Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by AvalancheMaster, Dec 1, 2013.
Yeah I know, I've never said it could realistically happen, just that it would be a nice thing.
I see nothing you said which actually goes against the idea of direct democracy You seem to decry the state of party politics - direct democracy means the biggest change to party politics you can make within the system.
Most notably: People are not forced to vote in terms of parties.
Direct democracy means that the voters are deciding government policy issues directly by voting on each one. Representative democracy means that the voters elect political leaders who then make the governance decisions. For representative democracy to work, the franchise should be as widely held as possible. So that the elected officials hear from as many voters as possible. Direct democracy cannot work above the level of a village. And is unlikely to work well even at that level. The amount of work that the voters would have to do to be adequately informed about the issues, and then actually exercise the vote, is prohibitive.
That might be self-fullfilling prophecy, since voters might inform themselves better if they get to decide it directly, or abstain from voting for specific set of issues they are not. Many laws that are passed are not well understood by those who author them in the first place in the current parliamentary system. That said, direct democracy works only well in very small polities, which is why it is working so good in Switzerland, itself divided into cantons.
The problem in Bulgaria and Ukraine is mainly corruption, however, I doubt lack of representativity is here the issue. While I don't know for sure, I'd suspect the rigid regimentation of the economies in the form of state-owned businesses as well as structurally undersalaried government workers are key. In fact, the two go hand in hand.
The amount of work that the voters would have to do to be adequately informed about the candidates is prohibitive.
Silly argument is silly Of course voters rely on third parties processing the information for them. The media. They always do.
All you say sounds just like what the Royalists said about representative democracy. There are issues of course, I am also willing to say grave issues, but IMO only big enough issues when being looked at with a blind eye for the issues of the present system.
Moreover, I am not advocating the replacement of representative democracy by direct democracy, but more like the integration of the two. If that works well enough, we can talk about further steps
But above all else, I think we need to stop to act like we actually know what we are talking about and need to just do it. We just need way way more empirics from different implementations, cultures, societies, nations. And if your political elite is in shambles, it seems like a good time for that.
We have the example of California. In which the referendum system has ruined one of the most dynamic economies in the world.
Being a legislator in a large jurisdiction is a full time job. And even at that they don't have time to do it all. With the public, we know that only those most interested in a given subject will bother to vote on it. And so we know that special interests will rule. We have all of this information already, because of the extent to which it's already been tried.
Protesters fell Lenin statue, tell Ukraine's president 'you're next'
Hordes of voters are harder to influence by special interests than a few hundred legislators, even if it only includes those knowledgeable about the subject.
But even easier to deceive through propaganda.
That's the trade-off. I'm a strong proponent of including checks-and-balances to prevent cheap populism, but such measures sometimes contribute to the increased power of special interests, in which case we should know when to stop.
You guys forget that while democracy is good and all, the average voter really has no f*cking idea on how to run a country, and I'm glad that politicians exist (not all of them, but they're much better than the alternative).
I don't want to further derail the thread, I just want to add that IMO every political system stands and falls with how it is practiced. And I highly object that we can precede practice with a general theory of democracy or something. Representative democracies can suck, I am certain direct democratic elements can suck, too and that may very well be the case in California for the time being. Doesn't mean it has to suck in California, or that it couldn't be better implemented in California or that perhaps the Californian electorate instead of the tools given is to be seen as at fault.
On the other hand, in the last thread on direct democracy, I recall downtown pointing out how in other US states special interests weren't even close to be so successful as Cutlass likes to suggest and the Swiss poster we have said the exact same thing about Switzerland.
So no I don't see how we know that. Even if you like to proclaim that as the Biblical truth
Including its Volga part
A lot of suicides (including at least one self-immolation in public) in Bulgaria. Sad for them. I wish the best.
In the real world the opposite is true. Voters who have little to no information about the details of the subject are very easily led by the the way the issue is framed in the debate.
Those were Mongols, not us!
That's true for topics wherein voters are usually only very indirectly involved, like crime, immigration, trade policy and education. But when it directly affects the people, like taxes and health care, personal freedoms and social benefits, voters tend to be quite informed. And I think the Ukrainian and Bulgarian prove that a general sense of freedom and justice is much more important, as well as the thing voters know best.
Both true and false. They were a different ethnic group than Balkan Bulgarians, but with the same ethnic roots. We just got mixed up with Slavs, Thracians, Greeks, Romanians, Turks, etc., etc.
I think that they are around 10 already.
Most self-immolations were during the February protests but today a poor 21 years old man set himself on fire. Police claims he was "mentally unstable", but they've claimed it for every single self-immolator before. Most likely it was as a protest again.
A self-immolator kind of has to be mentally unstable, no?
That's certainly not true in the US. Voters keep falling for "cut taxes" and then wonder why the government is running a deficit.
Separate names with a comma.