Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why are YOU voting no ?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Some of this dealt with in my reply to nesf.We have elections, in which we appoint, by popular mandate, people to represent our interests. We then judge them, at least in theory, on how well they have done so.
Why do we have that system? The answer seems to be that, for most people, politics is something they don't want to pay attention to most of the time. I'd be prepared to bet that this referendum has impinged on people thus far mostly as an annoying background noise, and that they're only really thinking about how they're going to vote now-ish.
That means that the idea that we will keep a careful eye on what our representatives are up to "in Brussels", understand where they are deviating from our interests, and be able to call them to account by popularly mandating a referendum, in which the electorate will carefully consider the issue, the whole issue, and nothing but the issue, is not merely idealistic, but contrary, almost certainly, to the wishes or expectations of the majority of citizens.
In turn, this means that the referendum mechanism you propose will actually become the mechanism of choice for special interest groups, who will arrogate to themselves the right to decide when and where the government is deviating from the "interests of the people" - in the an idealistic way, to be sure, but nevertheless. They will be the people who call for the referendum petition, and almost certainly set the tone of the debate - a different set of interests each time, against government parties who will have to fight every time. Going on this referendum (and most others I've voted on in the last quarter-century), the tone and content of the debates are likely to be hysterical and full of falsehoods.
So it seems to me that while your suggestion is eminently desirable in principle, it relies on people being something other than what they are, plays into the hands of minority interests with an axe to grind, and is therefore undesirable in practice. It is, to coin a phrase, merely populist lobbying.
The first protection is that a petition requires N signatures to trigger a referendum, a percentage of the electorate picked to balance between feasibility and nuisance-filtering.
At times yes, a minority will cause the majority to traipse down to vote no. In practice, and I mean in real practice here as opposed to your theoretical in practice, in Switzerland where they've been operating an even more direct version of citizen involvement than I propose, this rarely happens, and it makes sense because there's little point in all that effort if the proposal is likely to be defeated.
As to most people not being interested in politics, and I do perceive a 'whatever' resigned attitude in some of our younger generation (though it's also a perennial feature among youth), one of the reasons this holds some truth is that there's little to gain from thinking about politics - because we have so little say! Elect someone and hope for the best just doesn't cut it.
Also politics is a narrow field that would rarely come up for referendum, most people however are very concerned with jobs, health, education, etc. and would gladly vote to protect and advance these.
Give people a say, and they'll step up to the plate. Generally speaking the Irish people have an opinion on everything, and I think it's a cruel world for young people to come into feeling that they are virtually powerless pawns in a game run by the elite.
On the potential divisiveness of campaigns, I remember well the divorce and abortion referenda (seperate issues
), highly divisive indeed, but I don't recall one person saying they'd rather have no say and that we should leave it to politicians.
I think you may underestimate the Irish capacity to know when they are being sold a pig in a poke, we're not that easy to hoodwink hence zero scientologists here, and this would be more the case if we had access to the expert advice our politicians are getting, we don't need to understand the legal detail any more than when we're buying a house.
In summary, saying direct democracy won't work is given the erratum by the inconvenient truth that it's operating in practice in Switzerland, but as I've agreed with nesf we ought not go quite that far with it.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
democrates wrote: »On the potential divisiveness of campaigns, I remember well the divorce and abortion referenda (seperate issues), highly divisive indeed, but I don't recall one person saying they'd rather have no say and that we should leave it to politicians.
These are two simple issues which although divisive are easily understood. Everyone who votes for these issues are generally informed and know why they are voting. On a complex issues like an international treaty which is hundreds of pages long and contains both benefits in return for some compromises is unfortunately beyond a lot of people. This is generally not due to a lack of intelligence but rather a lack of effort to inform themselves and to understand. A lot of people generally believe the first thing they hear regardless of the facts. So while I agree simple single issue referenda are good, referenda on complex treaties are not the way to go.
I think you overestimate it. Catholic church anyone?democrates wrote: »I think you may underestimate the Irish capacity to know when they are being sold a pig in a poke,
I meet people like that all the time. Which part of the country are you from because I want to move there.democrates wrote: »In theory we'd face the risk that people will do something incredibly stupid like vote for 10% income tax and 50% corporation tax, but I've not met anyone that stupid in this country for a long time, if they are here they are in the minority.democrates wrote: »Privatising eircom was supposed to be the best thing for Ireland, Shannon-Heathrow was not at risk in privatising Aer Lingus, decentralisation was the way forward, now on health we're back to centres of excellence, E-voting was brilliant, the list goes on.
I would say that privatising the telecoms industry was a success. Granted it didn't go will for eircom or their stockholders but we now have competition and as a result a cheaper and more efficient service. Although the infrastructure needs to be funded in part by the government as private industry can't afford to do this on their own. Also the privatisation has saved the tax-payer a lot of money. Aer Lingus was loosing money and was being bankrolled by the government, it is now making a profit and providing a cheaper service. If the demand is there at shannon there will be other airlines to pick up the slack and fly customers to other hubs in Europe, Heathrow isn't the only game in town. The decentralisation and e-voting were unmitigated disasters due to lack of foresight. I think that the HSE could have been a success if they let that Canadian bloke get on with it but the politicians kept on meddling and bowing to union pressure, in the end he had to quit as he couldn't do his job.0 -
democrates wrote: »Some of this dealt with in my reply to nesf.
The first protection is that a petition requires N signatures to trigger a referendum, a percentage of the electorate picked to balance between feasibility and nuisance-filtering.
Of course.democrates wrote: »At times yes, a minority will cause the majority to traipse down to vote no. In practice, and I mean in real practice here as opposed to your theoretical in practice, in Switzerland where they've been operating an even more direct version of citizen involvement than I propose, this rarely happens, and it makes sense because there's little point in all that effort if the proposal is likely to be defeated.
On the other hand, California, which also has a referendum system like the one you propose, runs 'nuisance referendums' pretty frequently.democrates wrote: »As to most people not being interested in politics, and I do perceive a 'whatever' resigned attitude in some of our younger generation (though it's also a perennial feature among youth), one of the reasons this holds some truth is that there's little to gain from thinking about politics - because we have so little say! Elect someone and hope for the best just doesn't cut it.
I don't know about that. The Irish don't discuss politics, full stop. There's a Eurobarometer survey that suggested we have amongst the lowest levels of political discussion in Europe (between friends, that is), and it didn't vary a jot during the general election.
I would say the reason that we don't discuss it, by and large, is because we're not particularly interested in ideological discussions or stances. Our parties are largely pragmatic and managerial, rather than ideological, our allegiance to them largely tribal - and there's no point in discussing tribal affiliations, really.
One can see that as evidence that the political interest of the people is being suppressed, or in some way disengaged - but an equally reasonable proposition is that it suits us.democrates wrote: »Also politics is a narrow field that would rarely come up for referendum, most people however are very concerned with jobs, health, education, etc. and would gladly vote to protect and advance these.
Give people a say, and they'll step up to the plate. Generally speaking the Irish people have an opinion on everything, and I think it's a cruel world for young people to come into feeling that they are virtually powerless pawns in a game run by the elite.
As per above.democrates wrote: »On the potential divisiveness of campaigns, I remember well the divorce and abortion referenda (seperate issues), highly divisive indeed, but I don't recall one person saying they'd rather have no say and that we should leave it to politicians.
On the other hand, the turnout is not overwhelming...would it really increase if there were more referendums?democrates wrote: »I think you may underestimate the Irish capacity to know when they are being sold a pig in a poke, we're not that easy to hoodwink hence zero scientologists here, and this would be more the case if we had access to the expert advice our politicians are getting, we don't need to understand the legal detail any more than when we're buying a house.
I'm relying on that to deliver a Yes vote!democrates wrote: »In summary, saying direct democracy won't work is given the erratum by the inconvenient truth that it's operating in practice in Switzerland, but as I've agreed with nesf we ought not go quite that far with it.
Well, I haven't said it won't work. I always vote, and would vote, almost certainly, in minor referendums too. However, Switzerland is not the only possible outcome - California is also possible.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
Increase N, simple as.On the other hand, California, which also has a referendum system like the one you propose, runs 'nuisance referendums' pretty frequently.
But I think it's a language issue in how the question is framed, a link to the questionnaire if you have it would be revealing on this theory. People will of course say they aren't interested in politics, but if you ask them are they concerned if their child school is rat-infested or if they want more police on the beat or if they want A&E trolley bingo sorted you'll get solid engagement, no end of discussion.I don't know about that. The Irish don't discuss politics, full stop. There's a Eurobarometer survey that suggested we have amongst the lowest levels of political discussion in Europe (between friends, that is), and it didn't vary a jot during the general election.
I would say the reason that we don't discuss it, by and large, is because we're not particularly interested in ideological discussions or stances. Our parties are largely pragmatic and managerial, rather than ideological, our allegiance to them largely tribal - and there's no point in discussing tribal affiliations, really.
One can see that as evidence that the political interest of the people is being suppressed, or in some way disengaged - but an equally reasonable proposition is that it suits us.
As per above.
I'm not sure about the Californian or Swiss stats on voter turnout, and I won't be so soothish as to speculate on a potential Irish result, but I've seen no reports of that being a problem where it is in operation.On the other hand, the turnout is not overwhelming...would it really increase if there were more referendums?
Touche, set that up didn't II'm relying on that to deliver a Yes vote!
Yes over half the states in the union have some form of citizen petition, it's not there at the federal level so I didn't use them as an example. In short if this were in practice a plague on the people, I'm sure they'd quickly give it up. On the contrary it's strongly supported, by the people that is, so called Libertarian think tanks (in actuality anarcho-capitalists) hate it because citizens have a tendency not to support corporate hegemony.Well, I haven't said it won't work. I always vote, and would vote, almost certainly, in minor referendums too. However, Switzerland is not the only possible outcome - California is also possible.0 -
Advertisement
-
democrates wrote: »Increase N, simple as.
Not an infinitely expandable solution, of course!democrates wrote: »But I think it's a language issue in how the question is framed, a link to the questionnaire if you have it would be revealing on this theory. People will of course say they aren't interested in politics, but if you ask them are they concerned if their child school is rat-infested or if they want more police on the beat or if they want A&E trolley bingo sorted you'll get solid engagement, no end of discussion.
This was the Eurobarometer question:
When you get together with friends, would you say you discuss political matters frequently, occasionally, or never?democrates wrote: »I'm not sure about the Californian or Swiss stats on voter turnout, and I won't be so soothish as to speculate on a potential Irish result, but I've seen no reports of that being a problem where it is in operation.
Touche, set that up didn't I
Posed conveniently for the blow, as they say.democrates wrote: »Yes over half the states in the union have some form of citizen petition, it's not there at the federal level so I didn't use them as an example. In short if this were in practice a plague on the people, I'm sure they'd quickly give it up. On the contrary it's strongly supported, by the people that is, so called Libertarian think tanks (in actuality anarcho-capitalists) hate it because citizens have a tendency not to support corporate hegemony.
Hmm. However, again, taking the Swiss as an example - when the incinerator in Ringsend question loomed large, I remember coming across a poll conducted in Switzerland on the question of municipal dumps/incinerators. The question asked was "would you accept that such a dump be sited in your locality, if that were recommended" - to which the majority answer was "yes, it has to go somewhere, we can't avoid our civic duties". The Irish answer would appear to be quite different. Similarly, we have an oppositional political (and legal) culture, rather than a consensual one, but a consensual social culture rather than an oppositional one. That will all make a difference, it seems to me, in the practice of running regular referendums.
Personally I'm a big fan of referendums. I would prefer to see direct democracy wherever possible - ideally, push-button voting on nearly every issue - if we're going for the ideal. However, there simply isn't anything I can do about the electorate. They're not sheep, but they have other concerns, and most people don't have the spare time in their lives to make themselves sufficiently expert on each issue to deliver a meaningful vote on them. That's why people are comfortable delegating their sovereignty - not because they have been fooled, but because they want to get on with other things. It's an imperfect compromise, but it is, however imperfect, the will of the people.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
We're totally in agreement on this, but let alone do I believe the people should have full and exclusive ownership of the constitution, but also that we should have the option of petitioning for a referendum on both the constitution and legislation.I don't view that as a problem though, or as a mark against a constitutional system. So long as we have a) A well functioning legal system to analyse and recommend solutions to these problems and b) The ability through legislation or referenda to alter the constitution to deal with the loopholes and issues, we can make things work. The only problem comes when the constitution is fixed and "timeless" in my opinion, the law should reflect the wishes of the people to some extent after all.
I obviously worded that poorly, I'm not rebuking politicians for not reading it and agree with the safeguard of expert advice you've outlined, my point is that instead of this being the jealously guarded preserve of politicians, it should be available to the public to aid in our deliberation in advance of a referendum.I'm sure some of the more legally minded politicians have probably read it but certainly some or most of them haven't but this isn't really a problem. We don't elect politicians based on their ability to analyse legal documents, we have legal professionals and an independent judiciary to do that for us. The argument that because a politician hasn't read the Treaty in full that they can't have an educated opinion on it is a straw man at best.
If professional advice gives guidance to politicians in complex cases, it can do so for a couple of million citizens brains, it's like open source code, more eyes to spot bugs = better code, or in this case law.I'm not worried about the people doing something as stupid as that. What would worry me would be special interests shaping the debate and the terms of the debate in such a way to achieve results that are in their interests and not the public's interests. Again back on the legalistic point, if a document is sufficiently complicated, it is very easy to mislead people as to its actual contents. I'm not convinced that the people should have the say on this kind of document, I'm even sure if it's in their interest to have direct democratic control in this instance. Surely delegating this power to others whose job it is to consider these documents in the best interests or their constituents or mandate is a more efficient and pragmatic solution? Is it open to abuse, sure but I'm not overly convinced that direct democracy is any less open to abuse.
As to who you can trust, I'll wager the many who just want a decent life are a safer bet, than a few who clearly want to be in power and present a far more convenient influence opportunity to vested interests than the many with whom there is a much greater likelihood subterfuge will be spotted and highlighted.
On both trustworthiness and competence (given the same access to professional advice), I see the many as a far safer bet than the few.
It always looks worse than it is, the extremists provide a media spectacle so get plenty of coverage, but the silent majority ultimately get to vote moderately.Politicians, civil servants, etc both make mistakes and are open to influence by special interests out for their own gain. I think every rational person accepts this. The thing is, a) what to do about it? and b) is direct democracy any less open to the influence of special interests and pressure groups? (look at some of the groups on the Yes and No side if you want an answer to this)
As I've argued above, yes, I think a measure of direct democracy provides a difficult target for SIG's, the more extreme they are the more they're ignored. Dun Laoghaire people had to take to the streets en masse to prevent the privatisation of the foreshore. The scheme suited developers but not the people, how come our local 'representatives' were trying to do this?
You conclude the current system worked ok there, but it took a measure of such outrageousness that the people marched to save the day. Business as usual tends to be lots of little measures, of the bad ones rare is the case that sufficient public opposition arises to halt it, but if they were all rolled into one there would be outrage.
In a way that's what the EU has done over the years, I voted yes to previous treaties without fully considering the overall direction of the new arrangements and their implications, I came to regret doing so.
If a snapshot of current attitudes to Lisbon were a fixed representation of all we could ever be, I'd agree.I agree with you, there is no perfect solution and I'm certainly not a person who thinks the status quo arrangement of power is the best we could have, I'm just worried about the combination of the potential for abuse by special interests and voter fatigue/apathy with a triggered referendum system, that and the extra costs incurred by such a system. Referendums aren't exactly cheap. Would the cost bring a sufficient benefit to make it a sensible use of public funds?
But just look at how profoundly attitudes have changed over the last twenty five years, we can and do change, and radically so, we adapt to new circumstances, aside from the lessons of history, I've personally seen countless occasions where business as usual was interrupted by some unexpected challenge, and people instantly changed tack to deal with it.
I believe if the sun rises on a new day when people have the option of being directly included in decision-making, it would trigger an appropriate change in attitudes, no doubt the adaption pace would follow the usual bell curve. 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement