Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

I find it EXTREMELY humorous anyone would could possibly consider this idea as having any validity...especially here on this site...I find most of the people here extremely distrustful of PTB and yet, the solution is to turn over control to a bunch of people who simply have access to a PC...and may not know anything else...

On top of that, everything the PTB tells us is NOT TO BE BELIEVED, yet if it comes down to the results of what amounts to an INTERNET POLL...that mindset suddenly changes to one of, "OH YEAH, WE CAN BELIEVE THIS!!!"

GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK!!! As added content, for the first time in my posting career here at ATS, I add this>>>

reply to post by Ethericplane


A straight direct democracy would be a bad idea. Mob rule solves nothing. No matter where you stand on your partisan leanings, the majority of the population is uneducated in current events let alone the nuances of anything that goes into legislative processes (aka the populace is stupid. Do you really trust the majority of americans to make a decision on your behalf? Forget it if you're from a small state and having any say in federal matters). Anyone who has studied political theory should gain an understanding that moving into only one form of government -- The one, few or many -- suffers from all the negatives of its form and gains none of the benefits of the others. It is the theory that America was founded on and changing from it would destroy the country at its core.

It doesn't solve anything.

The only problem with direct democracy in the United States is that the masses are utterly stupid.

We have people that care more or know more about what is going on with Dancing With The Stars and Basketball Wives than we do about the rampant corruption in government and utter class warfare being waged on our people.

Then, you also have the fools that sit there and swallow everything that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh spout off hook line and sinker. Nevermind the far right Christian NUTJOBS!!!

I wish the mother earth had a reset button. Hell, she may already have one, and it has already been pressed.

Originally posted by cypruswolf
reply to post by Ethericplane

 

A straight direct democracy would be a bad idea. Mob rule solves nothing. No matter where you stand on your partisan leanings, the majority of the population is uneducated in current events let alone the nuances of anything that goes into legislative processes (aka the populace is stupid. Do you really trust the majority of americans to make a decision on your behalf? Forget it if you're from a small state and having any say in federal matters). Anyone who has studied political theory should gain an understanding that moving into only one form of government -- The one, few or many -- suffers from all the negatives of its form and gains none of the benefits of the others. It is the theory that America was founded on and changing from it would destroy the country at its core.

It doesn't solve anything.

Exactly....especially after reading the stuff that gets posted on here, I'd be very wary about trusting mob rule in the US with solving anything. I wouldn't trust a populace of louts, racists, and tv zombies to decide anything on my behalf anymore than I would some nickel and dime congresspig that screws over the populace.

so me and my 'buddies' form a pact and utilize the sum total of our collective resources to garner that 51% vote.

Direct Democracy




[to add]

Originally posted by svetlana84
This is a very interesting thread! I am all for direct democracy.

and quite honestly shocked about how many votes are against direct democracy.

Let's look at switzerland, one of the most democratic nation on this planet:

They have a parlimentary system, they are not a direct democracy. They play a very small role in international politics, which in people who are isolationists would applaud; however, the US due to its size and resources is impossible. Someone had to fill the void as the leading hegemony following WWII and the US was the only country in a position to do so. That was one of the leading problems following the war to end all wars. There was no country to step in following the decline of the British empire.

- highest standard of living, zurich is always in the top3 in these statistics
- no involvements in wars since 700 years (except for self defense in WWII)
- amazing enoconomic numbers
- if you want to change something you only have to get 100 000 signatures of people who are for your idea and then this gets voted on by everybody. So even mindblowing things get a votation, like in the 1989 there was an initiative to get rid of the army, which got 35%. And the legalisation of cannabis which unfortunately did not get passed. (36% voted for for legalisation)

Point 1: Size of the country plays the biggest role in this
Point 2: As I pointed about above, this means nothing
Point 3: The mindblowing resolutions that go through are exactly why direct democracy would be a bad idea. California has a similar system where resolutions can be passed as long as they get enough petition signatures to put the resolution on the ballot. People don't even read, most just sign anyways. That is the reason for California's legislative issues.

I ve never seen the states being really democratic when it comes down to voting for Dems or Reps, there are so many political subjects, stances and ideas it just cannot be covered by two parties alone (especially when they both have more or less the same programs, seems in the last ten years they both supported going into more wars...)

Number of political parties has no bearing on how democratic a country is. Not going to get into parties with this thread it would completely derail it.

And to the side discussion about anarchy: in my knowledge there was never really a time or place in history with a working anarchy with no rulers. Even small indigene (spelling?) communities like in the jungle or on remote islands have their elders who sit together, discuss matters and take actions. It works more with respect than with force and is closer to the people than a government, but is also some sort of rulers.

Anarchy and direct democracy are not even the same style. Anarchy is at the extreme end of the government forms of One (everyone for themselves/ only answer to themselves), direct democracy is of the many. While there may be no examples of anarchical systems, the form is theoretically possible and thus is taken into consideration. Sociological tendencies will always lead to a monarchy or dictatorship before an anarchical system.

On the other hand there is existingleaderless anarchy in so called failed states, like somalia. The result is a brutal 'the stronger gets it all' society with not much freedom and no justice.

edit on 22-11-2011 by svetlana84 because: Added the numbers on the votes

that is the other extreme end of a government of one, the king of the hill/dictator/monarchy rule

Another add: the 'mob' subject: maybe i fail on understanding, in my book a mob is a group of people, mostly stirred by anger and has a negative subnote, like a gang or in 'mobbing'.
In a direct democracy decision have to have the consent of at least 50% of the voters. Which the majority of people, and not a mob.

edit on 22-11-2011 by svetlana84 because: (no reason given)

It varies on degrees but psychologically it is mob rule.

And the last add ( it s bed time my brain is tired, but this is an important point) As mentioned before, for a direct democracy it is very important to have a good education system for everybody because everybody is a decision maker. but then again, if you have direct democracy you have a good education system because everybody wants their kids to have a good education and thus votes for it.

So thats it for today, heading of to sleep.
Keep up the good discussion

edit on 22-11-2011 by svetlana84 because: (no reason given)

No its not as simple as having an educated/sophisticated population. There are far more sociological factors that come into play. It has several drawbacks and isn't the nirvana of government systems.

reply to post by cypruswolf


What is the nirvana of government systems if not direct democracy? Maybe direct technocracy is worth a consideration IMHO. But all representative systems are suspectible to corruption, thus inferior to direct systems, which are immune to corruption.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

That is about pure democracy vs. constitutional democracy, not about direct vs. representative one.

US can be turned into direct democracy by substituting representative congress voting with direct public voting.

That was about pure democracy (direct democracy; the parsing and interchanging of phrases is tiresome) and a Republic. Madison clearly states that is what he is comparing. Where are you seeing it otherwise?

So you are taking the stance that in a Direct Democracy, the likes that have been paraded here in this thread can solve this problem in which Madison writes "...reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."

That is exactly what a Direct Democracy does. It attempts to reduce the political rights of citizens to a perceived political equality. Even where such democracy does exist -- being your local municipalities and some areas of State government -- not all citizens retain the same political rights for they are not equal in those rights.

What I speak of is the diversity of Man. If such forms of democracy are messy on the smallest scale how can they then become this perfect bastion of political utopia at larger national levels? Democracy as a form of Government requires that the majority rule with power and not by Law. Even if such constraints are placed upon the majority, they are only a consensus vote away from being removed.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Aeons

 

That system does not ignore the function of local representatives any more than the current one.

You change core values and beliefs every week?

Larger minority? If that minority is large enough then they will not be overriden every time. From what I have seen it is the wealthy and/or a vocal minority that does most of the overriding. How is that any better?

ETA: You could also include a Bill of Rights that is untouchable by popular vote.

edit on 24-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Okay. Let me be clearer for you.

Violence. The answer is mass violence as political tool.

Originally posted by Aeons
Okay. Let me be clearer for you.

Violence. The answer is mass violence as political tool.

So why haven't the countries with systems like that exploded into this violence you speak of? Maybe because your wrong. What can be clearer than a real world example.

I promise, that if I find that the majority of you decided that you were allowed to force certain things on me because you think that being more numerous gives you the right to do so you will find out what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Aeons
I promise, that if I find that the majority of you decided that you were allowed to force certain things on me because you think that being more numerous gives you the right to do so you will find out what I'm talking about.

But your OK with a minority forcing things on you because they have the money to bribe politicians. So, your not gonna show us what your talking about as long as that minority keeps making your choices for you.

Oh no. I have no interest in elitist scoundrels continuing to make decisions that over ride everyone else.

However, that doesn't mean that I buy into your logical fallacy of that YOUR solution of being tyrannized by a majority somehow more appealing. This isn't an either-or situation.

Originally posted by Aeons
Oh no. I have no interest in elitist scoundrels continuing to make decisions that over ride everyone else.

However, that doesn't mean that I buy into your logical fallacy of that YOUR solution of being tyrannized by a majority somehow more appealing. This isn't an either-or situation.

How can it be a logical fallacy if it exists? You have no proof that there would be tyranny under that system. The Swiss system proves you wrong.

Maslo asked what would be the ideal form of government and nobody even offered an answer. If it isn't either-or then what?

reply to post by Ethericplane

are you an American ??

Direct Democracy would empower the People to vote in new laws with a simple 2/3rds quorum. This quorum could be reached any day of the week if Internet Voting was continuous.

the top three reasons this is a bad idea ...
1. voting is private and should stay that way. nothing is private on the internetz
2. too many laws already on the books
3. America is a representative Republic and most Americans have no interest in changing the core creation.

other good reasons why this would never work ...
many ppl have negative attention spans
too many ppl simply have no interest
a majority of ppl already have "other" things to do, daily
far too many elites can buy as many votes as they deem necessary to gain majority (as is done today) so nothing really changes
no computer system is secure enough to insure a fair result
being over-stimulated is as equally destructive as being under-stimulated
and a 2/3 majority is not as easy to achieve as it seems
need more ???

Originally posted by Honor93
America is a representative Republic and most Americans have no interest in changing the core creation.

This is why I don't understand the opposition. You can keep everything as is but add popular veto power. Power to initiate an amendment is a bit more touchy but just the veto power would be a great advancement.

I mean they shoved the super congress down the peoples throat and nobody did anything. That was a big change and not for the better but something that would give the people a voice is bad?

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Maslo

 

The problem with direct democracy is that checks and balances can be removed with a simple vote.

The same is in essence true for constitutional republic. The difference is, in constitutional direct democracy, its the votes of the people, in constitutional republic, its the votes of the representatives.

NO it is not the same, in a CR ... the representatives are supposed to vote the voice of the ppl which may be a minority opinion and they should change regularly which is also intended to reflect the voice of the ppl they represent, regardless if the opinion is of the majority or minority, it is represented at the highest levels of decision making.

In a DD, you lose your voice if you are not in the majority.

reply to post by Honor93


If you had read the thread you would have seen that the Swiss have a system very similar to the US but the people can veto laws and call for amendments. It is DD within CR. It works for the Swiss and I'm sure that it could work for the US but like I said on page 2 of this thread getting americans on-board would be the hard part.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Honor93
America is a representative Republic and most Americans have no interest in changing the core creation.

This is why I don't understand the opposition. You can keep everything as is but add popular veto power. Power to initiate an amendment is a bit more touchy but just the veto power would be a great advancement.

I mean they shoved the super congress down the peoples throat and nobody did anything. That was a big change and not for the better but something that would give the people a voice is bad?

never said giving the ppl a voice was bad ... please don't misdirect the conversation.

i protested the super congress but 1 in 300 million didn't get much attention, ya know?
(plus, alot of average Joes didn't even know the SC was in session or excused without resolve) ... remember, we're talking "average joes" here, not community involved, politically engaged or historically knowledgeable ppl)

besides, given the current economic situation and the SCs supposed 'goal', how many ppl do you think would have exercised said veto power if they had it ??

even after 9/11, i was as inclined to invade as much as the next guy ... right or wrong, it was the passion of the moment and that is a bad element to include in the voting process. (passion)

look, i do agree that elements of the direct democratic process being presented have value, however, i do not see a direct democracy as an acceptable, complete system of government ... at least not in the US

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

If you had read the thread you would have seen that the Swiss have a system very similar to the US but the people can veto laws and call for amendments. It is DD within CR. It works for the Swiss and I'm sure that it could work for the US but like I said on page 2 of this thread getting americans on-board would be the hard part.

i did read the thread (before responding even) and am rather offended that you'd take such an assumptive stance when clearly, you have no other argument.

the Swiss, collectively, total less than 1/3 the population of Texas ... how is that any kind of comparison or evidence of success ??

i could be convinced to try out such a platform in a percentage of the country willing to participate but not much more than that unless i see real results showing significant progress.
[ps ... this was kinda done before ... see world history from around 1798]

using the Swiss as a model isn't going to sway many Americans who know better. funny thing about that swiss model too ... they share a common goal ... good luck finding one of those in America.