical it may be?

True to the spirit of Reform I support referendum, citizens initiatives, MP recall and anything else that directly involves the citizenry in determining their collective political direction. Electing some self serving thud who feels it is their turn at the trough and then mindlessly letting that MP be whipped carte blanche at the discretion of the party leader is probably the reason we average 40% voter turnout.

Edited October 16, 2010 by grainfedprairieboy

[CANADIEN]

Only a Liberal would argue that a benevolent left wing dictator is better then a desire of a conservative democratic population.

I do not know about what a Liberal would argue, but I am most certainly not advocating a dictatorship, left-wing or otherwise.

On the other hand, you sound very much in favour of a dictatorship of the majority trampling on the rights of people.

It's already a fair supposition that you see no problem with the fact Swiss women took longer to achieve voting rights because the (male) electorate didn't want it. But feel free anytime to defend it.

If the issue of segregation had been decided by referendum, black men and women in Mississippi would likely still be seating at the back of the bus and drinking out of separate fountains. Up to the point when he started having them killed, most anti-jewish measures enacted by Hitler would have likely been supported by a majority of Germans had there been free democratic referendums. Any law, any act deny any essential right is disctatorial by nature, no matter how many people support it.

More participation by citizens in the deicisions that affect them is a good thing. I draw the line at when it becomes a tool to deprive people of their rights.

Edited October 16, 2010 by CANADIEN

[grainfedprairieboy]

dictatorship of the majority

Dictatorship of the majority.

Yup. And in your world you can logically trespass with a permit, receive customer service from Air Canada and of course; elect a King.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

I can just feel your contempt for the very concept.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

10s of thousands of Canadians are buried in Europe over two world wars and willingly risked their young lives for what you despise.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

If you say it enough times for me though, it is like music.

Edited October 16, 2010 by grainfedprairieboy

[Evening Star]

I dunno, in practical terms, do you really think most people can afford the time to not only keep track of every single issue but also study them well enough to form informed opinions? It makes sense to me to elect people whose full-time job is to do those things. Who would propose new legislation under this system?

[grainfedprairieboy]

I dunno, in practical terms, do you really think most people can afford the time to not only keep track of every single issue but also study them well enough to form informed opinions? It makes sense to me to elect people whose full-time job is to do those things. Who would propose new legislation under this system?

I'm saying this with the utmost respect and nonflaming intent that I can muster:

Then you'd deserve what you get.

Edited October 16, 2010 by grainfedprairieboy

[bush_cheney2004]

....If the issue of segregation had been decided by referendum, black men and women in Mississippi would likely still be seating at the back of the bus and drinking out of separate fountains.

The issue of segregation was legally instantiated by the US Supreme Court and associated "democratic" processes (Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)). Similar egregious policies were established in Canada under "democracy" for Asians, Natives, Blacks, etc.

Edited October 16, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[CANADIEN]

Dictatorship of the majority.

Yup. And in your world you can logically trespass with a permit, receive customer service from Air Canada and of course; elect a King.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

I can just feel your contempt for the very concept.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

10s of thousands of Canadians are buried in Europe over two world wars and willingly risked their young lives for what you despise.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

Dictatorship of the majority.

If you say it enough times for me though, it is like music.

Congratulations for the way you take three words out of context, twist them around, adn TRY to make it sound like I dislike democracy.

Too bad (for you) that it will not work. Democracy (direct or representative) is the best societal government system (although I always chuckle at Churchill's quote about democracy being the worst system except for all othersthat has been tried).

That being said, even democracy has its limits in the basic rights of the individuals. An decision, any act that goes against those rights is dictatorial in nature, regardless of how many people may support it.

Interestingly, you choose to distort what I am arguing instead of trying to counter my argument. Usual tactics by som on the right. Better luck next time.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I'm saying this with the utmost respect and nonflaming intent that I can muster:

Then you'd deserve what you get.

Ya gotta love that statement !

[Pliny]

I do not know about what a Liberal would argue, but I am most certainly not advocating a dictatorship, left-wing or otherwise.

On the other hand, you sound very much in favour of a dictatorship of the majority trampling on the rights of people.

It's already a fair supposition that you see no problem with the fact Swiss women took longer to achieve voting rights because the (male) electorate didn't want it. But feel free anytime to defend it.

If the issue of segregation had been decided by referendum, black men and women in Mississippi would likely still be seating at the back of the bus and drinking out of separate fountains. Up to the point when he started having them killed, most anti-jewish measures enacted by Hitler would have likely been supported by a majority of Germans had there been free democratic referendums. Any law, any act deny any essential right is disctatorial by nature, no matter how many people support it.

More participation by citizens in the deicisions that affect them is a good thing. I draw the line at when it becomes a tool to deprive people of their rights.

This is a good argument against democracy. But actually, I believe the mandate of a national government is the basic problem. A law must, in order to be just, apply to all equally and all must equally agree to have it applied. The diversity of the population's needs and wants makes it difficult for a consensus to be reached which means government at the national level should have a very general mandate. Dealing with justice, not necessarily criminality which could be determined more locally, international affairs and national defense. It should not be involved in things like education, women's affairs, multiculturalism, health care, etc. and should definitely leave the economy alone.

A referendum on things the federal government wished to initiate or enact would then be a possibility since it would concern only very general issues common to everyone's interests and not involved with favour to any special interests. Our democracy has deteriorated to a democracy of special interests.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Pliny

[grainfedprairieboy]

That being said, even democracy has its limits in the basic rights of the individuals. An decision, any act that goes against those rights is dictatorial in nature, regardless of how many people may support it.

You chastise me and accuse me of taking your words out of context then say the above all in the same post.

Wow.

How can you be so arrogant as to think that the will of the majority is only valid so long as their decision coexists with your personal interpretation of right and wrong?

And that is precisely what you are implying.

Ethical and moral beliefs in society ebb and flow with the centuries. What remains a constant is some men believing they should be allowed to control or influence others and as such they seek power like dictators, or defend and promote religion like priests and religious fanatics or subscribe to a political ideology and promote it without thinking like yourself.

There is simply no real justification for your ideology and for every example you can dredge up of an injustice a majority ever visited upon a minority, I could up you tenfold with injustices levied by a fanatical minority on a majority.

[Evening Star]

I'm saying this with the utmost respect and nonflaming intent that I can muster:

Then you'd deserve what you get.

I never pretended otherwise!

[Michael Hardner]

And every time this issue comes up I ask again - why ? Is our system so bad that it needs an overhaul like this ? What are we supposed to achieve by going this way that we haven't achieved until now ?

[g_bambino]

Only a Liberal would argue that a benevolent left wing dictator is better then the wishes of a collective but conservative democratic population.

Libertarian hyperbole. Ever heard of the phenomenon known as tyranny of the majority?

[grainfedprairieboy]

Libertarian hyperbole. Ever heard of the phenomenon known as tyranny of the majority?

Of course, that's what Liberals and Dippers call absolutely any elected government they don't control.

[g_bambino]

Of course, that's what Liberals and Dippers call absolutely any elected government they don't control.

Nope.