Direct Democracy

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Did you read the report ? It's about setting up ways to engage people into the process - which is exactly what you're talking about.

I read it, all 91 pages of it. Good read.

[Michael Hardner]

I read it, all 91 pages of it. Good read.

Isn't it ? You get a sense of how government could change but not just because of technology, with technology. The collaborative model of governance would address concerns of both the right and the left that we near so often today: alienation, wrong priorities, inefficiency.

[eyeball]

You are being rather vague...

Are you talking about the west coast of Vancouver Island? WHO specifically should have been allowed to fish that wasn't allowed?

Yes I'm talking about trollers that fish on the WCVI and the Queen Charlotte Islands.

[eyeball]

Isn't it ? You get a sense of how government could change but not just because of technology, with technology. The collaborative model of governance would address concerns of both the right and the left that we near so often today: alienation, wrong priorities, inefficiency.

Since when did this become an issue between the left and right? What about the concerns of the top and bottom, the government and the governed? That seems way more important from where I'm sitting.

[Michael Hardner]

Since when did this become an issue between the left and right? What about the concerns of the top and bottom, the government and the governed? That seems way more important from where I'm sitting.

I'm saying left- and right- perspective citizens have concerns that are addressed by new engagement models.

Your perspective is consistently fatalistic. You see the government as plotting against us, from what I can see. Now, we can set up the system to safeguard against negligence, laziness, and even some abuse but you can't make an efficient system where everything is absolutely nailed down as if the people running it were convicts.

If things are that bad, then we're too sick to have a government.

[g_bambino]

You'd rather we wait until everyone is cranky?

How about at least a majority? Complaints from a minority of one really isn't sufficient justification for constitutional overhaul.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We could do well to look at the whole system, and decide what we can do about it. This should be the mandate of the next government.

[wyly]

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

I only wish!!!!

the swiss still have an elected assembly...

[wyly]

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.

and how do you intend to discuss the issues if you have no representatives? have 15 million people haggle it out on a chat forum?

and most canadians aren't capable of making a sensible decision...nor are many MP's...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

the swiss still have an elected assembly...

Sure they do! You still elect representatives, it does not eliminate partisan efforts at all.

[ToadBrother]

Sure they do! You still elect representatives, it does not eliminate partisan efforts at all.

No, but it does show that you cannot run even a small country on direct democracy. I don't think you could run anything beyond a small city of a few thousand voters on such a model.

But ultimately are we talking about direct democracy here, or just a more formalized form of public input?

[wyly]

Sure they do! You still elect representatives, it does not eliminate partisan efforts at all.

but our representative system allows us (not always successfully)a way of eliminating bigots, fascists, idiots and uniformed from the decision making process, a direct vote allows them back into the process... Edited October 26, 2010 by wyly

[The_Squid]

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 is much more to legislation in Canada than asking the questions "is it a good idea" and "is it the will of the majority". There are legal and Constitutional considerations to good legislation. Is the legislation legal? Will it conform to our Constitution? Potential legislation is debated, changed, debated, changed again and, finally, passed looking quite different to what was proposed at the beginning. Hopefully, that is why we elect politicians to do this "dirty work" for us.

I see no difference between so-called "direct democracy" and ochlocracy, or mob rule. The tyranny of the majority. While "direct democracy" sounds cozy and nice, I don't believe that it is. It is too simplistic.

Here are some problems I could see right off the top of my head:

- special interest money. Legislation would be promoted by those with money, e.g. corporations.

- voter turnout and having a properly informed electorate. Those most likely to turn out to vote would be those that have a stake in the outcome. Engaging people would be a huge issue.

- bad legislation. the average person barely knows what the Constitution says and can't be expected to use it as a guide for voting on laws. The courts would be clogged with cases of bad legislation that they would have to over-turn.

- tyranny of the majority.

Edited October 26, 2010 by The_Squid

[eyeball]

I'm saying left- and right- perspective citizens have concerns that are addressed by new engagement models.

Your perspective is consistently fatalistic. You see the government as plotting against us, from what I can see. Now, we can set up the system to safeguard against negligence, laziness, and even some abuse but you can't make an efficient system where everything is absolutely nailed down as if the people running it were convicts.

Your perspective is consistently...forgiving and apologetic. You must see every government starting every day with a clean slate. I mostly see it as being dangerously indifferent for the most part.

They don't expect to nail down absolutely everything I report in my fishing logs or on the monitoring cameras but they do expect 90% accuracy. If I drop below that I face very stiff and costly consequences. You're quite often talking about clearly auditable methods that allow citizens to rate performance of government services so why not government transparency and veracity? In the case of an engagement model involving the fiercely contested allocation of a valuable natural resource that thousands of people rely on for their livelihoods, how do you safeguard against abuse by the people responsible for doing the allocating?

If things are that bad, then we're too sick to have a government.

If we can't figure out how to share resources when things are still relatively good just wait until things are not so good. Everyone will be at war with everyone in no time flat.

Toadbrother asks;

But ultimately are we talking about direct democracy here, or just a more formalized form of public input?

That too, but what's wrong with a more formalized form of transparency?

Michael, surely to Christ you are aware of the HUGE issue vast numbers of people have with trust when it comes to the government.

[ToadBrother]

Michael, surely to Christ you are aware of the HUGE issue vast numbers of people have with trust when it comes to the government.

History indicates we should be just as dubious about the vast numbers of people. Socrates was forced to drink hemlock tea by the decree of the majority.

[eyeball]

History indicates we should be just as dubious about the vast numbers of people. Socrates was forced to drink hemlock tea by the decree of the majority.

Yes but what this does this have to do with transparency, nothing, right?

[Michael Hardner]

Your perspective is consistently...forgiving and apologetic. You must see every government starting every day with a clean slate. I mostly see it as being dangerously indifferent for the most part.

I would say that you have to make basic assumptions about government - that they are speaking in good faith. That said, there's no reason to trust them any more or less than any other entity. But if you have their stated goals and plans documented, you can at least hold them to their word.

They don't expect to nail down absolutely everything I report in my fishing logs or on the monitoring cameras but they do expect 90% accuracy. If I drop below that I face very stiff and costly consequences. You're quite often talking about clearly auditable methods that allow citizens to rate performance of government services so why not government transparency and veracity? In the case of an engagement model involving the fiercely contested allocation of a valuable natural resource that thousands of people rely on for their livelihoods, how do you safeguard against abuse by the people responsible for doing the allocating?

Of course we're talking about measuring government performance, and holding them to their word.

How do you safeguard against abuse ? You ask questions. You force them to explain their planning, their assumption, and the names of the scientists and the scientific institutions that they rely on for expertise.

Then you measure their results and whether they were correct or not.

But if you think that they're lying - that there's a conspiracy from the get-go then why would you even listen to them ? You would take another tack: cheat, or get out of the business, or publicize the corruption.

From what I remember of your example, you didn't have evidence that there was corruption but it seemed that they were just not being responsive.

If we can't figure out how to share resources when things are still relatively good just wait until things are not so good. Everyone will be at war with everyone in no time flat.

Yes, I agree. But in order to figure that out, there has to be a measure of trust from the outset. If not, then you need to start over. But even when you start over, the new system will have to assume basic good faith on the part of the arbiters.

Toadbrother asks;

That too, but what's wrong with a more formalized form of transparency?

Michael, surely to Christ you are aware of the HUGE issue vast numbers of people have with trust when it comes to the government.

Of course. But we trust the government more than we don't or society would fall apart. If people didn't trust the legal system, there would be rampant lawlessness. If people didn't trust the social system, there would be class revolt. If people didn't trust environmental safeguards, then the safeguards themselves would be flouted and we wouldn't drink our water. If people didn't trust the financial system, people would hoard cash and they wouldn't pay taxes.

We know this, because these are problems that have been rampant in other places or in other times.