View Full Version : direct democracy is the only way
Hamishlacastle
02-27-2012, 06:24 PM
currently the power is in the hands of a few elites. But if every voter could vote on all legislation pending this would transfer power to the people. If a bank can have a secure line for you then so can a government. The elites of the bureaucracy and corporations have been running things behind your back for decades
DIRECT DEMOCRACY TRANSFERS THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO THE PEOPLE FROM A SMALL CABAL OF PEOPLE
Hamishlacastle
02-27-2012, 06:25 PM
You simply vote from your home computer on a secure line
You simply vote from your home computer on a secure line
Actually it's not that simple, at least not according to trials with E-voting in various Swiss cities and cantons. Also, although as a Swiss I totally believe in direct democracy, there are other questions to ponder. For instance, what to do with initiatives that are against international laws.
Also, in a dual party system like the US, there's danger that the political process comes to a complete standstill.
And finally, there's always the danger that it comes to rogue decisions (voters can be idiots, too), like for instance the infamous vote for the ban of minarets here a few years ago.
Personally, I'm also pretty tired of having to vote pro or contra stuff like the construction of a new sewage pipe, just because it costs 20 millions, thus more than the city's parliament can spend without going to a public vote. If it's needed, build the damn thing, coz I, pretty literally, know shit about sewage and it's treatment.
Thorne
02-28-2012, 06:55 AM
If it's needed, build the damn thing, coz I, pretty literally, know shit about sewage and it's treatment.
This is the basic problem with direct democracy. You have to assume that everyone knows enough about everything to be able to vote meaningfully, and that everyone will be completely moral about how they vote. When a vote is brought up to extend that sewer system into an area which is predominantly Muslim, say, how many people will do the humane thing and vote for it, and how many will let their prejudices hold sway, as so many of us are wont to do so often.
Direct democracy might work for some things. If your bridge club elects to change the day of the week they meet on to suit the majority, you either live with it or leave. If your town votes to cut off essential services to the slum area, people die. Not the RIGHT people, of course. Only those different, poor people.
You have to assume that everyone knows enough about everything to be able to vote meaningfully, and that everyone will be completely moral about how they vote.
I just remember a vote last year, but don't remember what it was about. It was pretty complicated, with different options about three different but connected proposals and one journo figured out that voters had 600-something different options where to say Yes/No and make their crosses on the ballot.
Needless to say, almost nobody even bothered to begin with ... the rest probably just played battleship with their ballot cards.
But on the whole, I must say it works pretty good, albeit slow. Also, I certainly wouldn't go as far as saying that a professional parliament decides on a better knowledge base than the general population. But then again, your Congress and Senate might be different from ours, although I have a hard time believing that. ;)
Direct democracy might be worth a try. I think some days it couldn't be much worse anyway. I think you'd have to put some safeguards in first for the protection of the poor and under-franchised. If I ran the country...
Thorne
02-28-2012, 09:43 AM
I certainly wouldn't go as far as saying that a professional parliament decides on a better knowledge base than the general population. But then again, your Congress and Senate might be different from ours, although I have a hard time believing that. ;)
Theoretically, at least, an elected parliament SHOULD have the resources to get the information they need to make a truly informed judgement on an issue. In reality, perhaps not so much. And yeah, sometimes the people that are elected are no smarter than the average voter. Or even less smart. Still, it seems to work, and helps to keep some of the more bizarre attempts at lawmaking from happening. Usually.
bound_for_you
02-28-2012, 10:18 AM
Maybe if Americans would get our heads out if our asses and realize that our current President is a fucking thorn in our side we'd be able to get someone decent in office. But that won't happen until the Republican candidates stop fighting with each other and just choose someone to back. This is just getting re-damn-diculous!
While I can see the merit of Direct Democracy, I also can see that if it ever came to fruition in America it open a whole new Pandora's Box.
Thorne
02-28-2012, 07:40 PM
While Obama may be a thorn in our side, any one of the current crop of Republicans could well be the nail in our coffin!
Yeah, I was wondering too how someone with a single functioning brain cell left could even consider to vote for one of those retarded republican clowns.
Thorne
02-29-2012, 05:01 AM
Doesn't look like the voters are too much in love with any of them, either. Only two primaries so far where any one candidate broke the 50% mark, and overall no one has broken the 40% mark! Sounds like a rather lukewarm 'victory' to me!
We're voting for Santorum. Turn the country from red and blue to brown.
Thorne
02-29-2012, 07:44 AM
Tell you what: if Santorum ever got elected I'd seriously have to consider leaving this country. BEFORE they shut down the borders.
Well, with his desire to make birth control illegal, he's sure to create a lot more santorum on the nation's bedsheets, so it won't be all bad.
Please watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72o8e1Eyls4
StrictMasterD
02-29-2012, 12:59 PM
Obama will win by default, it is basicly a choice of the better of the 2 Evils
denuseri
02-29-2012, 02:22 PM
I don't like any of the potential candidates including Obama! They all suck and are bought and paid for by their corporate elitist super wealthy corporate tied ultra greedy super packs.
I think you'd have to put some safeguards in first for the protection of the poor and under-franchised.
And why wouldn't that be necessary in a representative democracy? Or do representatives in the US act and vote in the interest of the poor or under-franchised? I can't think of any such safeguards in place in Switzerland, but the unemployed and those relying on social security are still far better off than those in Germany with a representative democracy, for example.
Well, maybe there should be safeguards of some kind for us right now. But if people don't vote that way, if they vote for candidates who are only interested in the rich and corporations, we don't get safeguards, you are right.
currently the power is in the hands of a few elites. But if every voter could vote on all legislation pending this would transfer power to the people. If a bank can have a secure line for you then so can a government. The elites of the bureaucracy and corporations have been running things behind your back for decades
DIRECT DEMOCRACY TRANSFERS THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO THE PEOPLE FROM A SMALL CABAL OF PEOPLE
Definitly we need more democracy! Nobody has much influence on their own lives as I see it, which is what democracy means, also as I see it. But direct democracy is not possible in a complex society. I have wondered if a better solution might be to decentralize as much as possible, so people have more direct influence on matters in their own area.
Very important matters should be put to the vote, though. For example I cannot see how it is democratic that any country initiates a war without asking the population if they want one.
But direct democracy is not possible in a complex society.
Why not?
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
But direct democracy is not possible in a complex society.
lucy
Why not?
Because even in my small country of 5 mill people you cannot have a vote with all 5 mill anytime the smallest thing has to be decided.
Because even in my small country of 5 mill people you cannot have a vote with all 5 mill anytime the smallest thing has to be decided.
And who exactly would be interested in voting on the smallest thing? That's simply not necessary. I can tell you what would happen if you tried to have vote on every chickenshit proposal: After a while almost nobody would bother to go to vote.
It's relatively easy to implement elements of direct democracy: You restrict it to elections, new or altered laws and projects that cost at least a certain amount of money and of course also everything that affects the constitution. There can also be an element of referendum, i.e. a law is only put to a public vote if a certain number of people demand it.
Works pretty well around here and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the complexity of a society. I'm pretty sure Switzerland isn't that much more simple than say, England or Germany or Ireland. At least last time I've been abroad I didn't feel much like a tribal cavewoman.
js207
03-03-2012, 01:36 PM
Batching the votes up makes a big difference in cost and turnout I suspect, Lucy: hold an annual vote, for whatever elected offices are open and whatever issues are up for vote too. Adding an extra "Rename our main airport after Stalin: []Yes []No" and counting the votes for each isn't a huge undertaking once you're holding an election already, particularly if you have an automated sorting machine to split into the two piles. I envy the Swiss system in concept at least, and wish we had something like it or the California system here in the UK.
If your town votes to cut off essential services to the slum area, people die.
Really? OK, cutting off the electricity, water or drainage could do that (though none of those are provided by the city here in the first place) - but would the electorate seriously vote for that in the first place? (For that matter, my own city did cut trash collection by 50%, without any sort of vote - but not being much of a democracy, there's nothing I can do short of move.)
Snark
03-03-2012, 02:17 PM
Democracy is the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu. The founders of this (US) republic considered "democracy" to be a disgusting practice. It is mob rule. As soon as the mob realizes that they can use the power of the state to confiscate the wealth earned by others (which is happening now) those that vote without earning will "spread the wealth". I recall hearing that somewhere......
Thorne
03-03-2012, 02:25 PM
Really? OK, cutting off the electricity, water or drainage could do that (though none of those are provided by the city here in the first place) - but would the electorate seriously vote for that in the first place?
I can envision a small town, primarily of one religion (Christian, Mormon, Muslim, makes no difference) cutting off services to a small section of the town which was primarily of a radically different religion. Couldn't you? When the preachers start screaming about how those "evil people over there" are threatening the church, the children, the imaginary deity? I can easily see some groups voting along those lines. How many times have you heard people telling those who rock the boat that if they don't like the way things are, they can move? This would be a way to force them to move. Whether they can afford it or not.
Now maybe I'm just a cynic, but look back in history. People have done, and still do, horrific things to people they see as different. Just look at the Salem witch trials. The enslavement of Africans. the mistreatment of Blacks, or Hispanics, or Orientals. The forced incarceration of innocent Japanese-Americans during WW2. All rationalized by an adherence to community standards. And a fear of those who are different.
Yes, sadly I can easily imagine a so-called Christian community voting to keep police, fire services, ambulances, etc, from responding to calls in a primarily Muslim neighborhood, leaving those people at the mercy of those who would prey upon them. Or the reverse could happen. Or perhaps a conservative group voting to deny those services to the liberal area on the outskirts of the city. Or a group of homophobes voting to deny equal rights to gays. Or any number of other groups, as long as they represent the majority in the voting area. We see it everywhere. Far too often.
js207
03-03-2012, 03:56 PM
Democracy is the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu. The founders of this (US) republic considered "democracy" to be a disgusting practice. It is mob rule. As soon as the mob realizes that they can use the power of the state to confiscate the wealth earned by others (which is happening now) those that vote without earning will "spread the wealth". I recall hearing that somewhere......
A concern of Thomas Jefferson I hear (though according to Internet 'quotes' he probably also warned against the evils of spam and Microsoft Windows), and a valid point about needing to safeguard against the abuse of minorities. The US was created from the outset as a representative democracy - i.e. a republic - though: a government accountable to and serving only itself would be even worse than one serving a majority mob. It's the idea of the government handing tax dollars to millions of people every month just because of their age which would really horrify the Founding Fathers, along with a federal government intruding so much, spending so much and borrowing so much.
Now maybe I'm just a cynic, but look back in history. People have done, and still do, horrific things to people they see as different. Just look at the Salem witch trials. The enslavement of Africans. the mistreatment of Blacks, or Hispanics, or Orientals. The forced incarceration of innocent Japanese-Americans during WW2. All rationalized by an adherence to community standards. And a fear of those who are different.
Yes - all of those happened without direct democracy, indeed often with little or no democratic input. Maybe a more democratic system would still have done those things, but would it have been any worse? The government decided without democracy to incarcerate those of Japanese origin, to outlaw homosexuality - would a democratic version have been any worse?
Now, I do think there should be a strong constitution to ensure the individual's life is not interfered with unduly - and I believe the electorate would support that principle, even if jerking knees might prevail in individual cases, which is why you have a judge and jury for individual matters rather than bills of attainder. It's why there's an amendment barring the government from taking property without fair compensation - though that too has been trampled widely of late.
Like Churchill said, democracy's the worst form of government - apart from all the others.
Thorne
03-04-2012, 08:24 AM
would a democratic version have been any worse?
There have been claims made (though I don't know on which bases they were made) that one of the reasons the US government incarcerated those Japanese families was to protect them. That there were people who simply wanted to kill them because they were, or looked, Japanese. I've not seen any real evidence of this, but the sad truth is that it wouldn't be too far fetched.
Like Churchill said, democracy's the worst form of government - apart from all the others.
I think ANY form of government is bad, but even the worst government is better than anarchy. The US's democratic republic is probably the best form of government around, especially for a large country with such a diverse population. Yet current events show that even that can be corrupted, used by ignorant lawmakers to oppress various minority groups. Hopefully it can still be fixed.
denuseri
03-04-2012, 02:39 PM
The only problem is that direct democracy in America will most certifiably be directly opposed by those who hold power (the corporate rich) and their political lackeys.
It is mob rule. As soon as the mob realizes that they can use the power of the state to confiscate the wealth earned by others (which is happening now) those that vote without earning will "spread the wealth".
We've got mob rule. (Thus I reckon I'm mob, too. Thanks.)
Therefore I rule (well, I don't since I normally vote different from the majority...) Yet Switzerland's income and wealth distribution are actually getting more disparate, and pretty fast, too.
As it is in most western democracies, btw. There are a few notable exemptions, but they are few (UK, for example, according to OECD)
And who exactly would be interested in voting on the smallest thing? That's simply not necessary. I can tell you what would happen if you tried to have vote on every chickenshit proposal: After a while almost nobody would bother to go to vote.
It's relatively easy to implement elements of direct democracy: You restrict it to elections, new or altered laws and projects that cost at least a certain amount of money and of course also everything that affects the constitution. There can also be an element of referendum, i.e. a law is only put to a public vote if a certain number of people demand it.
Works pretty well around here and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the complexity of a society. I'm pretty sure Switzerland isn't that much more simple than say, England or Germany or Ireland. At least last time I've been abroad I didn't feel much like a tribal cavewoman.
How interesting!! I was not aware that the Swiss system was so different. I must read more about this - or do you happen to have some really good links you'd like to refer to?
This is the basic problem with direct democracy. You have to assume that everyone knows enough about everything to be able to vote meaningfully,
I wonder if it is a worse problem than politicians who also, quite often, know precious little about what they vote about, even very important things.
and that everyone will be completely moral about how they vote.
HA! Are you suggesting that politicians are completely moral about how they vote??
Anyway, as I see it it is not about being moral, but about having influence on your life.
When a vote is brought up to extend that sewer system into an area which is predominantly Muslim, say, how many people will do the humane thing and vote for it, and how many will let their prejudices hold sway, as so many of us are wont to do so often.
Well, supposedly the muslims would vote for it ;-)
Direct democracy might be worth a try. I think some days it couldn't be much worse anyway. I think you'd have to put some safeguards in first for the protection of the poor and under-franchised. If I ran the country...
Persumably the poor would be able to vote for themselves, so they could better their situation.
Democracy is the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu.
I do not understand this at all. Would you like to explain??
The founders of this (US) republic considered "democracy" to be a disgusting practice.
So I have heard. But does that make it right?
It is mob rule. As soon as the mob realizes that they can use the power of the state to confiscate the wealth earned by others (which is happening now) those that vote without earning will "spread the wealth". I recall hearing that somewhere......
But, if you had direct democracy, would there be so much wealth concentrated on so few hands? Maybe more people would have enough, and fewer people way too much?
And who exactly would be interested in voting on the smallest thing? That's simply not necessary. I can tell you what would happen if you tried to have vote on every chickenshit proposal: After a while almost nobody would bother to go to vote.
There was a satirical comedy in the '60s about that. The anti-hero gets elected on a promise of total democracy, which turns out to mean that everyone's TV keeps lighting up with a demand that they vote on some issue or other that nobody gives a shit about. After a few months of that, he gets them to elect him dictator just so they can stop being asked to vote.
I can envision a small town, primarily of one religion (Christian, Mormon, Muslim, makes no difference) cutting off services to a small section of the town which was primarily of a radically different religion. Couldn't you? When the preachers start screaming about how those "evil people over there" are threatening the church, the children, the imaginary deity? I can easily see some groups voting along those lines. How many times have you heard people telling those who rock the boat that if they don't like the way things are, they can move? This would be a way to force them to move. Whether they can afford it or not.
Now maybe I'm just a cynic, but look back in history. People have done, and still do, horrific things to people they see as different. Just look at the Salem witch trials. The enslavement of Africans. the mistreatment of Blacks, or Hispanics, or Orientals. The forced incarceration of innocent Japanese-Americans during WW2. All rationalized by an adherence to community standards. And a fear of those who are different.
Yes, sadly I can easily imagine a so-called Christian community voting to keep police, fire services, ambulances, etc, from responding to calls in a primarily Muslim neighborhood, leaving those people at the mercy of those who would prey upon them. Or the reverse could happen. Or perhaps a conservative group voting to deny those services to the liberal area on the outskirts of the city. Or a group of homophobes voting to deny equal rights to gays. Or any number of other groups, as long as they represent the majority in the voting area. We see it everywhere. Far too often.
I can see this too, but I have a feeling that it would never have come to that in the first place, if the whole organization were different.
Democracy is the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep discussing the dinner menu.Actually, what we usually see is several million sheep being persuaded by a handful of wolves that the only issue they can decide is whether mutton should be roasted or stewed. And the subject under discussion is whether the wolves should go on setting the agenda that way.
But, if you had direct democracy, would there be so much wealth concentrated on so few hands? Maybe more people would have enough, and fewer people way too much?I'd be interested to know how Switzerland compares to the rest of Europe for income differentials and concentration of wealth.
Thorne
03-07-2012, 11:43 AM
I wonder if it is a worse problem than politicians who also, quite often, know precious little about what they vote about, even very important things.
Politicians generally have staffers who study the problems and, theoretically, steer the politician in the right direction.
HA! Are you suggesting that politicians are completely moral about how they vote??
Of course they are! They accept the money from the business that wants them to vote a certain way and that's how they vote! Anything else would be immoral!
Anyway, as I see it it is not about being moral, but about having influence on your life.
It seems more about having influence on everyone else's life. "You have to do it this way because we're the majority and this is the way we say it has to be done, so there."
Well, supposedly the muslims would vote for it ;-)
Assuming that the "moral" majority would allow them to vote at all.
How interesting!! I was not aware that the Swiss system was so different. I must read more about this - or do you happen to have some really good links you'd like to refer to?
A simple Goolge-search should yield lots of results. I don't think I got some really good links.
The Wikipedia article on Voting in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland) isn't bad except that we cannot challenge any law at any time. We can challenge any part of the constitution at any time or start an initiative for new articles to the constitution, but the hurdles are pretty high. But once a law is in effect, it can't be challenged directly.
Or this (http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/) one. Rather basic, but it gives a good first idea. And if you have questions you can always send me a pm.
I'd be interested to know how Switzerland compares to the rest of Europe for income differentials and concentration of wealth.
I'm too lazy to go searching for statistics. Usually OECD has pretty good data on such topics. But as I've stated before, income and wealth disparity aren't any different here than in other OECD-countries. And growing, too.
However, from my point of view you've hit the nail pretty neatly on the head with this statement:
Actually, what we usually see is several million sheep being persuaded by a handful of wolves that the only issue they can decide is whether mutton should be roasted or stewed.
It's about the same here. Not all that long ago we've had to vote pro or contra the abolition of inheritance tax in the canton of Zurich.
Imho, the inheritance tax is the fairest tax of all and probably one of the best ways to make sure that wealth distribution doesn't get more and more disparate. One can argue that this doesn't matter, but I believe that a too disparate wealth and income distribution isn't consistent with democracy, not in the long run anyway. (If I had my way, the inheritance tax would be at a sound 100%, with some precautions set aside that the owner of a small business can leave it to his/her heirs. Let them work for their wealth, not having it served on a silver platter.)
Although it was obvious that at least 70 % of the population would never, ever profit from the abolition of that tax and that it would only lead to the rich being able to hand down their dough to their heirs without paying any taxes, thus increasing the disparity in wealth distribution, it was voted down with about 60 %