Direct Democracy

[Pliny]

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 ?

It is a good system Michael but it is not static and the increasing dissent is the evidence of it's progression away from what you hold so dear.

[Bortron]

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?

Well I suppose the people we would elect to implement the legislation would also propose it. With this kind of a system our elected officials would simply lose the power that they really shouldn't have anyways. They would bring up the issues and we would decide what course of action we want them to take on the issues. This would be true democracy, no party nonsense. In fact party politics could be eliminated altogether. We would lobby our elected officials to propose the legislation we want; once proposed we vote.

[g_bambino]

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

I only wish!!!!

There may be some aspects of the Swiss system that are worth considering for Canada, but it could not be transplanted whole into this country. Canada's too regionally diverse and our population is more than three times the size. Plus, there's the voter fatigue and dubious results (like the ludicrous minaret ban) that've already been noted by others.

[c/e]

Edited October 16, 2010 by g_bambino

[grainfedprairieboy]

Nope.

That's because some guy in a goatee or a woman in comfortable shoes taught you otherwise and I will never convince you that your current moral and ethical beliefs are little more then a passing fancy in the grand scheme of things and are in no way some barometer of how things should be.

There is only one constant in human history and that is might makes right and might always comes in the form of a majority either electing it or tolerating it. You can suppress any people or any idea for only so long before it takes over.

[dre]

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 with this is the same problem you would have if you asked an auto-mechanic to make a decision on say... corporate accounting.

On any given issue 99% of those voting would have absolutely no knowledge or expertise on the subject.

Try this at home for fun! Devise some sort of project where decisions have to be made... build a porch or whatever... except instead of consulting a carpenter or drawing on knowledge from the construction industry, just have members of your family vote for what to do at each point along the way where you have to make a decision.

See how your porch is all fucked up? Its not square and plumb, the wrong fasteners were used, and its sitting on inadequate footings.

Now build another porch but this time hire a carpenter or make your decisions based on knowledge you draw from the carpenty industry... Chances are it will turn out much nicer.

TIP: You can burn the democratically built porch in a little fire pit, or have it hauled away to a landfill, if its cluttering up your yard.

[CANADIEN]

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

Wow.

You twisted what I said to imply that I am in favour of dictatorships and against democracy, when it is clear that my argument is against the use of democaracy to deny people's rights. Better luck next time.

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.

Actually, it is not, no matter how you want to put it otherwise.

Unless you want to argue that the right to vote, or the right to equality under the law, are not basic rights?

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.

My ideology is that basic rights trumps other considerations, except in very limited cases.

Feel free of course to point out to any example you want to muster of minorities trampling on the rights of the people. Will simply add to my point that the right of the individual are paramount.

Edited October 16, 2010 by CANADIEN

[Bortron]

The problem with this is the same problem you would have if you asked an auto-mechanic to make a decision on say... corporate accounting.

On any given issue 99% of those voting would have absolutely no knowledge or expertise on the subject.

Try this at home for fun! Devise some sort of project where decisions have to be made... build a porch or whatever... except instead of consulting a carpenter or drawing on knowledge from the construction industry, just have members of your family vote for what to do at each point along the way where you have to make a decision.

See how your porch is all fucked up? Its not square and plumb, the wrong fasteners were used, and its sitting on inadequate footings.

Now build another porch but this time hire a carpenter or make your decisions based on knowledge you draw from the carpenty industry... Chances are it will turn out much nicer.

TIP: You can burn the democratically built porch in a little fire pit, or have it hauled away to a landfill, if its cluttering up your yard.

Well I think the voting is a great idea to make the whole family happy, but I would hire a carpenter to implement the ideas we voted on, which is why I said we would elect officials to implement the legislation.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Bortron

[Jerry J. Fortin]

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 ?

Substantive change. To date we have had lip service and grandstanding yet a lack of action from the standpoint of the average citizen. For the most part folks and the government are on opposite sides of the street. Yet the few dominate the many by means available to them for their own advantages. That is the political reality of the current system. There is reason to believe that would change using a direct democracy system. On the one hand, you can be sure that a more social friendly government agenda is supported, but on the other hand a free willed society determines its own fate.

A more functional system developed for future use will likely promote education and research within a governmental framework. From my viewpoint I see more bureaucracy not less and I find it troubling. The entire direction society takes depend on the political will of the citizen. That will must be carefully formatted and even filtered to achieve prosperity and longevity. Those two goals are the only ones of relevance to society as a whole. The one thing we all share is that we all want to die old and happy, and there is room to build on our commonalities. That is the direction I seek. One of commonality not division with my fellow citizens. We should be all over the concept of nation building.

[CANADIEN]

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.

My argument is not against democracy. It is against using the tools of democracy (either representative or direct democracy) to trample on or negate people's rights.

As for the rest of your posting, I would tend to disagree as to your interpretation of the role of government. But that's another debate.

[g_bambino]

That's because some guy in a goatee or a woman in comfortable shoes taught you otherwise and I will never convince you that your current moral and ethical beliefs are little more then a passing fancy in the grand scheme of things and are in no way some barometer of how things should be.

Well, first off, as I'm neither a Liberal nor an NDP supporter, I can't say what people in either camp call an elected goverment formed by those in another political party. When I said "nope", I was speaking for myself (I've no idea who this guy with the goatee and the woman in comfortable shoes are supposed to be): I certainly wouldn't automatically call an elected government a tyranny of the majority; I'd need to know within what framework that government exists. In ours, we have a constitution, a parliamentary opposition, a judiciary, and a sovereign to restrain the government's actions. Shifting all those safe-guards over to the electorate would, though, result in a tyranny of the majority. You wouldn't support such a scenario if you ever found yourself in the minority.

[Michael Hardner]

Substantive change. To date we have had lip service and grandstanding yet a lack of action from the standpoint of the average citizen. For the most part folks and the government are on opposite sides of the street. Yet the few dominate the many by means available to them for their own advantages.

Advantages for whom ? What kind of change ?

That is the political reality of the current system. There is reason to believe that would change using a direct democracy system. On the one hand, you can be sure that a more social friendly government agenda is supported, but on the other hand a free willed society determines its own fate.

What is a social friendly government agenda ? Why do you think that this will come to pass with direct democracy where it hasn't already ?

A more functional system developed for future use will likely promote education and research within a governmental framework. From my viewpoint I see more bureaucracy not less and I find it troubling. The entire direction society takes depend on the political will of the citizen. That will must be carefully formatted and even filtered to achieve prosperity and longevity. Those two goals are the only ones of relevance to society as a whole. The one thing we all share is that we all want to die old and happy, and there is room to build on our commonalities. That is the direction I seek. One of commonality not division with my fellow citizens. We should be all over the concept of nation building.

I don't see how bureaucracy would lessen with direct democracy. Can you explain ? In fact, I could see people voting to approve all kinds of extra rules and mechanisms on top of what we have today.

I think the society we have built is good, but that governments could streamline service delivery and be more efficient at it. As such, I think that converting government agencies to service delivery organizations and moving them away from political entities would be a better move. Less political interference would make these entities easier to manage.

We could open up committees to more online discussion, and that would be more direct and democratic for sure. The committees I see on CPAC are a complete waste of resources, and seem to move too slowly to gather not enough information. But these things can all be done with tweaks to our current system, not wholesale change. Large changes will have unforeseen results, they always do.

[CANADIEN]

There is only one constant in human history and that is might makes right and might always comes in the form of a majority either electing it or tolerating it.

Actually, the might has usually come in the form of who has the most weaponry.

But if you so strongly believe that might makes right, feel free to put it to the test anytime. How about a binding referendum on whether or not you should be allowed to retain the right to vote and to even express an opinion. I am sure you would respect the might of the majority and shut up if you lost, right

[eyeball]

And every time this issue comes up I ask again - why ? Is our system so bad that it needs an overhaul like this ?

I certainly wouldn't use referendum for every single issue, but yes our system is so bad that it definitely needs an overhaul.

What are we supposed to achieve by going this way that we haven't achieved until now ?

A better system, I presume.

[Michael Hardner]

I certainly wouldn't use referendum for every single issue, but yes our system is so bad that it definitely needs an overhaul. A better system, I presume.

Better how ? Why ? The complaints about our system are so general, yet the results of a complete overhaul could be painful in very specific ways.

[Jack Weber]

That's because some guy in a goatee or a woman in comfortable shoes taught you otherwise and I will never convince you that your current moral and ethical beliefs are little more then a passing fancy in the grand scheme of things and are in no way some barometer of how things should be.

There is only one constant in human history and that is might makes right and might always comes in the form of a majority either electing it or tolerating it. You can suppress any people or any idea for only so long before it takes over.

Right...

Because your superior Albertan intellect gives you the superhuman ability to be in on something that the rest of us simply don't have the intellectual capacity to understand...

You really think your Albertan Libertarianism is an idea who's time is coming???

Interesting you talk about collectivism....

I wonder what your Albertan Libertarianism allows you to feel about the collectivism of organization of workers against their employer?

Edited October 16, 2010 by Jack Weber

[grainfedprairieboy]

Actually, the might has usually come in the form of who has the most weaponry.

Any student of military history will tell you that if you boil it down weaponry and quantity or even quality does not win wars - wealth wins wars.

But if you so strongly believe that might makes right,

Ghandi and his Satyagraha was a force of such might it bought Indian independence whereas no amount of guns or diplomacy could. Right or wrong, the will of every person over another, of every state or nation or culture over another is based on might.

Would you speed in front of a traffic cop if you were in a hurry? No? Then might makes right because he is controlling you through the authority vested in him.

feel free to put it to the test anytime. How about a binding referendum on whether or not you should be allowed to retain the right to vote and to even express an opinion. I am sure you would respect the might of the majority and shut up if you lost, right

Here is part of your problem. You (liberals in general) feel that they should be able to argue in favour of anything until such time as they have "won" then all debate is supposed to stop.

But in any democratic society where culture is virtually determined, if not defined through government legislation and interference then there can be no "binding" referendum but rather little more then respect for the sentiment of the public at the moment.

Edited October 16, 2010 by grainfedprairieboy

[CANADIEN]

Any student of military history will tell you that if you boil it down weaponry and quantity or even quality does not win wars - wealth wins wars.

Ghandi and his Satyagraha was a force of such might it bought Indian independence whereas no amount of guns or diplomacy could. Right or wrong, the will of every person over another, of every state or nation or culture over another is based on might.

Would you speed in front of a traffic cop if you were in a hurry? No? Then might makes right because he is controlling you through the authority vested in him.

Here is part of your problem. You (liberals in general) feel that they should be able to argue in favour of anything until such time as they have "won" then all debate is supposed to stop.

But in any democratic society where culture is virtually determined, if not defined through government legislation and interference then there can be no "binding" referendum but rather little more then respect for the sentiment of the public at the moment.

All this to boil down to one point. You want public decision making to be decided through direct democracy even when the decisions violate individual rights, but when shown an hypothetical case when it could turn against you come with some non-sense like "there can be no binding refererendum". There is no point in a referendum if it not binding on the ligslatures.

BTW, funny how you define me as a "Liberal"; you obviously don't know me. As for debating for something, yes I will do it for as long as I want, and feel totally free to do as well. If anything, you will provide some entertainment.

[grainfedprairieboy]

All this to boil down to one point. You want public decision making to be decided through direct democracy even when the decisions violate individual rights, but when shown an hypothetical case when it could turn against you come with some non-sense like "there can be no binding refererendum". There is no point in a referendum if it not binding on the ligslatures.

Every law by nature violates someones individual right. That is what laws do. They govern, steer or otherwise control your existence and when you violate them your liberties are further denied. It is a vicious circle.

And what you perceive as nonsense I see as perfect sense. No law is absolute and will always evolve as does society. I think it is the absolute height of arrogance that anyone would think their current morals and ethics are the absolute pinnacle of evolution and should somehow be enshrined forever. I understand fully that what is right today is wrong tomorrow and our laws must reflect the will of the people at the moment.

BTW, funny how you define me as a "Liberal"; you obviously don't know me.

Fill me in. Tell me all about yourself. I genuinely like to know who people are and what makes them think the way they do.

As for debating for something, yes I will do it for as long as I want, and feel totally free to do as well. If anything, you will provide some entertainment.

You miss my point. Some people who advocate a certain position believe that once their goal has been achieved any further discussion is unacceptable. Abortion or SSM are two easy examples.

[eyeball]

Better how ? Why ? The complaints about our system are so general, yet the results of a complete overhaul could be painful in very specific ways.

Transparency transparency transparency is all I can say Michael.

We just had the biggest salmon run in a hundred years (2$ billion dollars worth by some estimates) swim right past the 3rd largest fishing port in BC and fishermen here were not allowed to catch a single one. Somehow the fish pretty much all wound up in the hands of billionaires like Jimmy Pattison and Galen Weston who control most of B.C.s fishing and processing capacity.

I can't think of anything that explains this other than grotesque mismanagement, corruption or both. Well...I suspect old Jimmy and Weston would call it stellar mismanagement...go figure.

Why the trollers of Area G have suffered years of this sort of indifference and dispossession of opportunity would probably just sound like another general complaint as far as most Canadians are concerned. I fail to see why we should give any more of rat's ass about any that we hear other Canadians making.

[CANADIEN]

And what you perceive as nonsense I see as perfect sense. No law is absolute and will always evolve as does society. I think it is the absolute height of arrogance that anyone would think their current morals and ethics are the absolute pinnacle of evolution and should somehow be enshrined forever. I understand fully that what is right today is wrong tomorrow and our laws must reflect the will of the people at the moment.

I don't particularly care about what things will be like 10000 years from now. That being said, the rights of the individuals are paramount, and that does not change because the majority, or those who wield power, ignore it. If that's arrogance, so be it. Beats claiming there is no moral and ethical absolute But since you want to play the "there is no absolute morals or ethics when claiming that the only acceptable modes of governance are those that reflect the will of the people.

[CANADIEN]

You miss my point. Some people who advocate a certain position believe that once their goal has been achieved any further discussion is unacceptable. Abortion or SSM are two easy examples.

Your point is that "Liberals" do it. That characteristic is not confined to one end or spot on the political spectrum.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Your point is that "Liberals" do it. That characteristic is not confined to one end or spot on the political spectrum.

OK, give me a single example of a Conservative ideological victory where it became illegal to protest following their win and subsequent legislative change.

pas de touche in advance.

[Jack Weber]

OK, give me a single example of a Conservative ideological victory where it became illegal to protest following their win and subsequent legislative change.

pas de touche in advance.

Any Fascistic gov't in Europe in the middle part of the 2oth century...

Any Fascistic gov't in Latin America that bloodily took power becuase of a coup,(albeit against Communist scum that would have done the same thing)

Or are you one of these LibertariCon putz's that actually thinks Fascism is a construct of the political Left?

Edited October 16, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Shwa]

OK, give me a single example of a Conservative ideological victory where it became illegal to protest following their win and subsequent legislative change.

pas de touche in advance.

Oka.

[grainfedprairieboy]

Any Fascistic gov't in Europe in the middle part of the 2oth century...

Any Fascistic gov't in Latin America that bloodily took power becuase of a coup,(albeit against Communist scum that would have done the same thing)

Or are you one of these LibertariCon putz's that actually thinks Fascism is a construct of the political Left?

What a g/d ridiculous train of thought. Comparing fascists in Latin America to Canadian Conservatives is like comparing Pol Pot to Chretien or the Liberal Party to the Soviet Communist Party.