direct democracy is the only way

[thir]

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 ;-)

[thir]

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.

[thir]

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?

[leo9]

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.

[thir]

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.

[leo9]

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.

[leo9]

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]

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.

[lucy]

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 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 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 %