[telecaster]

Why isn't the referendum option used more often when big decisions are needed regarding the direction of the country?

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

On a matter of such importance, should the public not have been asked?

[later12]

Originally Posted by telecaster

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

Then why did they not vote for the parties who were most explicit in refusing to pay out?

I think part of the problem is that people feel there needs to be a strong excuse if the state is to consult the people over matters of administration that are already in line with the Constitution.

I don't particularly agree with that; I think it would be worth expanding public input. But I do think there has to be some credible system to dictate what the people get to choose, and what the administration gets to choose on their behalf.

[hatrickpatrick]

Originally Posted by later12

Then why did they not vote for the parties who were most explicit in refusing to pay out?

Because as we all know, those parties had a bunch of other policies in other areas which most of us didn't agree with.
This is the fundamental problem with our democracy. We need a department based democracy instead, and that's something I'm seriously considering trying to put together at some point in my life, if I can find enough people who agree with it.

You'd vote for whose policies you want in the area of education, whose transport policy, whose environment policy, etc. That way there'd be no more of this "herp derp if you don't want to be EU yes men you should have voted for Sinn Fein" sh!te.

[Scioch]

Because a referendum is only used when it must be used. Governments dont want people deciding these things at all.

[later12]

Originally Posted by hatrickpatrick

That way there'd be no more of this "herp derp if you don't want to be EU yes men you should have voted for Sinn Fein" sh!te.

I agree that's a problem - we don't vote on specific policies, we vote on aggregate perceptions of the parties' policies.

Having said that, the question of recapitalisations and the financial crisis was the major topic during the last election, so you would expect to have seen some noticeable swing to the anti bailout parties if there were genuinely a desire for that approach.

[cichlid child]

Originally Posted by telecaster

Why isn't the referendum option used more often when big decisions are needed regarding the direction of the country?

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

On a matter of such importance, should the public not have been asked?

Because it would have cost a fortune to hold all the referendums untill the goverment got the answer they wanted.

[KindOfIrish]

Originally Posted by telecaster

Why isn't the referendum option used more often when big decisions are needed regarding the direction of the country?

It would seem (anecdotally rather than through any research I've seen) that the majority of Irish people would have preferred not to bail out the banks and to let the bondholders suffer their losses.

On a matter of such importance, should the public not have been asked?

Bank bailout was about real money. no opinion of taxpayers needed! Yesterdays referendum was about nothing and probably irrelevant altogether.

[ixtlan]

Originally Posted by hatrickpatrick

This is the fundamental problem with our democracy. We need a department based democracy instead, and that's something I'm seriously considering trying to put together at some point in my life, if I can find enough people who agree with it.

You'd vote for whose policies you want in the area of education, whose transport policy, whose environment policy, etc. That way there'd be no more of this "herp derp if you don't want to be EU yes men you should have voted for Sinn Fein" sh!te.

In a perfect world this would work, but in this world? and this country?

For example... how did we get into this mess? Let's assume that the Euro was established for better or worse... and we could not raise interest rates (as an aside would you leave that decision under central bank control in your system? if we had a punt?). Anyhow, when the boom was starting in 2002, we should have voted to increase taxes, and cut (or at least not increased) spending. Now, would we as a people rationally decided to do that? In 2007 when the boom was at a height would we should have pre-empted (belatedly) the problem with cuts and taxes... Would we have done that?

I'll add that it's generally accepted that even politicians won't take correct decisions if they are unpopular and can be avoided. That's why central banks are never under government control. Politicians would never raise interest rates, and would cut too soon.

Ix.

[Scioch]

Originally Posted by later12

Then why did they not vote for the parties who were most explicit in refusing to pay out?.

They did, Labour received a large share of the votes and went into government. Then turned their backs on the election promises.

SF's popularity sky rocketed as did that of the Socialist Party and others in the ULA. But they were never going to get the numbers as they lacked credibility. There wasnt much of an option for voters to be honest and the one option that was there (Labour) ended up shafting those who voted for them anyway.

[Dinner]

Originally Posted by LordSmeg

Because a referendum is only used when it must be used. Governments dont want people deciding these things at all.

As one of the 'people', I don't want the people deciding these things.

[Monty Burnz]

Originally Posted by KindOfIrish

Bank bailout was about real money. no opinion of taxpayers needed! Yesterdays referendum was about nothing and probably irrelevant altogether.

Is it too much to hope for that all posters here understand the difference between the legislating the government can do off its own back and the stuff that requires a constitutional referendum? Isn't this stuff taught in school?

[StealthRolex]

Originally Posted by LordSmeg

Because a referendum is only used when it must be used. Governments dont want people deciding these things at all.

Originally Posted by Dinner

As one of the 'people', I don't want the people deciding these things.

Is there a thread where the relative pros, cons, merits, demerits, successes and failures of democracy are being discussed?

Personally democracy appears to be overrated.

Look at the most successful companies - are they run as democracies?

[Scioch]

Originally Posted by Dinner

As one of the 'people', I don't want the people deciding these things.

You dont want the people having a say in the running of the country ?

Its clear from the last election that politicians cannot be trusted to adhere to their election promises. So is it a case of elect someone who lies through their teeth and then let them do whatever the hell they want for 4 years before having a little more input into which is the best of the liars to go in for the next 4 ?

[Scioch]

Originally Posted by StealthRolex

Is there a thread where the relative pros, cons, merits, demerits, successes and failures of democracy are being discussed?

Personally democracy appears to be overrated.

Look at the most successful companies - are they run as democracies?

The question was "Why are referendums not used more often". The simple answer to that is "they are only used when they have to be used" Its not the governments allowing people a say. Its the government being forced to give people a say. Which they wont do if not forced.

But yeah a discussion on democracy would be interesting. Perhpas start a thread in the political theory forum.

[ixtlan]

Originally Posted by Monty Burnz

Is it too much to hope for that all posters here understand the difference between the legislating the government can do off its own back and the stuff that requires a constitutional referendum? Isn't this stuff taught in school?

To be fair to all, the difference between these two isn't even clear to lawyers. In some cases it would take a court case to decide. Generally we seem to have erred on the side of a referendum when there is any doubt, generally because if a government tried to avoid a referendum and then had to have one it would be viewed badly, it seems. Not by me though. I think we have too many referendums. I'd be happy for every referendum possibility to immediately go to the supreme court for a summary judgement on whether it was needed.

Ix.