Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ANOTHER Political Quiz
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(1)
Message 15 of 102 (725847)
05-02-2014 10:59 AM


Political Math
No wonder its all screwed up...everybody has 300% worth of opinions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2014 11:04 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2014 11:13 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 05-02-2014 11:48 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 19 of 102 (725863)
05-02-2014 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
05-02-2014 11:13 AM


Re: representation
Perhaps one should vote\elect 3 or 4 people instead of one?
I think that we should stop electing people altogether and instead we should vote on issues directly.
The idea that I am represented by my member of parliament is pretty thin. I can barely talk to the guy let alone get him to represent my opinion on any given matter. He really only represents the people that agree with him.
I think that most people are quite frightened by the idea of democracy and our systems are set up to avoid it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 05-02-2014 11:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2014 4:47 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 21 of 102 (725867)
05-02-2014 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by AZPaul3
05-02-2014 4:47 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
In a direct democracy you would probably be on the losing side just as often as now
At least my vote would get counted. As it is now I do not really have any say on particular issues at all.
What checks and balances are there on the powers of the majority in a direct democracy?
This is the fear that I am talking about. We don't really trust the people to make the right decisions.
The same checks and balances that there are now. The vote for teaching creationism in school never comes up because there is a law regarding the separation of church and state. If the people want to overturn that law then so be it but the threshold should be high. If that threshold is surpassed then so be it. That's what the people want and in a democracy the people should get what they want. Of course they have to live with the consequences so when they start teaching Islam in the public schools in Dearborn Mi. that comes with the deal.
Take an issue like going to war. Do you think the Iraq war would have happened if there was a direct vote of the people about it? Do you think that the evidence in support of going to war would have needed to be much more evident?
Or Taxes. What do you think the vote would be if there were a binding plebiscite about what to do about tax rates or gun control or science funding?
I see the operational difficulties like how to form the issues and pose the questions but I also see the vast potential. People are more kind than not and we should trust that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2014 4:47 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2014 7:29 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 12:05 PM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 11:28 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 25 of 102 (725899)
05-03-2014 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by AZPaul3
05-02-2014 7:29 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
When it comes to human rights and the long term best interests of society now and for our children later, we are our own worst enemy. Direct democracy would magnify this most human fault to disaster.
Ah yes, the great unwashed masses who don't know what is best for them or what they really want. That is just bogus fear mongering and completely wrong headed. Every advance that we have made has come from popular uprising against the tyranny of oligarchs, monarchs and tyrants. Every travesty has come at the hands of individuals and strong men acting against the wishes of the many.
Switzerland has some elements of direct democracy and they have not devolved into mayhem. In fact they stand out as reasonable peace loving people who tend not to go around invading others or abusing the minority. They tend not to make drastic changes in direction or throw out ideas that work. Indeed they are rather conservative.
At one time or another we would have been at war with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Canada, Japan (again) and Mexico if the passions of the people ruled.
I have to say that this is completely unsupported. The only way that we could know this would be to actually ask the people and we have never done that. Again, do you think that an invasion of Iraq would have passed a popular vote? Do you really think that Americans would vote to go to war with Russia over Ukraine? I don't see it. And on the other hand maybe we should invade Saudi Arabia or N Korea or Rwanda.
If we really believe in the concept of democracy then we shouldn't be so afraid to actually try it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2014 7:29 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 26 of 102 (725900)
05-03-2014 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by AZPaul3
05-03-2014 12:07 AM


Re: Let the Internet rule! with Occupy Rules
There is some element of consensus gov't in Nunavut and in the Guernsey Islands.
Consensus government in Canada - Wikipedia
Consensus democracy - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by AZPaul3, posted 05-03-2014 12:07 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 28 of 102 (725904)
05-03-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
05-03-2014 12:05 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
You are imagining the worst. Is that the way that you would have voted? I know that it is not the way that I would have voted and I do not know anybody who would have voted that way.
The only way to know is to have the vote. It would be cool if we could craft an experiment to see what the results would be. Given that we are all so timid and sold on the idea that we need 'special' people to tell us what we want we could make it non binding to begin with.
It is really only those who enjoy some exclusive benefit of the status quo who would be against the idea. I agree that those people should be worried but only because they stand to lose their unfair advantages. I wonder how many of us are actually interested in equality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 12:05 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 2:39 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 30 of 102 (725908)
05-03-2014 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ringo
05-03-2014 2:39 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
Is there any reason to believe that people's opinions would be less flighty if they mattered?
Are they flighty now? How would you support that assertion? Can you reference some opinion polls that would indicate this?
At best, it would take a while for people to get used to the fact that they should think before they vote.
No doubt that there would be plenty of teething problems. It likely needs to be generational change that starts in kindergarten. Start by teaching children how to make decisions and what the consequences are.
Have you ever read legislation? We need people who can wrangle out the tiny details. That ain't us.
We can have those people. They just wouldn't be in charge.
If the idea of democracy has any credibility at all then it makes good sense that we should use the model that allows for the most participation possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 2:39 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 4:33 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 36 of 102 (725923)
05-04-2014 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by anglagard
05-03-2014 11:18 PM


Re: Direct Democracy vs. Human Rights
If anybody has a better way to rule over the people, please feel free to let us know. Don't even say direct democracy - been there, done that.
I think that you are confusing examples of chaotic mob rule with the idea of direct democracy and that it has never been attempted on any grand scale. I would submit that every move toward a more inclusive democracy leads to improvements in the standard of living and to more just societies.
The murder of "witches" still occurring in some parts of Africa to this day.
Of course the system has to open with good access to good information and devoid of corruption. Do you really think that we will start burning witches again?
There is no need to abandon the rule of law and I don't see why you guys think that that would be the inevitable result. Take prop 8 in Ca. for example. The established protection of constitutional rights kicked in and the rights of the minority were protected against the will of the majority. (I am not sure what the mechanism was or what the actual numbers were.)
Take another example of a plebiscite held in Kitimat BC regarding the construction of a pipeline through the community. Why shouldn't these folks have some right to prevent the construction of a pipeline through their community against the wishes of some rich dudes in Calgary and Toronto? Why should the PM be able to override the wishes of the people in favour of the wishes of some group of elite and powerful?
You don't abandon the rule of law. You don't throw out all of the advances that we have made and all of the lessons that we have learned. I don't see why you think that would happen. Again if democracy is a good idea then why isn't more democracy a better idea?
Direct democracy is not the same thing as mob rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anglagard, posted 05-03-2014 11:18 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 37 of 102 (725924)
05-04-2014 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by anglagard
05-03-2014 11:38 PM


Re: Results
As a firm believer in freedom, liberty, equality, and social justice my only comment is this:
Except that you don't really believe in freedom and equality. You believe that the people need to be told what to do by the elite wielders of power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by anglagard, posted 05-03-2014 11:38 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 05-04-2014 11:53 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 38 of 102 (725925)
05-04-2014 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
05-03-2014 11:28 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
Simple majority rules for whose neighborhood gets to be the site for the next land fill?
The way that it is now is that a minority decides where the next land fill is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2014 11:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2014 8:29 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 39 of 102 (725926)
05-04-2014 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ringo
05-03-2014 4:33 PM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
So how are we going to vote on the budget? A yes or no for each of three hundred and eighty-seven clauses? The ballot would be twice the size of the budget.
Don't you think that if we can figure out how to go to Mars that we can figure out how to vote on the budget? The first requirement is to decide that we want to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 05-03-2014 4:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nwr, posted 05-04-2014 12:17 PM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied
 Message 41 by ringo, posted 05-04-2014 2:42 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 47 of 102 (726018)
05-05-2014 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by anglagard
05-04-2014 11:53 PM


Re: What do You Want?
I didn't mean to be casting aspersions.
I thought that this conversation qualified as political opinion but we can start a new thread if need be.
Who is allowed to vote?
No change. The same people who are allowed to vote for their representative now.
Which laws would be the purview of the federal, state, or county level? Would all decisions be nationwide?
No change. Those divisions remain as they are. Change them later if you like.
What level of detail would such voting comprise?
As much as is necessary. You start by allowing the people to vote directly on any issue that comes to a vote before the congress, legislature or town council. Once you are up and running you can create the infrastructure and process that allows people to begin to directly influence the issues that are to be voted on. Eventually, the members of congress et al can disappear completely. We would be left with employees doing as they are told.
Who would be empowered to write the actual wording of each referendum bought before the people at large?
Anybody I suppose. Vote on the propositions that you are going to vote on. Create the mechanism and let the ideas matriculate. The cream will rise.
Would this replace all functions, executive, legislative, and judicial -- or would the judgement of guilt or innocence be exempt from the popular will of those unfamiliar with the details of each particular case?
The rule of law is essential to any egalitarian society. The function of an impartial judge is essential and works well. Our laws are so convoluted that they demand the skills of a professional to interpret them. This wouldn't change very quickly. I would not vote to mess with the judicial system apart from being able to vote for my judges up here. I can see the need for some restrictions. Voting thresholds set appropriately to avoid too much disruptive change. We would have to search for these limits but they would become apparent.
Again, you don't throw out those things that work. Take professional advice where it is necessary and give precedence to it where required. So we let the Drs vote on which vaccines to recommend and let the people vote on making them mandatory or not.
I question the idea of minorities being at risk. Take a look at the index of polls from the link in msg 1. Do you see any results there that would indicate that the majority were ready to abuse the minority? edit; apart from the one on drone use but we are already abusing that minority.
Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by anglagard, posted 05-04-2014 11:53 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 05-06-2014 11:54 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 50 by anglagard, posted 05-07-2014 3:06 AM Dogmafood has replied
 Message 51 by xongsmith, posted 05-07-2014 4:31 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 48 of 102 (726023)
05-05-2014 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by NoNukes
05-05-2014 8:29 AM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
What about the problem with a majority voting to strip away the minorities rights? For example denying gays the right to the political process by referendum?
Well look at prop 8. It didn't make it through the courts. Those protections are in place at a national level and would require a national vote to overturn. Do you think that the country is ready to overturn the 14th amendment?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2014 8:29 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2014 7:14 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 53 of 102 (726319)
05-08-2014 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by NoNukes
05-05-2014 8:29 AM


Re: Let the Internet rule!
Not a minority. The representatives of a majority.
Wait a minute. On the one hand you are raising doubts about the will of the majority and then on the other you are defending the will of the majority when it is condensed into the hands of a few representatives. What is it about the filtering of peoples opinions that makes them safer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2014 8:29 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 54 of 102 (726320)
05-08-2014 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
05-06-2014 11:54 AM


Re: What do You Want?
It's a recipe for oligarchy.
How do you figure? It is exactly the opposite of that. Do you think that voters would be less interested as they become more empowered? I don't see it. I think that the quality or awareness of the voter will increase as they become more used to the authority.
I think that what will soon become apparent is the need for a better informed electorate and the need for an increase in the free flow of information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 05-06-2014 11:54 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 05-08-2014 11:40 AM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024