Direct Democracy

[Che Guava]

Direct democracy can work, provided the population of your nation is 10 people or less

 

[Shaihulud]

Politicians are all corrupted, so vote for the one least corrupted. People are mostly stupid, so we need laws where stupid people makes less difference in the choice of government (since they are stupid, doing it must be easy). Words to live by, and so general they work in every political system.

 

[Serutan]

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just no automatic mechanism to launch a veto, but you can put in a regular proposition (like any other law) to get it repealed again?

Exactly. (mumble, 10 chars, mutter)

 

[WillJ]

There's no way "pure" direct democracy can work in any modern state; there are simply too many nuts-and-bolts things that governments need to do, and the public can't be bothered to care about all of them, nor should the public know about all of them (national security matters, frex).

As for "semi" direct democracy, I'm not sure there's a clear line between semi direct democracy and representative democracy. The U.S. is always labeled the latter, but we do have referendums and such (well, at the local and state level anyway). All in all, I'd have to say the burden of creating law and running the system should be left to the legislature, executive, and judiciary, but if a large enough public movement arises (in a way that counters the government), they should be listened to. How big they need to be, I'm not sure.

 

[Grisu]

yeah, IMHO, the US is an inbetween thing. if they had referendums in every state and on the federal level, I guess they would qualify

as it is now, I think that Switzerland so far is the only state that has it, or are there more?

 

[De Lorimier]

From the governmental standpoint, no democracy. A not-so great man in power recently stated that " You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier".

 

[Corlindale]

Direct democracy would certainly be more democratic, but I'm not sure it's entirely practical, mainly because it would make it hard to make any kind of long-term decision, or create a coherent system of laws. For the direct or semi-direct democracy to work well, it would require a very high education level among the populace, to ensure that most or all had a very good understanding of how the political system works.
I think semi-direct would be most ideal, though it might end up like in Switzerland, where the turnout for most of the referendums is only about 10-20% I guess it's people's own fault for staying at home, but it still doesn't seem democratic enough. More people would need to take an interest in politics, and perhaps that's too great a demand.

The administration aspect of a more direct democracy might not be as difficult as one might think, as internet access is becoming more and more widespread, and so most, if not all, of the voting could take place online.

 

[Grisu]

I think semi-direct would be most ideal, though it might end up like in Switzerland, where the turnout for most of the referendums is only about 10-20% I guess it's people's own fault for staying at home, but it still doesn't seem democratic enough. More people would need to take an interest in politics, and perhaps that's too great a demand.

where'd you get that that's certainly not true. while the turnout usually is low, it's certainly not that low. usually it's between 40-50%

 

[ComradeDavo]

where'd you get that that's certainly not true. while the turnout usually is low, it'certainly not that low. usually it's between 40-50%

Which is better than council elections in England.

 

[Gelion]

IMHO this needs a lot of money and huge computerization! But it could and should work...

 

[Corlindale]

where'd you get that that's certainly not true. while the turnout usually is low, it's certainly not that low. usually it's between 40-50%

I'm fairly certain I read something like 17% in a newspaper once, but I've probably misremembered, or perhaps that was an example of the lowest turnout ever. I'm glad to be wrong in this case

 

[Grisu]

I'm fairly certain I read something like 17% in a newspaper once, but I've probably misremembered, or perhaps that was an example of the lowest turnout ever. I'm glad to be wrong in this case

could be that it's the lowest ever. I checked the last few years, and most turnouts were between 40-50%, a few spikes both up and down (the lowest I found was 32% the highest 62%)

 

[EdwardTking]

I voted pure Direct Democracy, and it does not require any computers.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

The problem with all forms of government is the uncanny ability of idiots to get in charge. Until we can find a way of removing idiots from the political process, there is no way to develop the perfect government.

 

[sysyphus]

Given that most voters get their information from sensationalist media, I really don't want them making important decisions.

Say what you want about politicians, but they're much better informed (in general) than the lion's share of the electorate.

Representational democracy is best. Populism is just plain scary.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I believe in a Republic. While it doesn't always (well, usually doesn't) work in practice, I expect my representative to be like my doctor. I know the basics, but I expect him to study the details and enact good laws just like I know when I'm sick, but my doctor can figure out whether I have pnemonia or not.

I'm only opposed to direct and semi-direct democracy as I don't want to study all the issues in detail and that is 'what I pay representatives for'. I may not vote the way I want because I don't have time to study the issues.
Also, campaigns for and against may cloud the issue without good facts.

 

[Bill3000]

I voted pure Direct Democracy, and it does not require any computers.

Electronic Direct Democracy would be far more cheaper than current methods of referendums, though.

 

[Sidhe]

Given that most voters get their information from sensationalist media, I really don't want them making important decisions.

Say what you want about politicians, but they're much better informed (in general) than the lion's share of the electorate.

Representational democracy is best. Populism is just plain scary.

I agree it only tends to work in small populations, as much as I like to think that the electorate is well informed and takes great personal strides to look into issues when voting, we know that they don't. It's more expedient to let a minority vote in large countries( a parliament or a senate of elected representatives or whatever) I would say though there should be a way of gaining a referendum in any society, no matter the size, it would slow the government from making stupid decisions and they may well vito it, but it would be under the express condition that the electorate dissaproved and therefore would be in a position to vote them out if their decision proved to be wrong.

 

[Zwelgje]

I voted republic. The best decision for a country as a whole is not necessarily the best decision for the majority of the people in that country. Therefore you need parliament to make decisions, they are more capable to see the big picture. (at least, that's what I hope...)

 

[sysyphus]

Exactly. "Direct democracy" is just a fancy expression for mob rule.