Direct Democrcy

Originally posted by DirectDemocracy
reply to post by benrl

 

As opposed to an Executive order? Or executive privilege? As opposed to politicians voting in the interests of the lobbyists giving them hundreds of millions of dollars in "campaign contributions"? Do YOU honestly not see what is wrong with a representative system?

What I find most disturbing is this rising belief that the original system implemented by our founders is wrong...

It seems to me that is the exact goal of the TWO party system and the war on education.

Its designed to tear down our Rights and our Constitution.

The goal is to make the people so stupid, and the system so corrupt that they will cry out for the very chains that will oppress them.

The solution is USING the rights given us by the founders to implement the change we want, the problem is people have been undereducated in the very system of Government we have so that they feel powerless.

The end result is the current Two party Division that divides us all, they are purposefully making worse and worse choices so that people like you CALL for the tearing down of the system.

Its a bitter pill that they are trying to make us swallow.

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


It really stems back to the old Kingdom's and Monarchy's of Europe, where people were 'taught' (really forced) to praise and worship such forms of absolute hierarchy. Now it is justified through all sorts of means, which just fall flat on there face when given a little more thought. This whole idea of a Democratic Republic is just so nonsensical it is amazing people even talk about it like it holds any weight. The forefathers would of turned in their grave if they heard such things. Yet, they just really thought their system of checks and balances would work, when it wouldn't. Many of them feared this would be true too, but they saw no other alternative of how to both keep a ruling class and not create another Monarchy. They tried, kudos to them, but it failed miserably. The only thing that changed was that the public became the owner of their own oppression by believing they were actually having an effect by electing people into office. In reality, they were just choosing between Oligarchs.

It started out in oppression and exploitation and unfortunately was never able to change. The real freedom and equality that America champions has always came from populist movements, such as the Abolitionist Movement, the Women's Rights Movement, the Labor Movements, the Civil Rights Movements.... on and on. This is all forms of Direct Democracy. The elite HATE this, which explains the propaganda they spend Billions of Dollars to push on people like those in this thread who are apologists for them. It is a sad, sad, sad, thing. All we can do is tell it like it is and keep pushing back.

Peace.

Your video was cute. I especially liked the part about Ben Franklin talking to a woman about politics.

The woman asks Ben Franklin as he was exiting the constitutional convention "Sir, what have you given us?"

Ben Franklin responds. "To you? Nothing. For you are a woman and can neither vote nor become a politician in our republic. It will take you until the year 1920 before women will be allowed to vote in OUR government. From the year 1787 until 1920 you will never be a part of the American government that we just made. You will sit and wait 133 years before you will be afforded the right to vote. And you will have to fight tooth and nail for this right from us wealthy white male land owners for we will not give it to you without a battle of epic proportions."

"There have been 39 women in the United States Senate since the establishment of that body in 1789. The first woman served in 1922, but women were first elected in number in 1992. As of 2012, 17 of the 100 senators are women."

en.wikipedia.org...

17 out of 100. Not bad considering women comprise more than 50% of the population of our species! They are almost at 20% political representation after more than 230 years! Nice job representative democracy!

Of course in a Direct Democracy things like this would not exist because everyone votes directly on every issue. 100% of all women will have representation. 100% of all Gay, lesbian, Bi, Asexuals, Omni sexuals, Transexuals and everything in between will have representation. Every nationality/race whatever you want to call it will have 100% representation. Everyone. As equals. All voting on every issue separately.

Empowered for the first time in the history of our species.

Originally posted by DirectDemocracy
Your video was cute. I especially liked the part about Ben Franklin talking to a woman about politics.

The woman asks Ben Franklin as he was exiting the constitutional convention "Sir, what have you given us?"

Ben Franklin responds. "To you? Nothing. For you are a woman and can neither vote nor become a politician in our republic. It will take you until the year 1920 before women will be allowed to vote in OUR government. From the year 1787 until 1920 you will never be a part of the American government that we just made. You will sit and wait 133 years before you will be afforded the right to vote. And you will have to fight tooth and nail for this right from us wealthy white land owners for we will not give it to you without a battle of epic proportions."

Do you not understand that in a mob rule the very example you give would never of happened? Women suffrage would never happen under the system of mob rule.

It was the representative republic that allowed for it, things like the 14th amendment (which is still argued to this day) wouldn't of happened.

You are grossly over simplifying the issue, like I said, take a Civics course.

James Madison on your direct democracy

"A pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

You are mistaking a symptom for a cause.

The problem lays in the electoral process that picks our representatives, and not the representative republic it self.

Campaign finance reform, term limits, and perhaps a revisiting of the electoral college would solve the issue, what you suggest is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

reply to post by benrl


I am not sure why you consider a Direct Democracy to be a Mob rule when in fact a representative government is more of a form of mob rule than being empowered to be your own political representative is.

In a Direct Democracy you are not FORCED to go with the mob like you are in a representative democracy. You are not FORCED to pick Mob choice A or mob choice B.

In a direct democracy there is no mob because after enough time and enough voting it is possible for every single person in the United States to have voted in a different way than every other person in the country.

There will be more possible combinations on voting choices in a direct democracy than there exists citizens in the United States!

How can a mob exist with a nearly infinite number of political voting options?
How can a mob exist when every person is their own political candidate?
How can a mob exist when every vote is a separate election with separate viewpoints and separate topics?

Representative democracy is the mob. A Direct Democracy is freedom from the mob. Direct Democracy is empowerment as an individual. Representative two party system is a mob choice between A or B.

reply to post by benrl


"We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government." - James Madison on OUR Direct Democracy.

reply to post by benrl

Do you not understand that in a mob rule the very example you give would never of happened? Women suffrage would never happen under the system of mob rule. It was the representative republic that allowed for it, things like the 14th amendment (which is still argued to this day) wouldn't of happened.

First of all, your repeated use of "mob rule" is evident of your inability to accurately describe what it is you are trying to say. I already laid out in my first post where this term comes from and why it is obsolete. Only right-wing elitists use this term as a form of propaganda. Are you a millionaire elitist? No... then why are you standing up for your oppressor?!

Second, you are crazy. Yeah, I said it. Women's suffrage happened because of a representative republic (a Plutarchy veiled as a Aristocracy)? WOW!!!! You really don't know history, at all! That was a populist movement (what you would probably lazily label "mob rule") that was born out of extreme suffering. Women, and men, fought tooth and nail for these rights, FROM THE ELITISTS YOU ARE APOLOGIZING FOR! Same with every other populist movement. Geez... smh...wow....smh again. Wow....smh again!

reply to post by openlocks


I do not think we will ever make any headway by insulting each other. Only through civilized rational discourse can we progress forward. Rather than calling someone crazy or posting reaction facepalm pictures, you have to use logic and intelligent debate. I know you are good at it because I saw your first post in my thread and it was amazing.

It is an incredible thing to imagine a more free form of government than a representative democracy. I was never taught much about Direct Democracy in my entire life. Never once had I ever heard mention of it in public school. In fact the first time that I ever heard about it was on a discussion at ATS a long time ago.

The idea stuck with me and grew like a seed planted in my mind. Someone had the patience to explain what it was to me and I am grateful. I too questioned what they said and adamantly defended our representative form of government. It took a while for me to fully grasp the true potential and empowerment of a Direct Democracy. I am here to learn ideas, be they for or against my own.

I like to think of my political ideology as a living belief system that can change depending upon the best argument and the most logical evidence presented. If there exists a form of government that provides more freedom and empowerment than a Direct Democracy then I have yet to hear of it. But I would be willing to allow someone o present their side.

Originally posted by DirectDemocracy
I did not see any current or active topics discussing Direct Democracy. I thought it would be interesting to see what yall think about a Direct Democratic form of government?

With the ease of voting over the internet this kind of thing should be far more common than it would at first appear.

More and more the people are becoming mere spectators to government decision making and action instaed of active pariticipants in setting boundaries on government policy and less and less the people are being shut out of government decision making and action when via the internet the people should be exerting greater and greater ownership and control of their government.

Just goes to show that these things are planned and dont 'just happen.'

There are a few ATS members who both support and actively promote Direct Democracy.

Here are some previous threads.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

ATS member stumason has done some great work in trying to generate interest and awareness of Direct Democracy here in the UK.

Unfortunately I haven't got the time to read through your thread at present but I'll try to reply once I've read through it.

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


I support using direct democracy as our system of government, but I disagree with the way you think it is not mob rule.

I have no problem with true mob rule, it is better than the disproportionate control which currently exists.

I like the general idea of direct democracy, but it will need solutions to lots of new problems and new counter-balancing mechanisms.
A) It is just as open to criminal outside interference by powerfull groups - aka "fixing" votes by hacking the systems heart, creating hordes of ghost voters or simply infecting voters computers. Even more open because it is practically impossible to check the real vote. New security measures have to be considered.

B) Political desicions and laws are complex and deal in lots of disciplines,have a lots of implications. I am clueless about how economy works,for example. How can i vote for or against anything that is dealing with it?
Well, i am not American - but i assume there are few Americans who are just as clueless as me.
Who will explain what the law proposal consequences will be if on any issue there are at least 3 different opinions from 2 experts. And who will listen to experts, when there is:

C)Mass Media. Whoever will push the agenda via media on lowest common level,unchecked by any specific counter-balance, would win the direct vote. Period. As simple as that.

D) Lack of interest by common people vs increased interest by group involved. Meaning - majority would not bather to vote if issue is not important to them but interested groups will vote in numbers potentially distorting the real picture.

E) Who will be allowed to suggest laws (if all - expect to drown in trollish or simply stupid laws,thousands a day) and if it will be selected by some beurocrats then it will create new major weak point for corruption.

A and B are more or less what we have right now, Parliament members are also usually clueless and elections can be rigged now too.
D is the easiest to solve - some sort of tax carrot for those who vote and we got 99% of voters .
E might be solved by allowing for final vote laws that only have certain number of active identified supporters in several open selection filters - again using some kind of carrot to make people participate in those screening pre-votes and using lack of carrot stick for troll votes.
But C....
C will have to be solved though, it is probably cheaper to buy media opinion then few Parliament members so it might actually make corruption even worse. Not to mention that media is biased by default.
But in general if C would be solved without limiting personal freedom i think that it will be better system then what we have now. Not perfect,but better.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Which kind of control over your freedoms do you dream to experience? Communism, fascism? A new monarchy? There's a big list to choose from. Perhaps you have an idealistic utopia set aside for the day humankind learns not to infringe upon the lives of others. My personal wet dream would be anarchy. I bet it's a scary world to live in, and I enjoy scary things. I wonder how many other people are going to spring into a major power grab at the first hint of anarchy? That seems like a dangerous world where the majority have even less than they do now.

When I look over all the options, mob rule stands out as the only practical one which gives the greatest number of people control over their governance. We could even set the bar past a simple majority. How about 80%,85%? Even better would be 95% to pass legislation.

Originally posted by DirectDemocracy
Of course in a Direct Democracy things like this would not exist because everyone votes directly on every issue. 100% of all women will have representation. 100% of all Gay, lesbian, Bi, Asexuals, Omni sexuals, Transexuals and everything in between will have representation. Every nationality/race whatever you want to call it will have 100% representation. Everyone. As equals. All voting on every issue separately.

I would bet my bottom dollar that, under a system of direct democracy, all these people you listed would not even be allowed to vote. The majority would vote that power away from them, with absolutely nothing to stand in their way.

Thus the problem with direct democracy.

Not to mention that no government can keep up economically with all the "free" crap the people would be voting themselves.

Direct democracy seems to work ok in Switzerland where minorities and their rights and specific interests seem to be at least as represented as anywhere else.
But to be fair I do understand concerns about that.

Whilst I support a lot of the specific details and principles about direct democracy my single biggest worry is that it has been proposed as a tool to bring about increased European integration, something I personally vehemently oppose.

reply to post by RedmoonMWC


And now look at Switzerland. Don't think they regret having a direct democracy.

I really dig the idea of being able to have a say in the political process. My personal view is that if our representatives in government were truly representative of their people, they wouldn't all be millionaires. I've never understood why on earth we let a bunch of rich people tell us what to do. If our government was actually representative of all the voting public in this country, wouldn't it make more sense to have a few wealthy, a few poor and the rest would be at various income levels in between? I don't like someone being able to tell me how to live or what to do just because they have more money than me. Money does not equal intelligence, good morals or good decision-making skills. We either need to eliminate the money from politics or let people vote for themselves.


"Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do." ~Will Rogers

so if 51% of the people vote for slavery, your ok with that?

Direct majority rule would indeed stamp out the minority and leave no recourse whatsoever. Reading my sig line which has been unchanged for years and years gives good example of the flavor of the day voting largess that would erupt on a scale much worse that today.

I believe the founders did have it right the first time with few exceptions. We the people for various reasons over time have given far to much power over to the federal side and are suffering the consequences.

Direct election of a Senator sounded good, until one realizes once elected off they go to be usurped by the federal system for 6 years, judged only by the largess heaped upon voters. Voters actually had a better check on the Senators and the Federal system when Senators were subject to State Legislatures control.

With the 16th and 17th Amendments (very dubious ratification issues) the progressives set up this country for what we now bear which is farther and farther from true representative government and even they don't like it as far as I can tell. Nobody likes 15 trillion in debt with 100 - 200 trillion in future obligations. The time between March and April 1913 was a disaster in the making - that is when the country lost its way IMHO

The other main issue IMHO is lawmaking from the bench, best I can tell the check and balance was to declare a law unconstutional and remand back to congress for re-consideration. The way it is now is another form of unelected dictatorial powers unwarranted by the constitution.

California is a good example where direct voting is used on Statewide propositions and time after time the majority is overruled by the courts both State and Federal, so much for people power! Imagine the chaos and gridlock at the national level with the current court powers as usurped. Yup everytime a special interest group got stamped on by a majority the courts would be the only venue - well kinda like that now.

Originally posted by DustbowlDebutante
I really dig the idea of being able to have a say in the political process. My personal view is that if our representatives in government were truly representative of their people, they wouldn't all be millionaires. I've never understood why on earth we let a bunch of rich people tell us what to do. If our government was actually representative of all the voting public in this country, wouldn't it make more sense to have a few wealthy, a few poor and the rest would be at various income levels in between? I don't like someone being able to tell me how to live or what to do just because they have more money than me. Money does not equal intelligence, good morals or good decision-making skills. We either need to eliminate the money from politics or let people vote for themselves.


"Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do." ~Will Rogers

An obligue but good case for term limiting our representatives if I do say so myself. The entrenched politician always seems to go corrupt. I'd be inclined to disbar lawyers as a conflict of interest also.