Poll: Would true democracy work?
- Thread starter Larenxis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Odd... I live in Canada and for a short period, Regina, but I've never heard that one. Mostly people just make fun of Neufies. But since Canada is so awesome, I don't think we actually have anything similar to Bogans. Oh, and it seems Bogan = Chav = Redneck.Khell_Sennet said:
Actually, fascism is a very special case. To a certain extent, scholars have come to the position that it is a disease only democracies, irregardless of how genuine they are, are prone to. This is, of course, because of fascism's reliance on the *populist* style, and claim to speak on behalf of the "true people" of the nation in question.Darth Mobius said:
But yes, as a general rule, any look at Direct Democracy needs to look at the fate of Athens. The fact of their non-universal suffrage and slavery does not exempt them as a valid example, that is to say, what they did and how they failed was not *because* of those things, and it is difficult to see how changing those things would have led to a diffrent result. It was rather, the leadership of the "wise men" the elites, etc, that led Athens on the road to its attempted conquest of Sicily, the resulting catastrophe, and then its humiliation at the hands of Sparta.
The American founding fathers to a large extent founded the American republic precisely *as* a representational democracy to avoid those evils.
What do you mean IF your vote made a difference. Your vote maters, it's just a matter of significance. My formula is
Significance = 1/population
There are also electoral collages that may make the formula work a different way, but that's the basic. The way I look at it is, everyone else is proborbly thinking their vote won't make a difference and it adds up. I think democracy is the best system, but has a few flaws.
There is a saying that says "If you don't vote, you caused the problem." To be honest, I never really understood that. You could vote and not know what in God's name you're voting for. If you vote for the wrong person, and he does something stupid, all the people who voted for him are to blame. I do see a problem with people who do know what they're talking about, but too lazy to vote.
People have to go to work, attend to families, and only have time to obtain loose information on only a few keen politicians (mostly presidential in America). When they vote, It will only be a crap shoot.
That's just the negative. I can't really think of a better system, but wouldn't prefer it any other way.
Significance = 1/population
There are also electoral collages that may make the formula work a different way, but that's the basic. The way I look at it is, everyone else is proborbly thinking their vote won't make a difference and it adds up. I think democracy is the best system, but has a few flaws.
There is a saying that says "If you don't vote, you caused the problem." To be honest, I never really understood that. You could vote and not know what in God's name you're voting for. If you vote for the wrong person, and he does something stupid, all the people who voted for him are to blame. I do see a problem with people who do know what they're talking about, but too lazy to vote.
People have to go to work, attend to families, and only have time to obtain loose information on only a few keen politicians (mostly presidential in America). When they vote, It will only be a crap shoot.
That's just the negative. I can't really think of a better system, but wouldn't prefer it any other way.
Hah! I immediately thought of that same quote when I read the headline, and it's bloody brilliant. True democracy would never work because most of the population is highly aware of who's on American Idol (please substitute your own regional dreck as required) but largely unaware of basic economics, geography, etc. True democracy would consist of 51% of the populace voting to redistribute the wealth of the richest 49%. Worse, the public is not consistent; a policy with 51% support today might have 30% support next week and 60% the week after that. Nothing difficult would ever get finished.Anarchemitis said:
I like the "None of the above" idea. If no one beats "None of the above", then you nullify the election and hold another, and the previous bunch of losers cannot run. I also like the point system, where all the candidates are rated in a descending scale (1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.) When three or more candidates run for the same post, there is always a chance that the absolute worst candidate will win. With a point system, relative worth is considered as well.
To start off lightly, anyone who sees my avatar should guess what I voted for. After all, why SHOULD we vote for the lesser evil?
Firstly, what does democracy mean? Well, from the translation it means "rule of the people". Therefore a democratic country allows the general populace to control it's own country's actions. While most would say that this "rule" is encompassed by the right to vote for legislature and executive branches every 3,4,5,x years and the soft power that arises from this threat to a politician's livelihood, I disagree. I believe that to "rule" is not to have a constrained and short-lived power to unseat those you dislike and replace them with those you hate a little less.
Those who've disparaged the idea of DD here seem to not understand what modern forms of this system are. To use Athens as a sign DD's flaws, for instance, is like denouncing the car by studying the Model T Ford. Yes, at one point the Model T was the best offer, but Ford and the rest of the car industry aren't trying to sell Model Ts to anyone but vintage collectors anymore.
So what is direct democracy? Put simply, DD lets the people somehow alter the laws, not just the law-makers, of their country through initiative and referendum. There are four (arguably three) ingredients that together make the most powerful, but still workable, form of DD, but some can and are left out by real-world direct democracies.
1)Constitutional Initiative-This ingredient, at the very least, forces any change to the constitution of a country to be passed through a popular referendum. Taken further it can allow an initiative to change the constitution that gathers a minimum number of signatures, to be voted on. Nearly all indirect and direct democracies have this first point in part or full. 18 of America's 50 states-Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota- allow the second.
This seems a fairly logical idea. After all, when a government could simply undo a country's consitution how could any country reasonably guarantee it's democracy?
2)Legislative Initiative-the power of the people to affect law, whether by creating or blocking it.
a)The first of these is the ability to block any law passed by government. This is done by gathering a sufficient number (usually a proportion of the population) of signatures on a petition to call a referendum on the law/bill/statute/whatever. This petition must be gathered within x number of days after the bill is passed, by which time if such a petition is NOT forthcoming the law becomes, well, law. If such a petition is completed then a referendum is called to block or pass the law.
The following American states have this- Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Switzerland also possesses this: 50,000 signatures in 100-days. Since 1874 if a popular majority votes NO a law is nullified. If declared ?urgent?, the law takes effect but loses force after a year if rejected at subsequent referendum.
b)Statute Law Initiative-The power to create law. Again, a petition with a minimum number of signatures is needed to call a referendum on a law that has been proposed by a member of the public. The following states have this-Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Switzerland does not.
3)Recall-the ability to call for a new vote for the current executive.
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.
The following 7 states have all of these elements: Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon.
Now I'll quickly list and rebut the main reasons against DD that have been given on this thread.
Such a system can't work with a large population.
California has ~38,000,000 people. How large is "large" then? Give me a number at which you know for certain the above elements will stop working and explain why THAT number and I might admit you aren't just talking out of your backside.Yes, large populations make things harder and maybe even unwieldy but a streamlined federalist system that gave as many powers as possible to the lowest sector possible (local, state, federal) would alleviate this somewhat. While yes I have some doubts that DD would be quick and efficient for a behemoth of a country like China, India or even the USA there's no proof that it wouldn't. Furthermore, there's an assumption here that with direct democracy suddenly legislation will come to a halt, which is patently untrue. In direct democracies the great majority of laws are still passed without referendum.
Tyranny of the majority.
You'd rather tyranny of the minority of elected representatives, then? And what makes you think that this minority is any more enlightened than the people who voted them into power (with the handful of other choices presented to them)? Hell, what makes you think that all the safeguards of rights and civil liberties that are present in INdirect democracies will suddenly not work in DIRECT ones?
With DD expertise will be undermined in the legislative process.
Expertise is still just as commonly used and abused in the creation of legislative process in direct democracies. If, however, you mean that "the dirty masses" would stamp all over those enlightened writers of eloquent law, I suggest you meet some of those writers and study some of their law in indirect democracies. Neither strike me as any more enlightened or right on average than the people who, right or wrong, deserve a say in how they're told to live their lives. Besides, there's nothing stopping experts entering the public arena to convince the public of a particular law's worth.
Finally, "expert" does not mean "right". Name me a specialty and I bet you there's many, many experts in the field who are, were and will be wrong within it.
Responsibility in a DD is unclear.
I fail to see how, verbal legerdemain aside, responsibility for failure in government is any more or less unclear in DD than ID. It seems beside the point.
There will always be haves and have nots so democracy is impossible.
I think you're mistaking equality with democracy. They're very distinct things.
Finally, quotes.
Teddy Roosevelt,1912: "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative."
David Schmidt, author of a history of I&R (Citizen Lawmakers ? The Ballot Initiative Revolution): ?In I&R the Progressives created a perpetual reform machine that not only continues to be a vehicle for political change, but is increasing in its usefulness more than three-quarters of a century after it first gained widespread acceptance.?
PS: I know this post is a monster but you couldn't have found an issue closer to my heart if you'd tried.
There are no words to express my agreement so I'll just just go into detail.Larenxis said:
Firstly, what does democracy mean? Well, from the translation it means "rule of the people". Therefore a democratic country allows the general populace to control it's own country's actions. While most would say that this "rule" is encompassed by the right to vote for legislature and executive branches every 3,4,5,x years and the soft power that arises from this threat to a politician's livelihood, I disagree. I believe that to "rule" is not to have a constrained and short-lived power to unseat those you dislike and replace them with those you hate a little less.
Those who've disparaged the idea of DD here seem to not understand what modern forms of this system are. To use Athens as a sign DD's flaws, for instance, is like denouncing the car by studying the Model T Ford. Yes, at one point the Model T was the best offer, but Ford and the rest of the car industry aren't trying to sell Model Ts to anyone but vintage collectors anymore.
So what is direct democracy? Put simply, DD lets the people somehow alter the laws, not just the law-makers, of their country through initiative and referendum. There are four (arguably three) ingredients that together make the most powerful, but still workable, form of DD, but some can and are left out by real-world direct democracies.
1)Constitutional Initiative-This ingredient, at the very least, forces any change to the constitution of a country to be passed through a popular referendum. Taken further it can allow an initiative to change the constitution that gathers a minimum number of signatures, to be voted on. Nearly all indirect and direct democracies have this first point in part or full. 18 of America's 50 states-Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and South Dakota- allow the second.
This seems a fairly logical idea. After all, when a government could simply undo a country's consitution how could any country reasonably guarantee it's democracy?
2)Legislative Initiative-the power of the people to affect law, whether by creating or blocking it.
a)The first of these is the ability to block any law passed by government. This is done by gathering a sufficient number (usually a proportion of the population) of signatures on a petition to call a referendum on the law/bill/statute/whatever. This petition must be gathered within x number of days after the bill is passed, by which time if such a petition is NOT forthcoming the law becomes, well, law. If such a petition is completed then a referendum is called to block or pass the law.
The following American states have this- Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Switzerland also possesses this: 50,000 signatures in 100-days. Since 1874 if a popular majority votes NO a law is nullified. If declared ?urgent?, the law takes effect but loses force after a year if rejected at subsequent referendum.
b)Statute Law Initiative-The power to create law. Again, a petition with a minimum number of signatures is needed to call a referendum on a law that has been proposed by a member of the public. The following states have this-Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Switzerland does not.
3)Recall-the ability to call for a new vote for the current executive.
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.
The following 7 states have all of these elements: Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon.
Now I'll quickly list and rebut the main reasons against DD that have been given on this thread.
Such a system can't work with a large population.
California has ~38,000,000 people. How large is "large" then? Give me a number at which you know for certain the above elements will stop working and explain why THAT number and I might admit you aren't just talking out of your backside.Yes, large populations make things harder and maybe even unwieldy but a streamlined federalist system that gave as many powers as possible to the lowest sector possible (local, state, federal) would alleviate this somewhat. While yes I have some doubts that DD would be quick and efficient for a behemoth of a country like China, India or even the USA there's no proof that it wouldn't. Furthermore, there's an assumption here that with direct democracy suddenly legislation will come to a halt, which is patently untrue. In direct democracies the great majority of laws are still passed without referendum.
Tyranny of the majority.
You'd rather tyranny of the minority of elected representatives, then? And what makes you think that this minority is any more enlightened than the people who voted them into power (with the handful of other choices presented to them)? Hell, what makes you think that all the safeguards of rights and civil liberties that are present in INdirect democracies will suddenly not work in DIRECT ones?
With DD expertise will be undermined in the legislative process.
Expertise is still just as commonly used and abused in the creation of legislative process in direct democracies. If, however, you mean that "the dirty masses" would stamp all over those enlightened writers of eloquent law, I suggest you meet some of those writers and study some of their law in indirect democracies. Neither strike me as any more enlightened or right on average than the people who, right or wrong, deserve a say in how they're told to live their lives. Besides, there's nothing stopping experts entering the public arena to convince the public of a particular law's worth.
Finally, "expert" does not mean "right". Name me a specialty and I bet you there's many, many experts in the field who are, were and will be wrong within it.
Responsibility in a DD is unclear.
I fail to see how, verbal legerdemain aside, responsibility for failure in government is any more or less unclear in DD than ID. It seems beside the point.
There will always be haves and have nots so democracy is impossible.
I think you're mistaking equality with democracy. They're very distinct things.
Finally, quotes.
Teddy Roosevelt,1912: "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative."
David Schmidt, author of a history of I&R (Citizen Lawmakers ? The Ballot Initiative Revolution): ?In I&R the Progressives created a perpetual reform machine that not only continues to be a vehicle for political change, but is increasing in its usefulness more than three-quarters of a century after it first gained widespread acceptance.?
PS: I know this post is a monster but you couldn't have found an issue closer to my heart if you'd tried.
Thanks Ajoe. I got it for naming a thread misleadingly which was a fair cop; rules is rules. Still it gives me a certain amount of street cred I intend to cash in on.Almightyjoe said:
As for your suggestion, what kind of third party are we talking about?
Direct Democracy, eh? Pardon my cynicism, but I don't think it would work.
Why? You put the choice in your own poll, Larenxis (And you'll never know how much I just screwed up spelling that).
"I'd manipulate the people around me to vote the way I wanted them to."
Ideologies are great and all, but I feel that all it would take it one person with this mindset, coupled with the mindset "I should be in charge!", and direct democracy would come to an end shortly. Should the situation be particularly bad for the group of people in question, and it's even more likely it would come to pass. In such a case, all this one person would have to do is convince the majority of his peers that he could fix the problem. Wouldn't really matter if he actually could or not, people love hearing what they want to hear. He gets the power, and boom - no more democracy.
This somewhat resembles fascism, which was mentioned earlier in the post. I suppose you could say I'm restating these ideas, but the fact remains people have mob mentalities and can be manipulated without too much difficulty, given the right circumstances. All it would take is one of these situations to arise, and everything would fall.
Why? You put the choice in your own poll, Larenxis (And you'll never know how much I just screwed up spelling that).
"I'd manipulate the people around me to vote the way I wanted them to."
Ideologies are great and all, but I feel that all it would take it one person with this mindset, coupled with the mindset "I should be in charge!", and direct democracy would come to an end shortly. Should the situation be particularly bad for the group of people in question, and it's even more likely it would come to pass. In such a case, all this one person would have to do is convince the majority of his peers that he could fix the problem. Wouldn't really matter if he actually could or not, people love hearing what they want to hear. He gets the power, and boom - no more democracy.
This somewhat resembles fascism, which was mentioned earlier in the post. I suppose you could say I'm restating these ideas, but the fact remains people have mob mentalities and can be manipulated without too much difficulty, given the right circumstances. All it would take is one of these situations to arise, and everything would fall.
The only thing wrong with this is it should read:TheNecroswanson said:
'In order for democracy to work people need to fear nothing , need to make their choices and opinions known without fear of reprisal'
It is as much the fault of the electorate thatdemocracy dosen't work. if they actually went out and got their info from disinterested sources such as... the BBC, or at least from a variety of sources instead of putting their faith in mass media (which is the last thing your faith should be put in, abrring one or two exceptions). The people NEED to see pastthe mudslinging, the lies, platitudes and moral cowardice of the political elite, and MAKE UP THEIR OWN DAMNED MINDS instead of behaving like incoherent sheep and voting for whoever can afford the biggest parade/rally/celebrity endorsement/shiny shiny badge.
IF you are speaking of the USA, then you need to do some basic (not Wikipedia!) research. Our constitutional right (and practice until the twentieth century) in federal government is only to directly elect Representatives in the House, who go to Washington to defend our rights and advance our interests. The Representatives themselves elect the president and vice president (who was originally the presidential candidate receiving the second most votes - imagine THAT today!) And your state government (governor or state legislature) selected the senators, to defend the state's rights and advance the state's interests. It was a bloody brilliant design and held up very well indeed, although most of the population (non-white men, poor white men, and all women and children) was prohibited from voting at all for most of our existence. As we have drawn ever closer to direct democracy (directly electing presidents and senators), we've increasing turned to voting ourselves largess from the common treasury.TheNecroswanson said:
IF you are NOT speaking of the USA, then I must plead ignorance.
EDIT: Check out some of the old (18th century) campaign speeches as well. They called each other everything but a child of G-d, as did newspaper editorials bashing one candidate in favor of another.
I'm going to have to quote my Government teacher on this one: "Democracy sucks. The only thing worse is everything else."
@ Khell_Sennet
" Democratic voting needs to add a vote option of "None of the Above", with the contingency that any registered voter who DOESN'T vote is considered to cast as "None of the Above". "
That's crazy. I've been saying that for years and years, but I've never heard anyone go beyond "Yeah, wouldn't that be great." before awkwardly changing the topic. Amazing.
I just wanted to say that. That's all. Move along.
" Democratic voting needs to add a vote option of "None of the Above", with the contingency that any registered voter who DOESN'T vote is considered to cast as "None of the Above". "
That's crazy. I've been saying that for years and years, but I've never heard anyone go beyond "Yeah, wouldn't that be great." before awkwardly changing the topic. Amazing.
I just wanted to say that. That's all. Move along.