Direct Democracy, Why Not?

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 5:09pm #1

The notion of direct democracy has always appealed to me, It is not something I claim to know much about, and have started this thread to learn about it and the potential problems it has, more than to argue that we should adopt it.

It dose seam to me that the people are kept as far from having any kind of influence on decesions as possible in this country and to me that seams to have had the effect of making people somewhat cynical about politics.

Referenda often seem to be portrayed as unfortunate things that are best avoided if possible, an interesting stance in a country where the people are, in theory if not in practice, the ultimate authority.

So what do you think, should the people have a greater role in how this country is run, and if not why not?

oscarBravo · 03-10-2011 5:35pm

deise go deo wrote: »

So what do you think, should the people have a greater role in how this country is run, and if not why not?

No. When we do have a referendum, most people make very little effort to inform themselves and vote according to pre-conceived ideas, or are easily swayed by emotive arguments with little to no grounding in reason or fact.

When we entrusted the people with electing a government, they gave us a generation of Fianna Fáil's auction politics. If we can't be trusted with representative democracy, how can we be trusted with direct democracy?

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 5:51pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. When we do have a referendum, most people make very little effort to inform themselves and vote according to pre-conceived ideas, or are easily swayed by emotive arguments with little to no grounding in reason or fact.

When we entrusted the people with electing a government, they gave us a generation of Fianna Fáil's auction politics. If we can't be trusted with representative democracy, how can we be trusted with direct democracy?

If we are to have such comptempt for the people, then why bother with the pretence of democracy at all?

Perhaps the greater question is why can we not be trusted with it, when other countrys can, and how do we change that?

03-10-2011 5:54pm

deise go deo wrote: »

The notion of direct democracy has always appealed to me, It is not something I claim to know much about, and have started this thread to learn about it and the potential problems it has, more than to argue that we should adopt it.

It dose seam to me that the people are kept as far from having any kind of influence on decesions as possible in this country and to me that seams to have had the effect of making people somewhat cynical about politics.

Referenda often seem to be portrayed as unfortunate things that are best avoided if possible, an interesting stance in a country where the people are, in theory if not in practice, the ultimate authority.

So what do you think, should the people have a greater role in how this country is run, and if not why not?

What's your view of a direct democracy though? How many things are referred to a referendum? Who decides on what is referred?

oscarBravo · 03-10-2011 5:59pm

deise go deo wrote: »

If we are to have such comptempt for the people, then why bother with the pretence of democracy at all?

Because nobody has thought of a better idea. Until they do, democracy needs to be meted out in small doses, to limit the damage it can do.

Perhaps the greater question is why can we not be trusted with it, when other countrys can, and how do we change that?

That's an excellent question. It goes back in large measure to the thread about what Ireland should aspire to be.

I think when we learn to recognise our failings, we will be in a better position to address them. Until then, we're doomed to live with them.

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 6:00pm

28064212 wrote: »

What's your view of a direct democracy though? How many things are referred to a referendum? Who decides on what is referred?

As I said, though the concept of it has always had an appeal for me, I am quite ignorent of it in general and have no real idea of how it would work here in practice .

I am looking to learn more about it and that is the reason I started this thread.

03-10-2011 6:06pm

deise go deo wrote: »

As I said, though the concept of it has always had an appeal for me, I am quite ignorent of it in general and have no real idea of how it would work here in practice .

I am looking to learn more about it and that is the reason I started this thread.

Well the reason it couldn't work is because it's completely impractical. It might work in an automonous village of 100 people. It does not scale well.

Take, for example, the annual Irish budget. How would that work in a direct democracy? Everyone submits their own budget and we take an average? Some state body throws together a couple of budgets and lets people vote on the 'best' one? How could it possibly be managed?

Permabear · 03-10-2011 6:07pm

This post has been deleted.

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 6:09pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because nobody has thought of a better idea. Until they do, democracy needs to be meted out in small doses, to limit the damage it can do. That's an excellent question. It goes back in large measure to the thread about what Ireland should aspire to be.

I think when we learn to recognise our failings, we will be in a better position to address them. Until then, we're doomed to live with them.

Would democracy be damaging? In what way do you think it would be? I think we have all seen the damage that has been caused by the current system.

For my part, I think mostly shuting the people out of having a role to play in how our country is run is the major factor in the apethy you described when it comes to the referenda we do get.

dissed doc · 03-10-2011 6:14pm

It can only work if there is a decentralised approach to government. Obviously, people in government now wouldn't like that. So, they keep the the parliamentarian system that ensures we are the UK, whether we like it or not.

The other problem is that handout culture is so entrenched that many counties (if we were to do 26 counties like in Switzelrand with 26 cantons) would be in trouble - only Cork and Dublin pay more in than they take out.

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 6:17pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why is this not the case in Countrys that practice direct democracy to a greater or lesser extent?

Perhaps I should make some clarification, I am not suggesting that Ireland adopt Direct Democracy Lock Stock and Barrel, but rather a process of reform where aspects of it could be introduced over time in a structured way.

One such reform could be that Candidates for the Presidency be nominated by the people rather than by members of the Oireachtas/County Councils

oscarBravo · 03-10-2011 6:18pm

deise go deo wrote: »

Would democracy be damaging? In what way do you think it would be? I think we have all seen the damage that has been caused by the current system.

You're not going to like this reply, but: there's a glaring logical fallacy in your reply, and when that sort of flawed logic informs people's decision-making, then democracy can indeed be damaging.

The logical fallacy is this: damage has been done by the current system. Therefore a different system would not do damage. It's simplistic, and it's wrong.

The biggest flaw in our current system of democracy is the idiots we keep electing to break the country. If we can't be trusted to elect people who'll run the country correctly, how can we be trusted to run it ourselves?

Permabear makes some very pertinent points also. For example, most people would probably have voted not to accept the EU/IMF bailout. Which is wonderful - except that a referendum doesn't provide a mechanism whereby the people can decide the complex and costly decisions that result from that decision. It's all very well to say "we don't want the money", but where's the money going to come from? And how do you phrase that question on a referendum ballot?

For my part, I think mostly shuting the people out of having a role to play in how our country is run is the major factor in the apethy you described when it comes to the referenda we do get.

People aren't shut out of having a role to play. They get to elect the government, and a piss-poor job they tend to make of it. If you believe that wall-to-wall referendums will make people make more intelligent choices, you'll have to explain how, exactly.

oscarBravo · 03-10-2011 6:22pm

dissed doc wrote: »

It can only work if there is a decentralised approach to government.

I actually agree with this. If we want to give people a stronger role in government, we need to strengthen local government, but in order to do so, local government needs the power to levy taxes - and that includes income taxes.

What are the chances of people voting for that, do you think?

The other problem is that handout culture is so entrenched that many counties (if we were to do 26 counties like in Switzelrand with 26 cantons) would be in trouble - only Cork and Dublin pay more in than they take out.

It can still work. Denmark (a country I talk about a fair bit because I take an interest in its politics) has powerful local government with revenue-raising powers, but still has transfers from richer regions to poorer.

deise go deo wrote: »

Why is this not the case in Countrys that practice direct democracy to a greater or lesser extent?

One example is Switzerland. I seem to recall hearing that Swiss trains have very few ticket inspectors, because it quite simply doesn't occur to Swiss people not to pay for train tickets.

When Irish people think like that, maybe then we can be trusted with more direct democracy.

03-10-2011 6:24pm

deise go deo wrote: »

Why is this not the case in Countrys that practice direct democracy to a greater or lesser extent?

Switzerland? Because it's not a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy that includes some direct features. It still has a parliament elected by the people

oscarBravo · 03-10-2011 6:26pm

deise go deo wrote: »

One such reform could be that Candidates for the Presidency be nominated by the people rather than by members of the Oireachtas/County Councils

Can you see the need for a check on this process? How many candidates do you think there should be on a Presidential ballot, and how do you limit them?

(Something to be aware of about me: I can come across very argumentative at times, for which I apologise, but part of what I do for a living is to look at a proposed design or idea and try to find its weaknesses.)

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 6:37pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not going to like this reply, but: there's a glaring logical fallacy in your reply, and when that sort of flawed logic informs people's decision-making, then democracy can indeed be damaging.

The logical fallacy is this: damage has been done by the current system. Therefore a different system would not do damage. It's simplistic, and it's wrong.

I am not contending that a diferent system would not do damage, What I am really contending is that the system we have now is deeply flawed and unless it is changed it will continue to do damage, one of the flawes I see in our current system is that is shuts people out of participation in how this country is run.

The biggest flaw in our current system of democracy is the idiots we keep electing to break the country. If we can't be trusted to elect people who'll run the country correctly, how can we be trusted to run it ourselves?

Permabear makes some very pertinent points also. For example, most people would probably have voted not to accept the EU/IMF bailout. Which is wonderful - except that a referendum doesn't provide a mechanism whereby the people can decide the complex and costly decisions that result from that decision. It's all very well to say "we don't want the money", but where's the money going to come from? And how do you phrase that question on a referendum ballot? People aren't shut out of having a role to play. They get to elect the government, and a piss-poor job they tend to make of it. If you believe that wall-to-wall referendums will make people make more intelligent choices, you'll have to explain how, exactly.

I am not asking for wall to wall referendums, but rather that there be some mechenism in place where the people can challenge and overturn a governments decission when they feel it necessary.

I see no reason to believe that the system we have now where a small group of people make the decissions without the possibility of being challenged by the pople is any more likely to produce intelligent choices than if there was a system in place where by the people could challenge a governments decision.

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 6:42pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you see the need for a check on this process? How many candidates do you think there should be on a Presidential ballot, and how do you limit them?

(Something to be aware of about me: I can come across very argumentative at times, for which I apologise, but part of what I do for a living is to look at a proposed design or idea and try to find its weaknesses.)

I think it would be relativly straight forward to limit how many candidates there can be, The higher you set the required number of signatures needed for nomination, the fewer candidates.

I dont think having public nomination would result in a significantly geater number of candidates trying to get on the balot paper anyway.

*Dont wory about being argumentative, I can be like that myself at times.

oscarBravo · 03-10-2011 6:44pm

deise go deo wrote: »

I am not contending that a diferent system would not do damage, What I am really contending is that the system we have now is deeply flawed and unless it is changed it will continue to do damage, one of the flawes I see in our current system is that is shuts people out of participation in how this country is run.

It's not enough to say that the system needs to be changed (I agree with the need for fairly extensive reform); you need to explain how a proposed change will make things better, and you need to be prepared to deal with flaws that present themselves in your ideas.

I am not asking for wall to wall referendums, but rather that there be some mechenism in place where the people can challenge and overturn a governments decission when they feel it necessary.

I see no reason to believe that the system we have now where a small group of people make the decissions without the possibility of being challenged by the pople is any more likely to produce intelligent choices than if there was a system in place where by the people could challenge a governments decision.

Let's take the bailout as a case in point. Assume that there was a mechanism whereby the people voted to overturn the government's decision to borrow from the EU and IMF.

What next? Who has to make the decision as to what the next move is? That's right: the same government that just made the decision you've overturned.

What does that government do next? It has done what it believed was the right thing, and now it's being told by the electorate to do what it believes is the wrong thing. If I was leading that government, I'd resign.

It doesn't seem workable to me.

oscarBravo · 03-10-2011 6:48pm

deise go deo wrote: »

I think it would be relativly straight forward to limit how many candidates there can be, The higher you set the required number of signatures needed for nomination, the fewer candidates.

True. Of course, the higher the bar, the less democratic the process...

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 6:56pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's not enough to say that the system needs to be changed (I agree with the need for fairly extensive reform); you need to explain how a proposed change will make things better, and you need to be prepared to deal with flaws that present themselves in your ideas. Let's take the bailout as a case in point. Assume that there was a mechanism whereby the people voted to overturn the government's decision to borrow from the EU and IMF.

What next? Who has to make the decision as to what the next move is? That's right: the same government that just made the decision you've overturned.

What does that government do next? It has done what it believed was the right thing, and now it's being told by the electorate to do what it believes is the wrong thing. If I was leading that government, I'd resign.

It doesn't seem workable to me.

If such a referendum was to take place, It would be one of the largest public debates this country has ever had on any issue, The people would be very aware of the significence of the result and the problems of voting Yes or No would be made abundently clear by both sides.

If the government could not acept the majority decesion, then an election would seam to be the only outcome, when presumably a party willing to implement the will of the majority would be elected.

In reality, there would be little to destinguish such a referendum from the recent general election. There would be little to destinguish between a No vote in such a referendum, and the ULA being elected as the Government.

Despite rejecting the bailout supposidly being populist, the people, in spite of their supposed ignorence, elected a party that said they would implement it.

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 6:58pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

True. Of course, the higher the bar, the less democratic the process...

Not true, the bar can be as high at it wants, as long as it is the people with whom the decession lies, then it is still fully democratic.

oscarBravo · 03-10-2011 7:10pm

deise go deo wrote: »

If such a referendum was to take place, It would be one of the largest public debates this country has ever had on any issue, The people would be very aware of the significence of the result and the problems of voting Yes or No would be made abundently clear by both sides.

"Abundantly clear" and "referendum" are, historically, mutually exclusive in this country. Don't you remember Nice and Lisbon?

Case in point: Sinn Féin. As far as I can tell, in every single referendum campaign to date, they have said that they are happy with the EEC/EC/EU as it is, and that they are opposed only to the changes proposed in the current referendum.

In other words, they continually campaign on the basis that they are supportive of the last treaty they opposed, but oppose the current one.

Now, perhaps there's an explanation for that other than blatant and outright intellectual and political dishonesty, but why should we expect any better in any future referendum campaign?

If the government could not acept the majority decesion, then an election would seam to be the only outcome, when presumably a party willing to implement the will of the majority would be elected.

I don't know about you, but a general election - or, indeed, a capitulation - every time the government is faced with a difficult decision is not a good thing.

In reality, there would be little to destinguish such a referendum from the recent general election. There would be little to destinguish between a No vote in such a referendum, and the ULA being elected as the Government.

I repeat: not a good thing.

Despite rejecting the bailout supposidly being populist, the people, in spite of their supposed ignorence, elected a party that said they would implement it.

I honestly doubt that's why they elected them. Given the choice of electing FG/Labour and then rejecting the bailout, I genuinely believe the Irish public would have done just that. And I think the country - and the entire EU - would have suffered dreadfully as a consequence.

A price worth paying for making the people feel more engaged in the running of the country? Not for my money.

deise go deo · 03-10-2011 7:32pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Abundantly clear" and "referendum" are, historically, mutually exclusive in this country. Don't you remember Nice and Lisbon?

I remember Lisbon and Lisbon 2, and it was the failure of the government and the media to make any serious atempt to outline the issues involved and the possible consequences that resulted in the whole thing being as abundantly clear as mud. (Granted with the Lisbon treaty you could make every effort to explain what was going on and still be as clear as mud)

What we got was a government who for all apeareances had no idea what the treaty was about, campaigning for a yes vote on a series of issues like jobs, that had nothing to do with the treaty its self.

Case in point: Sinn Féin. As far as I can tell, in every single referendum campaign to date, they have said that they are happy with the EEC/EC/EU as it is, and that they are opposed only to the changes proposed in the current referendum.

In other words, they continually campaign on the basis that they are supportive of the last treaty they opposed, but oppose the current one.

Now, perhaps there's an explanation for that other than blatant and outright intellectual and political dishonesty, but why should we expect any better in any future referendum campaign? I don't know about you, but a general election - or, indeed, a capitulation - every time the government is faced with a difficult decision is not a good thing. I repeat: not a good thing.

I cant really speak for SF's stance on Europe, though it seams they are happy with the status quo(presumably because they realise that there is no going back once a treaty is acepted), but do not want any more power given to the European institutions. I dont think there is really anything particularly dishoest about that.

I dont think Direct Democracy, or more specifically some form of greater public participation in governing the country, would result in a capitulation at every major deciision, at least that has not been the case in other countrys where this is in place. Is there a reason why it would be so here?

I honestly doubt that's why they elected them. Given the choice of electing FG/Labour and then rejecting the bailout, I genuinely believe the Irish public would have done just that. And I think the country - and the entire EU - would have suffered dreadfully as a consequence.

A price worth paying for making the people feel more engaged in the running of the country? Not for my money.

Why were they elected then? And more importantly, why did the ULA etc do so poorly, if their stance was so popular?

To be honnest, I think that portraying a greater role for the public in governance as inivetably leading to suffering dreadfully, is not much short of scaremongering.

oscarBravo · 03-10-2011 7:55pm

deise go deo wrote: »

I remember Lisbon and Lisbon 2, and it was the failure of the government and the media to make any serious atempt to outline the issues involved and the possible consequences that resulted in the whole thing being as abundantly clear as mud. (Granted with the Lisbon treaty you could make every effort to explain what was going on and still be as clear as mud)

What we got was a government who for all apeareances had no idea what the treaty was about, campaigning for a yes vote on a series of issues like jobs, that had nothing to do with the treaty its self.

You're kinda missing my point. Yes, the government explained the treaty badly, but then it was a pretty complex document. Yes, the government sold the treaty badly, but then it was hard to pick out any headline-making super-duper positives from it, which doesn't take from the fact that it was a broadly necessary and broadly useful treaty.

Equally, you're completely missing the fact that on the other side we had a campaign that consisted largely of blatant, bare-faced lies - many of which are still believed by the people who were happy to believe them at the time.

Fast-forward that to a referendum on the bailout. On one side you'll have a government struggling with spreadsheets and pie-charts, trying to explain how vitally important it is that we get some money from somewhere to pay for all those nurses and police that people want access to; on the other you'll have the IMF-will-eat-our-babies bull**** brigade. I exaggerate for effect, but you get the point.

People are piss-poor decision makers. That's a tragic fact. We are hopeless at assessing risk rationally. There are unscrupulous people who exploit that fact at every referendum and election, and to a distressing extent they keep succeeding.

I cant really speak for SF's stance on Europe, though it seams they are happy with the status quo(presumably because they realise that there is no going back once a treaty is acepted), but do not want any more power given to the European institutions. I dont think there is really anything particularly dishoest about that.

We'll have to agree to differ. Yes, they're happy with the status quo - but the status quo is always the situation they campaigned vehemently against at the last referendum. They even keep recycling their lies, telling us that Lisbon would do the same nasty things they told us Nice was going to do, all the while telling us that everything will be fine if we just keep things the way the Nice treaty (against which they campaigned vehemently) left them.

I dont think Direct Democracy, or more specifically some form of greater public participation in governing the country, would result in a capitulation at every major deciision, at least that has not been the case in other countrys where this is in place. Is there a reason why it would be so here?

I don't think we're grown-up enough to make decisions based on rational assessment of the issues. Swiss people are different from us (see my earlier comment about trains). If we're prepared to be more like Swiss people, I'll be more open to the idea of direct democracy.

Why were they elected then? And more importantly, why did the ULA etc do so poorly, if their stance was so popular?

It wasn't a single-issue election.

To be honnest, I think that portraying a greater role for the public in governance as inivetably leading to suffering dreadfully, is not much short of scaremongering.

Meh. I have much less faith in humanity, particularly Irish humanity, than you. I see people protesting against mobile phone masts while talking on mobile phones. I see people at those same protests holding up signs about cancer risk while smoking cigarettes. I see people using computers powered by the national grid to sign petitions against Eirgrid building components of that grid.

If we want to give people more say, start by decentralising government and giving local authorities the power to raise revenue. Let's see how people get on governing themselves on a small scale; let's see if Roscommon people want an A&E enough to pay for it with their taxes, for example. If they don't frig it up too badly, we can re-think a greater involvement in national government.

AhSureTisGrand · 03-10-2011 8:14pm

I don't think the majority would vote for a direct democratic system if such a referendum were put forward, and I think if we inherited a direct democracy the people would vote for representative democracy. The people don't want mob rule. They don't want an all-powerful government that follows every trend and sudden shift in public opinion.

Well I really hope so anyway, because if that's not true then our entire system is undermined. Not to mention that the voters are rather stupid (then again, there is no shortage of evidence to support this).

03-10-2011 8:15pm

deise go deo wrote: »

I dont think Direct Democracy, or more specifically some form of greater public participation in governing the country, would result in a capitulation at every major deciision, at least that has not been the case in other countrys where this is in place. Is there a reason why it would be so here?

Which countries? Switzerland is the only one that's been mentioned so far, and it still has a parliament. It's a hybrid of both representative and direct democracy.

What do you mean by "some form of greater public participation"? What specific approaches are you talking about? Decentralisation of powers? Referendums on wider issues (which ones)? "True" direct democracy? Initiatives?

HivemindXX · 04-10-2011 10:58am

California is often cited as an example of the problems of direct democracy. The electorate can basically set up their own referenda by signature gathering and then they get to vote.

There are some details on Wikipedia here

The danger is this sort of thing results in "Proposition to reduce all taxes across the board by 10%" getting a massive yes vote but there's no input from the people on how this should be paid for. The government has to stop repairing the roads to pay for it. The solution to this is "Proposition to require annual maintenance on all roads" which gets passed with a massive yes vote but once again no mention of how this is to be paid for.

deise go deo · 04-10-2011 6:00pm

28064212 wrote: »

Which countries? Switzerland is the only one that's been mentioned so far, and it still has a parliament. It's a hybrid of both representative and direct democracy.

What do you mean by "some form of greater public participation"? What specific approaches are you talking about? Decentralisation of powers? Referendums on wider issues (which ones)? "True" direct democracy? Initiatives?

What I have in mind is essentially a compromise between Direct Democracy and Parliamentary Democracy, The Parliament/Government would be the body that deals with the day to day running of the country and would draft and enact legislation on behalf of the people.
However, There would be an understanding that the people are to have a say in the running of the state.

There would be a mechanism where by legislation could be referred to the supreme court by petition, say 50,000 Signatures.

The people could propose legislation/changes to the constitution, again by petition. Article 48 of the original Free State Constitution is what I mean here.

The Oireachtas may provide for the Initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments. Should the Oireachtas fail to make such provision within two years, it shall on the petition of not less than seventy five thousand voters on the register, of whom not more than fifteen thousand shall be voters in any one constituency, either make such provisions or submit the question to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum. Any legislation passed by the Oireachtas providing for such Initiation by the people shall provide (1) that such proposals may be initiated on a petition of fifty thousand voters on the register, (2) that if the Oireachtas rejects a proposal so initiated it shall be submitted to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum; and (3) that if the Oireachtas enacts a proposal so initiated, such enactment shall be subject to the provisions respecting ordinary legislation or amendments of the Constitution as the case may be.

Finally I would suggest that a given issue can only be brought to referendum once every ten years.

That is what I would consider a good arrangement, it would ensure that people would have a way to genuinely engage with the governance of their country, while at the same time would not, In my opinion result in wall to wall referendums or a collapse at every unpopular decision that would need to be taken.

Cork boy 55 · 04-10-2011 6:20pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

....
I have much less faith in humanity, particularly Irish humanity.
...

reported Bigot

oscarBravo · 04-10-2011 6:39pm

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

reported Bigot

I guess that's one way to avoid going to the effort of discussing the topic.

Eliot Rosewater · 04-10-2011 7:53pm

I wonder would "proportional representation" referenda work. I.e., referenda where the electorate is presented with a number of alternatives and must rank their preferences, with the "winner" being decided through normal PR procedures. It overcomes the problem of the electorate voting no to a referendum without giving a workable alternative: the outcome would always (theoretically!) be workable. It doesn't overcome some of the issues oB raise though. If presented with two alternatives, cut social security by 5% or impose 99.9% wealth tax, the latter might easy be selected.

Direct Democracy, Why Not?

Comments