Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

Originally posted by Aeons
I have checked it out. And the reason it works is HOMEOGENOUS POPULATION.

Which is why it is starting to crack, as the bureaucracy is cracking that population.

Why democracy works in the inhomogenous US (if you think it works ). Is it because it is representative, or because of voting regions?

reply to post by Aeons


That is your opinion. You make a claim and I ask for proof and you say wait a couple years. Fine, I'll see you then.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Aeons

 

That is your opinion. You make a claim and I ask for proof and you say wait a couple years. Fine, I'll see you then.

Well when that starts happening, it should become very clear to the pie-in-the-sky people.

In the meantime, what sort of proof do you want?

Have you looked into areas that are not homeogenous, are wide spread, where the variety and resources are tremendously different? For example - I'd dare you to try and figure out how to make this system work in Canada. It wouldn't. It would fail, and the entire country would fracture.

Which, in my opinion, is exactly what you people are looking to do so I'm sure you don't give a damn about that.

reply to post by Honor93

Parlimentary systems are representative government. In my very first post I linked to a page that describes the Swiss model. They elect members of parliment that represent them. They have direct democracy in that they can veto laws and make amendments to their constitution through referendums.

I never said it was one or the other I have said many times that they have direct democracy within a constitutional republic.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Honor93

 

when a national minority opinion IS the majority vote of a specific region, that minority opinion remains represented throughout the legislative process. not so much in a DD styled government.

Thats not because the system is representative, but because there are divided voting regions. The same thing can be accomplished by direct democracy divided into voting regions. There is simply no justification for representatives. Voting regions can be justified.

and btw, all humans are susceptible to corruption ... their status of representation whether direct or indirect really has no impact on their susceptibility to being corrupted.

To corrupt direct democracy law voting process, you would have to bribe millions of people. While theoretically possible, in practice its impossible. I would say that corporation that bribes millions into voting as it wants deserves the cake.

because a system based on a majority vote is quite dependent on the number of persons that equal the majority.
the Swiss, have a majority threshold of merely 3.8 million persons ... not 150+ million like the US.

so, considering quantity ... how would you rally some 150+ million ppl to vote the majority in any given situation??
considering present history, we the people don't seem to successfully influence the 400+ congress-critters elected to vote as OUR representatives. how is that their fault ?????

When I mean majority, I mean majority of those who vote, just like with normal elections, not all citizens. Those who do not care to vote even when they can effectively say "I dont care about this issue, let the others decide". Majority of those who care is who should decide about a law. It would still be far more people than now, when its only a few representatives.

wow, really ??
let's see if i'm following your logic correctly, ok ??
first, our representatives are NOT necessary because they vote by their regional influences.
to fix that, we create regional voting blocs ??
pardon me but i thought that is what the representatives are elected to do.
[not commenting on their failure to perform ... that is another topic]

there is no justification for representatives ??
sooooo, i'm guessing each person would be expected to argue their points on capitol hill, in person ?? somehow, i'm just not seeing this happening at any time in our future.

in order to achieve the above, the public at large would need to be quite knowledgeable about each piece of legislation, correct ?? good luck with that one.

let's not get into the industrial impact of each region and their potential influence, k?

this statement is just soooooo bad that i had to repeat it ... are you for real?

I would say that corporation that bribes millions into voting as it wants deserves the cake

and yet, you don't realize this is exactly what has brought us to this boiling point? wow

when the majority of voters participating does not equal or reasonably reflect the number of voters eligible to participate, how does anyone see the result as a 'majority of public opinion' ??

Majority of those who care is who should decide about a law. It would still be far more people than now, when its only a few representatives

this ^^ is nothing more than an assumption on your part. got any links to back up your claim?

based on historical evidence, the ppl who do care are often too self-involved to really give a crap enough to DO anything but follow along and hope for the best.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by Aeons
I have checked it out. And the reason it works is HOMEOGENOUS POPULATION.

Which is why it is starting to crack, as the bureaucracy is cracking that population.

Why democracy works in the inhomogenous US (if you think it works

). Is it because it is representative, or because of voting regions?

edit on 25/11/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

The US system has problems for sure. Which I think are mainly due to the influence of corporate/mob/union/rich money and their stranglehold on the media and parties.

That it is representative and regional is why it works.

One of the problems that is creeping in that could never have been forecasted is the trend to take power away from those who are are not urban. A variation of regionalism, and one that pretty accurately reflects the major issue in not properly assessing the effects of regionalism.

Break the regions down more! Ah, but now I have the Shariah-neighbourhood from 36 Avenue to 110th, neighboured by the Vietnamese District from 42 Street West to Center.

This idea encourages blocking up to garner bigger power blocks by organized interests. Which is so ironic since the people pushing these solutions are the ones most enamoured of multicultural socieities being the best, but their solutions would lay the foundation for those societies to break down.

reply to post by Aeons


Without it actually being tested in a diverse country it is nothing more than speculation.

You said that the Swiss model is failing and that their country is being Balkanized. Proof of that claim would be good for starters.

reply to post by daskakik

and what you are failing to acknowledge is that the power of the Fed is granted by the people ... not the other way around. Any legislation can be repealed (and has been) ... every law can be called into question and defeated by citizen initiatives.

your point is merely to surpass the checks and balances already in play in favor of a more bottle-necked approach leaving much decision making to future generations. Nice going choosing to pass the buck rather face the consequences of our own failure to participate.

edit to add: (at the risk of moderator angst) ... here is a classic example of a citizen initiative in action ... the movement to legalize a specific herbal treatment for medicinal purposes.

The Fed says it is illegal, many citizens disagree ... so much so, they have successfully modified their state laws to reflect the people's choice, regardless of the Feds position on the matter. And, once a majority of states follow in the same footsteps, the majority opinion of the entirety of Congress is likely to change with it .... hence, so will Fed laws regarding it.
This, is how the process is supposed to work.
by utilizing the citizen initiative, the majority opinion of the populus generally rules in the end.
(hence, the DD process is alive and well in the US)

What sort of proof do you want?

All of the European nations are being balkanized at the moment. As the boomers die off, and the effects of the break down of the family in the 20-40 year old group of non-immigrants becomes apparent as the boomers effect on statistics is removed, this effect is going to become very pronounced.

Cultural time bomb.

So since you can't see that, or maybe are one of those people who thinks this is AWESOME, what sort of proof do you want?

Further, why would I want to embrace this model in a diverse society when I can already see what the problem with it is?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

and what you are failing to acknowledge is that the power of the Fed is granted by the people ... not the other way around. Any legislation can be repealed (and has been) ... every law can be called into question and defeated by citizen initiatives.

your point is merely to surpass the checks and balances already in play in favor of a more bottle-necked approach leaving much decision making to future generations. Nice going choosing to pass the buck rather face the consequences of our own failure to participate.

Passing the buck? Empowering future generations is passing the buck. OK.

If the power of the Fed is granted by the people then what is the problem with the people having a direct way of keeping that power in check? Plus the checks and balances already in play would remain so your argument fails.

reply to post by Aeons


The governmment in question is the Swiss government so proof that under this model of direct democracy the Swiss people are being balkanized.

I see now that that may not have been what you meant but seeing that it was a point made against DD and the Swiss model being the real world example of its implementation then that would be the proof I'm asking for.

reply to post by Honor93

pardon me but i thought that is what the representatives are elected to do. [not commenting on their failure to perform ... that is another topic]

That is not another topic, thats the core of the difference. Voting blocs would accomplish all that representatives do, except they cannot be corrupted.

sooooo, i'm guessing each person would be expected to argue their points on capitol hill, in person ?? somehow, i'm just not seeing this happening at any time in our future.

Yes, direct democracy on a national scale would not be possible just 20 years ago. But now, we finally have the technology (computers and internet) to make it a reality. Laws would be proposed and voting would be performed electronically and securely, just like for example bank transactions with billions are now.

Electronic direct democracy

in order to achieve the above, the public at large would need to be quite knowledgeable about each piece of legislation, correct ?? good luck with that one.

People who care about the issue would surely do so. Or legistation would get simpler. I see only benefits, compared to representative system.

and yet, you don't realize this is exactly what has brought us to this boiling point? wow

Political representatives ignoring the opinion of the people, even their own voters, is what brought US, and other representative republics into the mess. Do you think that if someone proposed a law saying "pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan", majority of voters would not vote "Yes" on it long ago, and something would actually get done? The reason why US was still in those wars by 2011 is that representatives dont execute the opinion of the voters. And if they even do sometimes, it takes very long.

when the majority of voters participating does not equal or reasonably reflect the number of voters eligible to participate, how does anyone see the result as a 'majority of public opinion' ??

Those who can express their opinion, but voluntarily choose not to, obviously do not have an opinion on the issue - dont care if its one way or the other. They should not block those who have an opinion from deciding.

this ^^ is nothing more than an assumption on your part. got any links to back up your claim?

Do you think there would be only 535 people in the US who care about legislation?

based on historical evidence, the ppl who do care are often too self-involved to really give a crap enough to DO anything but follow along and hope for the best.

Got any links to back up your claim? I would surely vote and even propose laws about issues I care about.

Tell me you wouldn't like to have DD to veto something like this: Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

Declaring american soil a battlefield so that the military can be used to arrest and imprison citizens without being charged or tried.

I bet you would get way more than 2/3 against that law. Instead you can write your representative, of course if they happen to be Sen. Lindsey Graham or Sen. Kelly Ayotte then your SOL because they support it.

I have meetings all afternoon, so I'll post tonight.

In the meantime, as the USA's neighbour if you guys actually implement this foolishness we are going to have to figure out how to deal with your country cracking into a thousands of conflicting units.

Your county level bureaucratic mess is already a mass of stupidity. Start breaking it out into "voter blocks" inside other administrative/cultural units.... good God. Dealing with the Russian mob will be more appealing.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

and what you are failing to acknowledge is that the power of the Fed is granted by the people ... not the other way around. Any legislation can be repealed (and has been) ... every law can be called into question and defeated by citizen initiatives.

your point is merely to surpass the checks and balances already in play in favor of a more bottle-necked approach leaving much decision making to future generations. Nice going choosing to pass the buck rather face the consequences of our own failure to participate.

Passing the buck? Empowering future generations is passing the buck. OK.

If the power of the Fed is granted by the people then what is the problem with the people having a direct way of keeping that power in check? Plus the checks and balances already in play would remain so your argument fails.

i am not arguing, i am trying to understand your model as it would apply in the US.
and so far, based on your own descriptions, it doesn't change what we already do.

let's use the current OWS protests as an example.
in one city, the grievances vary from personal to corporate.
in another city, they may focus on the Fed Reserve.
and yet in another, they may be clamoring for more jobs.
so, where in the US, do you find even 5 states (less than 1/5 the population) who share a common goal?

In the US Constitution, there is this phrase (which hasn't changed since its inception) that states ...

Article IV ... Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

source
now, no offense intended but how or why would we continue to veer away from our foundations?

i'm all for Constitutional amendments as necessary, but to do what you suggest is eliminating it all together.
not ... how'd you say it ... using 99.9% of what's already there.
heck, we don't honor 89% of its contents now, look who's POTUS.

oh, and btw, the 1st amendment (also known as the Bill of Rights) specifically guarantees the right of the people to petition their government for a redress of grievances. why would we need an alternate specification or amendment for that matter ?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

source
i really don't follow how you perceive delaying the process is empowering future generations ??
how is your suggestion granting future generations greater powers than they have today ??
their choice to exercise them is another story altogether.

oh, and in case you're not familiar with the US Constitution, if you utilize the links i provided, you may want to browse Article V which refers to the first and fourth clauses contained in Section 9 of Article I and then maybe you'll understand why the protests (all of them) are necessary ... even the Taxed Enough Already movement.

Originally posted by Honor93
i'm all for Constitutional amendments as necessary, but to do what you suggest is eliminating it all together.
not ... how'd you say it ... using 99.9% of what's already there.
heck, we don't honor 89% of its contents now, look who's POTUS.

If you add an amendment that says the people can petition and have a referendum to veto specific laws like the one I posted above, how is that eliminating it all together? The whole system would be the same except that you wouldn't have to petition the government for a redress of grievances and hope they see it your way or are not in someones back pocket.

So all they have to do then is find a way to buy off entire voter blocks with bread and wine. Yay!

reply to post by Maslo

Voting blocs would accomplish all that representatives do, except they cannot be corrupted

baloney and more BS ... voting blocs are made up of humans, all humans can be corrupted ... failed argument on all levels. votes are bought every election cycle and everyone knows it.

voting blocs are separatist by their very nature ... America is not.

But now, we finally have the technology (computers and internet) to make it a reality.

i'm betting you couldn't find 10% of ATS users who agree the technology is sufficient for what you propose. And as for security on the internetz ??? you must be joking

bank transactions secure ??? in which country ?? certainly not the US and i can provide example after example after example, even before Anon joined the party.
perhaps you should freshen up on current events before making such a ridiculous statement.

well, you can see only benefits and in the US, that is your prerogative.
i however, see a fuller picture and don't perceive the benefits you envision.

what wars ???? boy are you mistaken.
we haven't been "at war" since the 1950s and Korea.
all the rest are conflicts, not wars ... until you understand the difference, i don't expect you to understand the rest. good luck in your discoveries.

and as a side note ... what many of you youngsters fail to realize or even absorb is this simple fact ... yes, the 60s were turbulent, yes there was a decade of protesting (violent even), however, the conflict in VietNam only came to an end when TPTB had no soldiers to fight it ... 500,000+ active duty soldiers deserted their positions and refused to fight.
THAT is what ended the conflict, not the protests, not the outcries of the families, not even the angst at TPTBs response to said protests. The movement of the people at home protesting did NOTHING to effect the outcome of the conflict ... the movement of the people to enlighten the soldiers did. When the soldiers took action (deserted) the conflict fell apart. (which should happen now, too bad more ppl aren't focusing on that angle)

Those who can express their opinion, but voluntarily choose not to, obviously do not have an opinion on the issue - dont care if its one way or the other. They should not block those who have an opinion from deciding.

first, you are assuming everyONE has internet access (no where close my friend)
second, you are also assuming ppl have time to invest in learning about every piece of legislation proposed (not so in this country and that doesn't automatically mean we don't care)

Many Americans would prefer seeing a whole lot of laws wiped OFF the books and a reboot of the Constitution in its original form.
lastly, you are assuming way too much for such an exercise to be successful.

the 434 members of the 112th Congress who have been elected don't seem to ... give a new group the opportunity to try.
source

you have the power to recall your representative.
you have the power to initiate town hall meetings where you can call a community vote on pending legislation and form a "voting bloc", it's done all the time ... why change the Constitution ??

i'm guessing you really don't understand how the system is supposed to work.

Got any links to back up your claim? I would surely vote and even propose laws about issues I care about.

what kind of links ?? voter turn outs? citizen blogs? msm comment sections? first-hand experiences over the last half century? what links would suit you?

the simple lack of voter turn out, voter participation in the community and total lobbyist control is exemplary of the dire situation regarding non-participation by those endowed and expected to "care".

Originally posted by Aeons
So all they have to do then is find a way to buy off entire voter blocks with bread and wine. Yay!

Yep but it would be alot harder and more expensive than buying off 400 representatives. A hundred dollar bill for 200 million voters (2/3) world be $20,000,000,000. Giving 400 politicians a cool million would total $400,000,000. That's a $19,600,000,000 difference. That would have to be one important piece of legislation.

Originally posted by daskakik
Tell me you wouldn't like to have DD to veto something like this: Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window

Declaring american soil a battlefield so that the military can be used to arrest and imprison citizens without being charged or tried.

I bet you would get way more than 2/3 against that law. Instead you can write your representative, of course if they happen to be Sen. Lindsey Graham or Sen. Kelly Ayotte then your SOL because they support it.

edit on 25-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

this is not a law, it is a Bill, there is a difference.
many horrible Bills are presented and dismissed ... it's part of the process, but that is where the citizens come in and their perpetual failure to do so is how such horrible Bills get approved (without majority consent)

i don't agree with this proposal and wouldn't support it, would you ??
surprisingly, ppl tend to think by ignoring it, it'll go away ... truth is, by ignoring it, you are actually passively approving it (or that is how it is interpreted anyway)