Direct Democracy

[Grisu]

Well, last week I had a discussion with a german friend of mine about democracy. He was basically complaining about german politics (again). He said that it doesn't matter at all who he votes for, since they are all corrupt, etc....

So I suggested partial direct-democracy to him, which allows the citizens a much more direct influence into their nations politics. The system like it's been implemented in Switzerland since 1848 allows people to stop any new law that's passed by parliament through a referendum if they wish so. Once a new law is passed, people have 100 days to get a certain amount of signatures (50'000 atm) to force a nationwide vote on the law.

Furthermore, the poeple have the right to demand changes/ammendments to the constitution if they get 100'000 signatures (popular initiative).

Personally, I think this system works very well, but when I mentioned this to him, he went all defensive (like most germans I know). He said it would never work on a larger scale, that it's tryanny of the mob, etc.... I have never understood these sentiments, since tyranny of the mob certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.

so what do you guy think? what would you prefer, and if you think direct democracy can't work, please state why

(in the poll, "pure" direct democracy refers to a state where all decisions are made directly by the people, semi-direct democracy refers to model like it's used in switzerland, republic (obviously) to the system most "democracies" use these days (for the sake of argument I'll fit all representative democracies here, so constitutional monarchies go here to )

 

[Stylesjl]

I think the idea can work well but i don't think its pure form works very well

I think having elected representatives pass laws is a good idea and the citizens having the power to veto through popular vote these laws

 

[The Yankee]

I could just imagine how a system like that would go. Big money campaigns to get signatures and counter-signatures (even if they won't be considered) for certain laws, money to get the signatures, more slowness in the government (which may not be a bad thing at the moment).

But...I don't think it could work in the US with all its people. The number of signatures would definitely have to be over 50,000 (more like 500,000 or so), and with all the bills that do come up and are passed, it wouldn't be feasible to gather 50,000 signatures every time either. It might work in a much smaller country, though.

 

[Grisu]

well, of course the 50'000 are fitted for the swiss population. since the US population is about 40x the swiss pop, it would be around 2'000'000 signatures needed for a referendum or 4'000'000 for a change of constitution.

and with all the bills that do come up and are passed, it wouldn't be feasible to gather 50,000 signatures every time either

that's exactly the point. most laws are passed without any big opposition, so they would go through easily, it's just the controversial ones where there is a referendum.

 

[Perfection]

What's good for one country is not always good for another. The important thing is that a nation operates under the philosophies that a government is by the people and for the people and that political power comes through the consent of the people.

Any of these systems can work great given the right circumstances.

 

[Grisu]

agreed, though I believe that in a well-educated society a semi-direct democracy works best

From my point of view the advantages are:

• people, in general, have more trust in politics, since they have an actual say in it
• less corruption/lobbying
• next to no person-cult
• less money-intensive election-campaigns
• stability (not 4 years to the left, then 4 years to the right...etc)

possible disadvantages, as I see it are:

• inertia - sometimes it takes long to get things moving (see universial sufferage)
• tiredness - some people don't want to vote 4 times a year

 

[7ronin]

We get a lot of laws passed in California through the medium of ballot initiatives, referendums if you will.

Unfortunately, many of the organizations which propose and bankroll these proposed laws are merely furthering their own agendas. We've had a lot of trouble with the insurance industry and the teachers, firefighters, and police unions. In many cases new laws are being passed or defeated by whichever special interest can outspend the other.

We also have the problem that many of these issues are very complex and the public can't or won't take the time to really poke into them.

Referendums don't always work and they can really backfire some times.

 

[Till]

Giving the people power to veto laws is tempting. But for a referendum to be legaly binding, there should be a high turnout required. There should be no way for a small, but well organized, group to paralyze the political process.

The power to actually make laws should always remain with the parliament, in my opinion.

 

[classical_hero]

I prefer a Republic over a true democracy because of this.

Dennis: I told you, we're an anarco-sydicalist commune. We take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week...
King Arthur: Yes...
Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
King Arthur: Yes I see...
Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...
King Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of...
King Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

 

[cairo140]

This is how I see it:

Problems with Direct or Semi-Direct Democracy in the Western World:

1) People are stupid: All votes will vote in the direction the media carefully insinuate to be the correct one. What this leads to is overemphasis on the media as a propoganda tool rather than a means of delivering facts. At the end of the day, a whole bunch of average schmos together will not be able to make a unified, logical decision any better than a single member of parliament/senator/whatever you call them in the US.

2) It's expensive: A single election up here costs us $250 million ($225 million US). To do this several times a year is kind of weird, don't you think?

3) It's time-consuming: Counting all the votes and getting people out to the polls takes time. Although it can be argued that fillibustering in parliament is equally as time-consuming, at least you're not wasting the time of the people that way.

4) People are stupid, cont: As much as we like to have faith in our system, partisan politics still exists. Nevertheless, public decision are made after hearings from important commitees, analysts and so on. The general public will not get this information at all, meaning that the success of the nation may be compromised.

---------------

My alternative system of government:

Due to the risk of corruption in the leader, this system will probably never be put into place.

I would like to see an absolute constitutional monarchy. This would be that there is one almighty decision-maker who has the power to pass and veto any idea, and of course that he is bound to make decisions that do not outright violate things like the nation's own charter, the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

The monarch would seek counsel from his representatives (quasi-lords except without the whole land-owning power thing), and he would make an informed decision based on this information.

I won't go further but you get the point. The step above this is of course benevolent dictatorship. Statistics would show that this is a potentially favoured system. When asked whether they preferred democracy or a benevolent dictator, something like 19% of high school grads said benevolent dictatorship, and something like 43% of college grads said that benevolvent dictatorship. So smart people like it more; it might be right... right?

 

[Grisu]

help, help, I'm being oppressed

though you didn't state what you think of the in-between solution

edit: this post was referring to classical, of course....

 

[Grisu]

This is how I see it:

Problems with Direct or Semi-Direct Democracy in the Western World:

1) People are stupid: All votes will vote in the direction the media carefully insinuate to be the correct one. What this leads to is overemphasis on the media as a propoganda tool rather than a means of delivering facts. At the end of the day, a whole bunch of average schmos together will not be able to make a unified, logical decision any better than a single member of parliament/senator/whatever you call them in the US.

I disagree, first of all, I don't believe that people, as a rule, are stupid. Furthermore, if the media can fool the people into voting one way, they can also fool them into electing the guy the media want...no difference there. in the semi-direct democracy it's only for one issue though, you're not stuck with the fool for 4 years...

2) It's expensive: A single election up here costs us $250 million ($225 million US). To do this several times a year is kind of weird, don't you think?

If that is really the case, you might be doing it wrong I'm pretty sure it's nowhere near that expensive here (though I don't have the actual figures)

3) It's time-consuming: Counting all the votes and getting people out to the polls takes time. Although it can be argued that fillibustering in parliament is equally as time-consuming, at least you're not wasting the time of the people that way.

how are they wasting the people's time? they're gonna read the news, inform themselves anyway, wether they get to vote or not. and if they don't care, they don't have to vote. Furthermore the acutal going to vote is a very short thing. It takes me about 10mins

4) People are stupid, cont: As much as we like to have faith in our system, partisan politics still exists. Nevertheless, public decision are made after hearings from important commitees, analysts and so on. The general public will not get this information at all, meaning that the success of the nation may be compromised.

why should the general public not get this information?

My alternative system of government:

swell, but how is decided who gets to be emperor? and how can you make sure that he'll act in the best interest of the state?

 

[classical_hero]

help, help, I'm being oppressed

though you didn't state what you think of the in-between solution

edit: this post was referring to classical, of course....

Bloody peasant. Oh shut up. Gotta love the Monty Python Gang.

Seriously having a form of government requires that there are people in charge because we need to be able to blame someone for a failing.

 

[ComradeDavo]

"Pure" Direct Democracy for me.

Basically I want to see a system where people elect politicians who then argue about laws and measures and so on and then comwe up with proposals that are put to a national vote. With modern techonology theoritically allowing you to vote via an online system, people could then every week vote on decsions.

I think this is the 'best system' because it is true democracy - people governing themselves.

Of course, there would need to alot fo things done to effectively implement this, i'm not saying it can be immediately switched to of course. Alot of people claim that peopel are too stupid to make descions for themselves or whatever, and that is sometimes true in the current system, but often it is because people feel powerless - if people knew that they had 'real' say in issues and got to vote on what politicians decide then I think they would certainally learn more about things.

This system would not 'work' straight away, it would take time to put in place, but ultimutely it would work 'best' because people would be governing themselves, which is what democracy is all about after all....and whats more it would seriously reduce dissilutionment and engourage people to learn and get involved.

edit - Ovi

 

[Norseman2]

I think I misvoted. I'll explain here. People are hard to corrupt. You can't get people to do things against their common interest. Ok, you can, but it's harder. It takes a massive propaganda campaign. It only takes one president to decide to be corrupt and serve his own interests at the detriment of the country. The problem with the people is that while hard to corrupt, the average person has only average intelligence, and education, and doesn't have the time to go over every single law.

For an effective democratic republic, there needs to be a balance. The representatives need to be selected for their intelligence, education, and capacity to work hard. The people need to select them independently (such as through preferential voting). The people need to be used as a check against corruption (such as for federal juries to make federal level decisions regarding corruption). This uses all the strengths of each branch to the benefit of the nation.

 

[ComradeDavo]

possible disadvantages, as I see it are:

• inertia - sometimes it takes long to get things moving (see universial sufferage)
• tiredness - some people don't want to vote 4 times a year

For the voting bit, thats why I think peopel should have some sort of computer thingy that can they can go online (password and individual fingerprint protected) and instantly vote on an issue.

Example - Politicians debating whether to build a casino in local area. Everyone in local area is then notified about details on machine and gets to vote 'yes', 'no' or 'unsure' on issue.

Like I say, not pratical right at current, but could soon be given a bit of time and investment.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

So I suggested partial direct-democracy to him, which allows the citizens a much more direct influence into their nations politics. The system like it's been implemented in Switzerland since 1848 allows people to stop any new law that's passed by parliament through a referendum if they wish so. Once a new law is passed, people have 100 days to get a certain amount of signatures (50'000 atm) to force a nationwide vote on the law.

Furthermore, the poeple have the right to demand changes/ammendments to the constitution if they get 100'000 signatures (popular initiative).

Personally, I think this system works very well, but when I mentioned this to him, he went all defensive (like most germans I know). He said it would never work on a larger scale, that it's tryanny of the mob, etc.... I have never understood these sentiments, since tyranny of the mob certainly doesn't seem to be the case here.

All I have to say is: how long did it take in Switzerland until women had the right to vote?

Your German friend is right in many ways. History has, unfortunately, demonstrated that if you give the people the ability to legislate, they will never have a consistent policy, and will be easily swayed by slogans and charming orators. Any demagogue can convince 50,000 idiots of just about anything one minute, and something else the next. Direct democracy destroyed the Athenian state, and this is the reason it was criticized so much in its time as mobocracy.

 

[Grisu]

All I have to say is: how long did it take in Switzerland until women had the right to vote?

that's what I meant with my reference to universal sufferage under inertia. I do believe, however, that one bad example (and a special ones, as a affected citizend weren't allowed to vote on it....) doesn't prove the whole system wrong. The system has served us well so far, and it's not just by chance that switzerland has had one of the most stable political systems in the last 100 years.

Your German friend is right in many ways. History has, unfortunately, demonstrated that if you give the people the ability to legislate, they will never have a consistent policy, and will be easily swayed by slogans and charming orators. Any demagogue can convince 50,000 idiots of just about anything one minute, and something else the next. Direct democracy destroyed the Athenian state, and this is the reason it was criticized so much in its time as mobocracy.

that's exactly where I disagree. first of, the athenian state wasn't semi-direct IIRC.
secondly, so if the demagogue convinces 50'000 in one minute, so what? it just means that there will be a vote on it, he'll have to convince many more if he wants his idea to pass. and if he can do that, he sure can get his party elected and pass the laws himself in a representative system.

Furthermore, I'd say that the policy of a country is much more consistant with a semi-direct approach. just take the US vs. Switzerland. Every time the ruling party changes in the US, many laws that were passed by their predecessors get struck down, or watered down. Such things rarely happen here. Here you can be pretty sure, that if a law gets passed or a treaty signed it will hold for quite some time, and not just till the next administration moves into the white house.

 

[Serutan]

Living in a state that allows propositions (Arizona), there
is one other effect besides those mentioned by 7ronin. That is, the legislature here will use propositions to dodge
"hot potato" issues, by putting controversial proposals on
the ballot (In Arizona, a proposition can be put on the ballot either by collecting enough signatures, or by the
legislature). I agree with 7ronin's points, but I disagree
with the conclusion; with all its faults I think the concept
of propositions is a good thing.

@Ovi - FYI the states here that allow propositions don't
allow a popular veto per se; it would have to be achieved
by putting a proposition on the ballot to repeal the law
in question.

 

[Grisu]

@Ovi - FYI the states here that allow propositions don't
allow a popular veto per se; it would have to be achieved
by putting a proposition on the ballot to repeal the law
in question.

I'm not sure I understand. Does that mean there's just no automatic mechanism to launch a veto, but you can put in a regular proposition (like any other law) to get it repealed again?