Direct Democracy?

[Mikesmith08]

The way I see it the idea of a direct democracy is once again viable in the modern age. Athens is belived to be the only direct democracy and this only because it had so few viable citiznes with most being unable to hold office becuase they were women, foreigners or slaves. So the few amount of citizens there were could rule effectively through a direct democracy.
But surely with the internet and the ever increasing speed of broadband and the annoucning of government plans to speed this up even further in Britain make it once again possible to have refferendums on not just major political issues but all political issues concerning the nation. Ofcourse there are cacnes of hacking and so on and so on but isnt there just as much chance of rigged elections now. It would mean that power would truly be in the peoples hands. Politicans would have to put there cases ti us and we decide what is best for us and yes there are criticism of this but surely it is the best solution to this crisis of confidednce in British politics.

[Treize]

No thanks. While I do support referendums for certain local issues and issues regarding souvereinity, I prefer an elected government to do the lawmaking instead of the people because the absolute rule of the mayority is a bad thing, especcially when the minority is big.

[Jingles]

Even today, I think complete direct democracy is neither feasible nor desirable. It's a nice idea, but as a governmental model it's built on a foundation of presuppositions.

[Jaketh]

good luck getting 300 million people into an open square

[Treize]

Why can't you just use a ballot box?

[Wolfgang von Zweibrücken]

Why can't you just use a ballot box?

I agree. Anyone really familiar with "teh interwebz" knows the limitations and vulnerabilities political use of the internet entails. I am convinced that "e-voting" is far too open to rigging and error, and that anything that does not leave a paper-trail is dangerous and vulnerable.

But I like the idea of more direct Democracy. Reducing the size of the electorate might be required for it to work well, but you don't want to go too far with that idea either...

[Enemy of the State]

Better than what we have now...

[Ramashan]

Just look at California with its system of sending nearly everything to a vote. We have so many referendums and things we need to pay for that the voters want, not to mention the yo yo of gay marriage, that it just shows that direct democracy on a large scale will always get convoluted.

Good OP Justinian. The fact is we elect those who we believe will best represent us and make choices close to what we are comfortable with. This is why Jefferson believed that this republic could only operate successfully with a well informed and well educated citizenry, so that we can make informed choices on who we want representing us.

But the bottom line is, they are representing us, and in so doing also may do things we are not happy with but may be, in their personal opinion, in our best interest. Teenagers don't want a curfew, but the parents may believe its in their best interest, sort of the same idea IMO.

[Nevins]

The public is too fickle to be allowed that sort of power on a day to day basis, we need at least some stability (i.e. the multi year terms of out representatives) to ensure that we some long term planning occurring.

[Phillieas_Caesar]

Well the government of the US was set up to not run on a direct democracy because the founding fathers feared a "tyranny of the majority" DE Toqueville spoke on this too. How political associations are the way to prevent the tyranny of the the majority.

[Mikesmith08]

Good points but this idea of the tryanny of the majority annoys me. To a certain extent we are all utalitarians and the majority voting for the best interests of the majority are just abiding by this principle.

[Chlodwig I.]

Switzerland has a direct democracy.... but it failed often e.g. in 1971 women received the voting rights.
And that proofs that direct democracy doesn't work.

[eisenkopf]

Switzerland has a direct democracy.... but it failed often e.g. in 1971 women received the voting rights.
And that proofs that direct democracy doesn't work.

Switzerland has a hybrid system of a semi-direct democracy: Popular referenda coupled with elected representatives.

I usually don't defend Switzerland's political system, because I see the many problems. The late introduction of universial suffrage certainly was one of them.

However, I find your verdict a bit harsh. All in all, the system works well, although I'm not sure that it will adapt sufficiently to the pressures of globalization.

On the issue of a tyranny by the majority: This is certainly a problem if the polity is not bound by a rule of law and independent judiciary that protects the rights of minorities.

[CarbEast]

Average citizen is neither well educated about politics, nor is willing to get too deep into the state's matters. You can't expect him to be responsible enough to choose balanced policies over those that benefit him personally. Direct democracy would be the condensation of ignorance, lack of understanding and irresponsibility of an average citizen. That's why all the modern "democratic" political systems make sure people don't get to decide anything half-important by themselves.

To illustrate my point imagine a factory that's run by workers' democratic decisions. Now try answering these questions:
- How long will it take before a proposal of raising everyone's salary brought forward?
- How such proposal is going to be voted every time?
- How long will it take before there's no more money to pay the salaries?

[Mikesmith08]

Average citizen is neither well educated about politics, nor is willing to get too deep into the state's matters. You can't expect him to be responsible enough to choose balanced policies over those that benefit him personally. Direct democracy would be the condensation of ignorance, lack of understanding and irresponsibility of an average citizen. That's why all the modern "democratic" political systems make sure people don't get to decide anything half-important by themselves.

To illustrate my point imagine a factory that's run by workers' democratic decisions. Now try answering these questions:
- How long will it take before a proposal of raising everyone's salary brought forward?
- How such proposal is going to be voted every time?
- How long will it take before there's no more money to pay the salaries?

Well the analogy of the factory is a good one but there would be no proposal of rasing wages in that factory, mainly becuase, slightly communist i know, the factory would be ran by the workers for the workers. The profits would be split equally with the governemnt receiving there tax and the managers and such recevieving a proportianet wage to there workload. So the workers would work harder to earn more money wich in turn would earn the governemnt more tax which would allow them to pump more funds into the nation. Im not talking about a direct democracy in just politics but in all day to day life. We need change and this, as i see it, is the only way we can truly get it.

[CarbEast]

The more "democratic" a regime is, the more easily manipulated and obstructed it is. The broader the suffrage, the less the value of your vote... Irregardless on whether the "people" exerts direct power or not. Democracy has no natural barriers against itself, once people realize they can exploit the system it's doomed.

Absolutely agree, but that's exactly why the term "democracy" (when applied to modern political systems) is a misnomer. These systems are really just oligarchies, with citizens having only marginal say over the process of decision making.

Well the analogy of the factory is a good one but there would be no proposal of rasing wages in that factory, mainly becuase, slightly communist i know, the factory would be ran by the workers for the workers. The profits would be split equally with the governemnt receiving there tax and the managers and such recevieving a proportianet wage to there workload. So the workers would work harder to earn more money wich in turn would earn the governemnt more tax which would allow them to pump more funds into the nation.

Not quite. If you share all the profits that factory makes between the workers then what are you going to buy raw materials for, who's going pay for electricity and water supply? I'm not even mentioning the need for constant reinvestment in production facilities. The need for balancing out the finances doesn't go anywhere regardless of ownership. The only difference is who's in charge of making the decision.

Im not talking about a direct democracy in just politics but in all day to day life. We need change and this, as i see it, is the only way we can truly get it.

Not any change is desirable. Shooting your foot is change as well.

[karamazovmm]

Take a look at the current opinion on democracy among political scientists, that might give you the hint and the solve problems, of the ''direct'' democracy that is now proposed, can't remember the name, but one was a canadian, fairly easy to read (something that is valuable this days)

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

- How long will it take before a proposal of raising everyone's salary brought forward?

In "indirect" democracy this is called social security, health and education.

- How such proposal is going to be voted every time?

In "indirect" democracy, that's called by a variety of names: filibustering, recesses, obstruction and finally executive vetoes.

- How long will it take before there's no more money to pay the salaries?

In "indirect" democracy, that's what the current deficit spending across much of the developed world, notably the US, is going to lead.

The more "democratic" a regime is, the more easily manipulated and obstructed it is. The broader the suffrage, the less the value of your vote... Irregardless on whether the "people" exerts direct power or not. Democracy has no natural barriers against itself, once people realize they can exploit the system it's doomed.

[Monarchist]

All Democracy is evil. Let monarchs rule the people and glorify God. Never mind what all the silly proles want. If they can get drunk, have some porn, watch circuses, and eat bread, they will be snug. Banners should be raised high and trumpets blown; it is not for ancient customs, but for their own morale. When the peasants have high morale, they never revolt or complain. Just give them a few tweaks once every few years, and they should remain happy. Down with revolutionaries and marxists.

[Jabberwock]

All Democracy is evil. Let Inner Party rule the people and glorify Big Brother. Never mind what all the silly proles want. If they can get drunk, have some porn, watch circuses, and eat bread, they will be snug. Big Brother posters should be raised high and trumpets blown; it is not for ancient customs, but for their own morale. When the peasants have high morale, they never revolt or complain. Just give them a few tweaks once every few years, and they should remain happy. Down with revolutionaries and marxists.

That's exactly how you sound. Giving a speech to the Inner Party.