Direct Democracy Canada

[Huron]

I'm posting to let people know about the new Direct Democracy Canada site.

Direct Democracy Canada is dedicated to the development and support of direct democracy in Canada.

If you're interested in participating in the creation of a true democracy in Canada, please visit us. We need your ideas.

Direct Democracy Canada is a non-partisan site.

[Guest eureka]

The initial problem I have with your idea is your assumption that Direct Democracy is "true" democracy.

In a modern state, direct democracy is rule of the ignorant by the ignorant for no people's advantage. I am assuming that you are thinking of referenda and like devices.

Or do you see gatherings in the marketplaces?

[Slavik44]

hmm...I came to a different conclusion the site jumps over all talk about How it would be implemented except for a paragraph or two that are supposed to address the question but completely ignore it. Even than a few paragraphs could never address the question of how. So I you are more than just a one tiem post/advertiser my advice to you woudl be to seriously research and explain the how, because as nice as the idea is until you ahve covered the how you are just insulting people.

[Huron]

Sorry, haven't had the opportunity to post a response before now.

The initial problem I have with your idea is your assumption that Direct Democracy is "true" democracy.

As concerns my 'assumption', a definition of democracy is:

Literally, the term means power of the people (combining the Greek words demos, meaning "the people," and kratien, meaning "to rule").

'Nuff said?

In a modern state, direct democracy is rule of the ignorant by the ignorant for no people's advantage.

A clever statement. Of course, you have some evidence to back it up?

Here's a tip. Try change 'direct' in the above to 'representative' and think about the Canada.

Or do you see gatherings in the marketplaces?

Uh, no. I think available technology allows us to be a bit more creative. But hey, you want to get on board and meet in a marketplace, that's up to you. We're open to ideas from all.

my advice to you woudl be to seriously research and explain the how, because as nice as the idea is until you ahve covered the how you are just insulting people.

Thank-you.

If I had any desire to develop a proposed direct democracy system for Canada solely from my own mind, I wouldn't have included the 'If you're interested in participating in the creation of a true democracy in Canada, please visit us. We need your ideas.' statements. I don't think asking people for their input is 'insulting'.

I'm sorry if there was any confusion about the purpose of the DDC site, which is not to present a finalized product for people to buy into but, is rather to obtain input from Canadians as to the nature of a direct democracy system that could best meet Canadian needs.

I posted the DDC link here because this is after all a Canadian political forum and as such might be expected to have at least some members who might be interested in pursuing the direct democracy concept and have some creative thoughts to provide to the same.

No harm in trying.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sorry, haven't had the opportunity to post a response before now.

The initial problem I have with your idea is your assumption that Direct Democracy is "true" democracy.

As concerns my 'assumption', a definition of democracy is:

Literally, the term means power of the people (combining the Greek words demos, meaning "the people," and kratien, meaning "to rule").

'Nuff said?

Not in the least. To reply to a serious issue with a flippant reference to a single dictionary definition doesn't quite cut it.

[Guest eureka]

What we have now is called representative democracy. Direct Democracy is an entirely different idea and an absurdity in a complex modern society.

So go back to Direct Democracy and tell us how you think it might be an improvement on what we have which, for all the warts, has not yet been bettered anywhere.

[Hugo]

As concerns my 'assumption', a definition of democracy is:

Literally, the term means power of the people (combining the Greek words demos, meaning "the people," and kratien, meaning "to rule").

Anarchocapitalism. The people rule themselves. Next!

[Huron]

To reply to a serious issue with a flippant reference to a single dictionary definition doesn't quite cut it.

And if I provided ten similar references, it would have?

I didn't intend to be flippant although, given the rather flippant nature of some of the responses to my original post and since, I might have been justified in being so.

But, speaking of flippant.

Direct Democracy is an entirely different idea and an absurdity in a complex modern society.

Oh good, another off the top of the head comment backed up by nothing.

And this:

Anarchocapitalism. The people rule themselves. Next!

means what? Various anarchist schools of thought propose direct democracy as a government system however, a direct democracy is not necessarily anarchistic.

So go back to Direct Democracy and tell us how you think it might be an improvement on what we have which, for all the warts, has not yet been bettered anywhere.

Well for one thing, it might give people the ability to to participate in and affect their government in ways that are not possible today and in doing so give them greater control over their communities, province and nation, as opposed to the no voice, no impact, no control circumstance which pretty much summarizes our representative democracy today, and is well documented and complained about in the numerous more or less identical threads which populate Canadian web forums such as this.

Sorry if I gave the wrong idea though. It isn't my intention to sell direct democracy to anyone. I posted the link for anyone who might be interested in contributing. If you think the concept is unworkable, or outright insane, that's fine. I'm not interested in changing your views, or spending hours on a web forum trying to do so.

[Guest eureka]

Don't get yourself into complex affairs if you cannot sustain the questions. There is nothing flippant about the responses. They might just give you incentive to question your idea a little more if you think about them.

[Huron]

Eureka, I've given basic responses to the 'question' portion of your posts, i.e., the 'marketplace' and the 'why DD as as opposed to RD'. I have also provided an answer as to why I don't have a fully developed DD system to offer.

I don't mean to be argumentative however, the fact is that the remaining content of your posts consisted of arbritary, and if I may say so, 'flippant' statements that you have yet to provide any evidence to support. I'll note that your statements to date are common concerns re: DD and which have to some extent been addressed on the DDC site and rather more thoroughly on some DD sites to which the DDC site links.

There is also a thread here which discusses some of the issues raised to date in some detail.

I'll apologise for jumping to conclusions. Statements like 'In a modern state, direct democracy is rule of the ignorant by the ignorant for no people's advantage' aren't what I'd generally expect from someone interested in 'complex affairs' or any sort of good faith discussion. However, I've since checked out some of your comments elsewhere, which indicate you are in fact an intelligent and thoughtful person.

As previously mentioned, my main purpose in posting the link was to inform people of the DDC site. My hope was that people with questions or concerns would post them on the site so that both the question and answer would be available to future visitors.

In retrospect, web forums probably weren't the best places to post the link as inevitably quite legitimate questions arise and, as demonstrated in the above thread, you end up with a substantial amount of information all over the place, not to mention having to answer variations of the same question over and over again on different sites.

I do apologise for not providing greater detail in my answers in this thread.

So go back to Direct Democracy and tell us how you think it might be an improvement on what we have which, for all the warts, has not yet been bettered anywhere.

To expand a bit on the above, 'has not yet been bettered anywhere' is open to discussion. If one doesn't have much confidence in other citizens or prefers a society where they aren't called upon to participate in civil life, you're probably right.

However, if one has faith in democracy, warts and all, and a belief that people should have some measure of control over their government and the course of their nation, there are other societies that are a bit further along the road democracy wise than Canada. I won't get into this further right now.

As to how it could be an improvement?

Well, I think if you ask most Canadians where their priorities lie, these wouldn't be focussed on destroying the gains our society has made in areas such as health care, social services and just basic decency to support some notion of 'inevitable' corporate globalization. I don't think most Canadians believe some Canadians deserve to sleep on the streets, go hungry or live their senior years in poverty.

Most certainly didn't believe this years ago, and fought both with and within the representational government structure to build a reasonably decent and caring nation that has been over the past thirty years, and is being at an ever increasing rate today, sold out to corporate interests that don't give a damn about Canada or Canadians.

I don't think most Canadians want to lose their nation or values, and I do believe the only possibility of avoiding this is to take measures to ensure that the nation does work towards the benefit of all Canadians, rather than only a few or none at all. That is where I see DD coming in, because these measures sure as hell aren't coming from our representational system.

However, creating a DD system that meets the needs of Canadians isn't something that can just pop out of any one person or small groups mind and have any hope of success. Hence the DDC site and my hope that a variety of Canadians contribute their visions of what a citizen led democracy could be.

It's not me who needs to think about my idea, I already have. I raise DD only as an alternative that people can themselves give as little or much thought to as they choose. I have no interest in being a political huckster trying to convince others that my vision or party is the way to go. If people have a problem with this or believe that I should be trying to shove my thoughts down their throat because that's the way 'politics' works, sorry to disappoint you. I'm not interested in selling DD to anyone or arguing about the pros/cons.

Missed the thrust of the anarcho-capitalist reference though. Sorry, I overlooked the fact that some from the so called right wing also push DD. This isn't where I'm coming from.

One more link for people to read and think about if they choose:

The myth of modern democracy