ANOTHER Political Quiz

LOL, but not how it works: Message 1My views match 99% of Green Party views, 97% of Democrat Party views, 71% of Socialist Party views, 39% of Libertarian Party views, and 4% of Republican Party views.Too bad they don't isolate Tea Party views ... for the corporate fascists ...Enjoy

And by the same token no one candidate represents all my views on all the topics.Perhaps one should vote\elect 3 or 4 people instead of one?For instance say you can vote for 3 different people for congress, no two votes for the same person.This would tend to reduce the impact of single issue votes and break up the two party system.

I, for one, have at least three opinions on every issue.

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.

In a direct democracy you would probably be on the losing side just as often as now. All but the most wishy-washy lunkheads would lose a good protion of the time (except for ringo who has at least three opinions on most anything most of the time). Would you then say that direct democracy does not represent your opinion? Maybe because we already know that direct democracy is poison for the minority? Maybe because we fear that in the heat of a dangerous time the majority might fall to the passions of a strongman and do away with democracy altogether?What checks and balances are there on the powers of the majority in a direct democracy? And what would stop the majority from overturning those checks by a simple show of hands? Edited by AZPaul3, : titleEdited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

At least my vote would get counted. As it is now I do not really have any say on particular issues at all. 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.

You have that quite right. All the issues you cited are major cases in point. War? We'd be at war with Russia right now over the Ukraine. 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. If it were left up to "society", at times in the not too distant past given a spike in popular passions, freedom of religion would have been abandoned along with freedom of conscience, speech, search and seizure, trial by jury. One good thing would be that well prior to Sandy Hook, probably in response to Columbine, guns would be out, but we would expect democratic votes to force opponents to surrender their guns at gun point Waco style. Irony.As we have seen so many times in so many ways you just cannot trust humans with the tasks of government. Law must rule if society is to function without the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. In a direct democracy the rule of law is replaced by the rule of emotions. Everyone's individual rights would be trampled on sooner or later. Just look at the past passions that so grabbed society only to be quelled by law, court, congress once cooler heads prevailed. This republic has a piss poor record to be sure but arguably much better than rule by fleeting emotion.We will have a difference of opinion on the role of the instruments of governance. I do not trust the inflamed majority to do right at any turn on any issue. History is too bleak to be ignored.As for society getting what it wants regardless of the costs, having to live with the consequences ...Government of the People, By the People, For the People requires government that will protect the People ... From the People. Remember that great political philosopher Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us." That may have come from a cartoon but it was not said in jest. 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.But that's just one exceptionally eminent opinion. I'm sure there are lesser ones.Edited by AZPaul3, : puncheashun

Interesting perspective from the Occupy Movement, where consensus rather than majority was the rule and dissenting voices were more powerful than assenting: if you disagreed your opinion was heard and concepts were altered to accommodate you.Enjoy

Interesting, yes. Though we have to accept that it isn't that hard to build a consensus of like minded people brought together to achieve the same political goals. I would like to think that if the movement had gone on for some time it could have shown us whether consensus government can be maintained without devolving into competing interest groups. That would have been instructive.Does anyone know of any longer lived organizations that lived by consensus arrangement? Especially ones that successfully incorporated the disparate views of a wider society.

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. 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.

There is some element of consensus gov't in Nunavut and in the Guernsey Islands.Consensus government in Canada - WikipediaConsensus democracy - Wikipedia

Yes.And a month later there would have been a vote to pull out. And the first time there was a hint of a terrorist threat there would have been a vote to go back in. And the first time one of our soldiers got shot there would have been a vote to pull out again. There wouldn't have been an effective war because the soldiers would have spent all their time packing and unpacking.

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.

We have those experiments all the time. They're called "opinion polls". Is there any reason to believe that people's opinions would be less flighty if they mattered? At best, it would take a while for people to get used to the fact that they should think before they vote. Have you ever read legislation? We need people who can wrangle out the tiny details. That ain't us.

Are they flighty now? How would you support that assertion? Can you reference some opinion polls that would indicate this? 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. 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.