Direct Democrcy

Originally posted by Kovenov
Furthermore, the process doesn't appear quite so unlike present-day representative government.

How can you say that millions of people actually choosing what gets passed is the same as handful of appointed representatives choosing for them?

During the so called "Progressive Era" in the US, which took place 1890's-1920's, there were direct democracy initiatives voted on at the state and local level in many places, and in fact, direct democracy was PASSED in my city, but as far as I can tell it is never actually practiced.

As far as I know we're the only city in the US to have voted it in, and it's still on the books here today, and I've often thought it would be quite a hoot to try to get some stuff passed this way and see how the city officials react.

Bonus points for anyone who can figure out which city :-)

reply to post by daskakik


All that changes is scale. Nothing about direct democracy assures a majority vote will not result in an outcome that doesn't screw someone else (and that someone else could represent 49% of the population).

Take, for example, the decision to support the 2003 invasion into Iraq. Among U.S. citizens I'm going to hazard a guess that were the decision to invade put up for vote the vote would have passed. I'll further hazard to guess that those who supported the invasion ate crow long ago & have had serious reservations about democracy building since. And I'm using this example because we all have access to imperfect information and, unlike some who try to convince us otherwise, cannot predict our future state of knowledge. From my perspective it is not terribly wise to allow millions of voters to decide "fate" on the basis of either contrived, imperfect, unsettled, etc., etc. information. But don't get me wrong: the U.S. Congress can do no better, despite the many think tanks and billions invested in so-called intelligence services. But, once again, I stress the importance of exit right, property rights, and nonaggression. It is a good starting point and one that has the least impact on the choices of others (and these others are not just U.S. citizens, but Iraqi kids for example). If nothing else these three ideas represent ideas about a civilization I'd prefer.

silly people dont know that the Priest Class is who makes political decisions. It did in Platos time. It does now in shadow.

it always did, and always will, as long as people keep pushing the responsibilities of governing onto proxy representatives in ANY form of govt.

be responsible and rule yourself. anything less is is childishness.

Originally posted by Kovenov
All that changes is scale. Nothing about direct democracy assures a majority vote will not result in an outcome that doesn't screw someone else (and that someone else could represent 49% of the population).

You are right, nothing about direct democracy assures that, but that is why it is used under the framework of a constitutional republic. The constitution assures that everyone is on equal footing and that their rights are protected, at least as well as any current system.

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


The problem is not with lobbyists. They are usually informed experts on an area where our representatives cannot possibly have all the relevant information. There are many good and honest lobbyists. The problem is when the dishonest ones use money and gifts to get what they want from corrupt officials who accept these bribes. We need strict rules around lobbyists, but they are very necessary.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


Isn't that what a lobbyist does though? Give money, gifts, trips, dinners, campaign contributions, promises to politicians in exchange for them voting a certain way?

They are like the bag men of the corporations.

California's ballot initiative process. (the people vote yes or no)

California's disastrous budget shortfall.

Incredibly complicated legislation by-passes elected officials and gets approved through an ignorant public by special interests using soundbite advertisements.

Lame idea...

I rest my case.

reply to post by DirectDemocracy


No that is not what all lobbyists do. They are very necessary. Your representatives are not experts on everything that comes before them, not even close. Are you aware that you can walk into your representatives office and lobby them on what concerns you? You would then be a lobbyist.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

Sounds like California legislature is trying to pass the buck.

Legislature source of most costly ballot measures

But a new analysis from the nonprofit Center for Governmental Studies revealed today in Oakland shows that of the $11.85 billion worth of ballot measures voters approved between 1988 and 2009, 83 percent were placed on the ballot by the Legislature.

By the way, there are states where there is no direct participation by the voters who's budgets are proportionally worse than California.

reply to post by daskakik


I don't disagree with you that the legislature frequently puts initiatives on the ballot. They know it will be much easier to get it passed through by an ignorant public. It makes their jobs infinity easier now doesn't it?

Direct democracy would be a total disaster. This proves that point rather well.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
reply to post by daskakik

 

I don't disagree with you that the legislature frequently puts initiatives on the ballot. They know it will be much easier to get it passed through by an ignorant public. It makes their jobs infinity easier now doesn't it?

Direct democracy would be a total disaster. This proves that point rather well.

Actually, it means that it isn't as bad as others make it out to be.

It might make legislators jobs easier but it also controls that bribing problem you mentioned earlier.

Maybe not all lobbyists are out to buy politicians, but I bet that the most successful ones do.

reply to post by daskakik


You would be wrong if you made that bet. Don't demonize what you clearly don't have any knowledge about. Deny ignorance my friend.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

I do have knowledge about it and not just the cleaned up version.

Do you really believe everything is done fair and square?

There's a reason they say politics is a dirty business.

reply to post by daskakik


Your posts and opinions in this thread are too broad brush and simplistic. You clearly do not have any direct knowledge.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

I'm touching upon the topic in a general way. What's the point of getting into specifics? It's not like anything here is actually going to be passed into law.

Your free to believe as you wish, but you don't have to be a a political insider to have first hand knowledge of kickbacks, bribes and other underhanded deals. Of course having money influence a politicians choice doesn't have to be a flat out bribe.

One thing that I did notice is that you believe that ignorant citizens swayed by the media is any different than ignorant politicians being swayed by lobbyists. Even if they are honest lobbyists, they are still telling the voter which way to vote.

reply to post by daskakik


Again, lobbyists are experts on the issues that they lobby about. Representatives are elected and paid to represent the public. It is not a perfect system, but it is far superior to mob rule.

I'd rather have a medical doctor explain the potential effects of specific legislation on medical practice for my representative to decide than let the kid down the street who dropped out of high school go and vote on a complicated issue he has zero knowledge about on a ballot initiative.

Again, our system may not be perfect and I'm not saying we cannot greatly improve what we already have in place, but it sure beats the heck out of the alternative you propose.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Again, lobbyists are experts on the issues that they lobby about. Representatives are elected and paid to represent the public. It is not a perfect system, but it is far superior to mob rule.

If you can't see that it isn't mob rule when implemented within a constitutional republic then you just don't want to.

I'd rather have a medical doctor explain the potential effects of specific legislation on medical practice for my representative to decide than let the kid down the street who dropped out of high school go and vote on a complicated issue he has zero knowledge about on a ballot initiative.

If some kid decides to get out and vote, then I would think that he has investigated the issue. Those that don't even care about the issue won't vote but it wouldn't be out of the ordinary that the doctor was hired/chosen by someone or some group with a vested interest.

reply to post by daskakik


Again you are throwing simplistic answers out for issues that are not simplistic. I don't agree with you. You don't have a grasp of what you are talking about.

reply to post by MsAphrodite

I do have a grasp of what I'm talking about. You seem to want to complicate things to make your point seem valid. The real world examples, which are also not perfect, prove that it is workable and that it doesn't descend into "mob rule" as you claim. Which, I must say, is also a rather simple way of putting things.