Summations Only

I think that it is at the root of this thread and the demonstrations.The institutionalized economic disparity in the world is maintained by the disconnect between the opinions of the ‘have nots’ and the actions of the government. This disconnect is intrinsic to representational democracy.What do you think the results would be if the issues of tax rates, health care, campaign finance reform, prohibition etc, etc, were decided by referendum?

Why?

Are these qualities that you identify in our current crop of representatives?I am often amazed at how smart all of the stupid people are when I actually speak to them.

Yeah, I mean, don't you see these same inabilities and faults present in our current gov'ts?My point is that we don't eliminate these faults by allowing only a few of us to make decisions and in fact enable the influence of personal interests over those of the many.

Yes except with the distortion of personal interest. Why use a distorted reflection when we have the real thing? All of this unrest is a result of the distortion.In the past, and probably now, the problem with a real democracy is one of mechanics and logistics. I think that we are approaching levels of technology, in some countries, to actually attempt it.

OK but that is a problem with humanity before it is with democracy.I would bet that a real and direct democracy would work at least as well as if not vastly better than what we have.Edited by Dogmafood, : subvert the censors

So, you do not actually believe that everyone deserves a say in their government. Are you saying that I can only have an opinion if it is the right one? What is the difference between an opinion and a vote?

Interesting.Which ones would you exclude?Are you an elitist and, if so, is that a bad thing? I honestly don’t know.Why can a real democracy not work?Edited by Dogmafood, : title

If you asked the electorate if they would prefer better schools or better bombers what do you think they would say?

All of the votes have never been counted. (...hic)Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

So, your opposition to direct democracy is that a) we tried it and it didn’t work and b) it can not work because people are self serving, ignorant, short-sighted and cruel. Is this accurate?It seems to be the consensus that direct democracy will always lead to some repression of minorities. Why does that have to be? We have laws that protect the rights of minorities. Why would we throw them out? If our representational democracies are even remotely representational then all of the good laws that we have now are a result of the will of the people. Why should that change with direct democracy? Do you honestly believe that our politicians are saving us from ourselves? How is a tyranny of the majority worse than a tyranny of the minority?Our gov’ts have been forced to evolve to more accurately reflect the will of the people. Pushing back against this evolutionary drive is the will of the minority of us who wish to maintain the power structure.It seems odd to me that so many participants here are so quick to dismiss the idea that people should actually have a say in the decisions of their gov’ts. Not a watered down and filtered opinion but an actual counted vote on any particular issue.

quote:

---

Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all the people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.

---

SourceSo, are there none here who actually believe that this could work? When you folks say that you live in a democratic country you do not seem to be referring to the above definition.In reality, representative democracy developed as a compromise to the ideal of democracy. In the past we simply could not gather the opinions of every citizen on every issue. In the future we will be able to do just that. What laudable aspect of representative democracy would we lose by adopting a system of direct democracy?

Hey frako. Yes, we would need safeguards. We don’t throw out all the things that we know are good like constitutions and bills of rights. The only thing that I am suggesting that we throw out or try to reduce is the incongruity between the opinion of the electorate and the actions of the government. That is what I see at the root of the protests. If these people who are protesting had a direct voice they would have little cause to be in the street protesting. Even with the safeguards we don’t let the teenagers vote.This is a key point. While I agree that we need safety nets and structure and stability, I disagree that countries would immediately fall into ruinous anarchy if we actually started to ask people what they wanted to do. Would you vote for 16 gov’t salaries for everyone? I understand fiscal responsibility as do you and the vast majority of the electorate of any given country. We understand it from a personal perspective. Consequences would still apply. You can’t just vote a new car for everyone because the bills still show up.The ideal is one where the finest of intellects serve as a guide and the electorate hold the reigns of power directly. Not really so far off from what we have now except for the disproportionate influence of the successful. The distortion of influence.The devil will be in the machinery. How do you ask everyone everything? Somehow you have to aggregate the pertinent issues and condense them into something that you and I can deal with. The reason that I think it is the right thing to do is because it seems to naturally continue the evolution of government.You have to be an optimist though. Since we all have this great propensity for having faith in things we should have faith in our own nature. We should learn to fly.

It is not a mob when everyone has a voice. I would want to because I support the notion that people should actually have an equal say in the affairs of government.We should, eventually, be able to do away with politicians completely but the beauracrats will likely have to stay.

So in other words, we don’t, as a whole, know what is good for us. Yet, as individuals we do or that some know better than others. This may be true but I do not think that the rules of mob mentality necessarily apply to a group of individuals expressing their opinions in private and one at a time.I am not sure that I agree that civil rights legislation would not have passed when it did had it been put to a referendum at the time. You and jar may be right but I think that the whole paradigm would change under a system of direct democracy. For example, I may have voted conservative in the last federal election because I liked their economic policies but now I find myself in complete opposition to their crime policy. If I had an actual say on both issues the vote would be different.Chose a current issue like tax reform. What would the results be if the US had a referendum today about instituting a progressive income tax or universal health care? What would the vote have been regarding the invasion of Iraq? What would the vote be when the question is Do you want to go over there and kill these people? I see all kinds of problems and challenges with the implementation of direct democracy. They would have to be sorted during a reasonable pace of change. I am speaking in big sweeping theoretical terms. If everyone had a say, would the armies get bigger or would they disappear? Why should we collapse in a vortex of selfishness? Most of the people that I know are good people and they want what is good for other people. The perception of fairness is instinctive.If our governments actions were a direct and theoretically perfect reflection of our citizens opinions would the world not be a better place?