Democracy

Thirdfox

I have thought about this for some time now and it seems to me that democracy, in the way we currently practise it in Ireland, is not a very efficient system (or could be drastically improved).

In our system (take for example the Lisbon referendum) people can remain ignorant of the question being asked and issues involved (both sides) and play a major part in deciding the future of the country (personally I'd have voted no if I was in the country, but it amazed me that so many people who voted didn't know what the treaty was or what it actually meant).

Having a limited ancient Greek style of democracy (only the educated/rich/non-slaves/male etc.) may provide better decisions for a nation (of course I would only advocate being "educated" as a requirement for voting rights). Note I say educated, not intelligent - my criteria would be that you know/understand the true issues of a particular decision.

Or at the very least, we should have an examination before a ballot to ensure that everyone who is casting a vote is doing so from a standpoint of comprehension and not simply from what their politician/media etc. has told them (which I have found to be quite misleading at times).

If we give people driving exams before allowing them to sit behind the wheel of a car surely we should examine the competency of people to decide the future of a nation?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well democracy isn't meant to be practical or efficient, it's meant to be fair and just. gotta put up with people you don't think oughta vote, cos there are probably a few people who think you oughtn't have the vote too, best to keep everyone unhappy.

Thirdfox

Well my grievance isn't with people who think I shouldn't vote because I'm female/black/poor etc. etc. but rather I don't think some people understand what they're voting for (especially when it comes to complicated international treaties) and have made very little effort to inform themselves. All it takes is 15 minutes to go through a little booklet which will give you a brief outline of an admittedly daunting piece of legal drafting but if you're not going to give even that little bit of effort then I do not think you should have the privilege of voting.

Voting "rights" should really be something earned and not given (the watermark doesn't have to be high - 15 minutes of anyone's time is a reasonable ask is it not?)

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

in theory yeah, I'd agree with you if a system could be designed that was 100% free from tampering by certain groups against others then that might be a good idea (if you discount the whole crushing of peoples rights to participate in the governing of their country).. but that's just not possible. If any such system is implemented, it will be corrupted within a generation and then we'll be in a worse situation than we're in now.

Fratton Fred

Selective democracy? That's not a democracy, that's a ruling body that can pick and choose governments. I would prefer a dictator like in singapore.

eoin5

Thirdfox wrote: »

Well my grievance isn't with people who think I shouldn't vote because I'm female/black/poor etc. etc. but rather I don't think some people understand what they're voting for (especially when it comes to complicated international treaties) and have made very little effort to inform themselves. All it takes is 15 minutes to go through a little booklet which will give you a brief outline of an admittedly daunting piece of legal drafting but if you're not going to give even that little bit of effort then I do not think you should have the privilege of voting.

Voting "rights" should really be something earned and not given (the watermark doesn't have to be high - 15 minutes of anyone's time is a reasonable ask is it not?)

Making the effort is very important but I think having the right approach is more important that how much time you spend on a topic. I dont know everything about how politics works nor should I, we have our experts to do that. What I should do is read and listen skeptically to arguments made on all sides of an issue and to distill the propeganda into something that somewhat reflects the reality of an issue. We should be all become experts in sifting through our agenda riddled media, skeptical thinking as an LC subject maybe?

Jim_Are_Great

Thirdfox wrote: »

Having a limited ancient Greek style of democracy (only the educated/rich/non-slaves/male etc.) may provide better decisions for a nation

That's not really democracy. See?

Thirdfox

^ Jim you forgot to quote the rest of that passage where I say:
(of course I would only advocate being "educated" as a requirement for voting rights). Note I say educated, not intelligent - my criteria would be that you know/understand the true issues of a particular decision.

You can't change your sex but you can do something about not comprehending an issue.

The flip side is that with a potentially reduced eligible voting numbers (at least intially) there could be people who try to take advantage of this and grab power for themselves. I'm not sure how we can 100% defend against this (perhaps with a strong judicial arm) and it is operating on the assumption that governments (or elements of it) are essentially evil...

But I foresee that the people who do not comprehend issues may then motivate themselves and be eligible next time to vote (so we end up with roughly just as many people who can vote as right now only that they are more informed to do so).

SimpleSam06

Thirdfox wrote: »

Or at the very least, we should have an examination before a ballot to ensure that everyone who is casting a vote is doing so from a standpoint of comprehension and not simply from what their politician/media etc. has told them (which I have found to be quite misleading at times).

No. Such questions would be set by the governing body in one form or another, and there has been in my opinion a growing divergence of purpose between the body politic in this country and the best interests of the country.

For example, here are some sample questions:
Will the Lisbon treaty allow abortion to take place in Ireland? y/n
Will the Lisbon treaty make it easier for the voice of the people of Ireland to be heard? y/n

The first question is simple, answer wrongly and you can't vote. The second question is more subjective, and the only acceptable answer would be the one that furthers the aims of the government. What you are doing here is filtering out potential dissenters, even a slight twist in certain questions would be effective. You could also have the questions require knowledge in great depth, which while fulfilling the requirement of being directly about the issue, are filtering out most voters entirely. These voters will nonetheless be legally bound to follow the decision of the referendum.

This is not democracy or anything remotely resembling it.

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

(of course I would only advocate being "educated" as a requirement for voting rights). Note I say educated, not intelligent - my criteria would be that you know/understand the true issues of a particular decision.

Who is to decide what the issues are? What are the issues involved, say, in the last abortion referendum? Should superstitious religious concerns be considered valid issues for example?

johnnyskeleton

The solution would be to have better politicians who try to educate people about what's going on instead of treating us like sheep, and to encourage people to take a more active interest in politics.

It would be better too if we had non-muppet opposition parties who actually have views on issues instead of taking low blow swipes at the government. I remember the debate over the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 2006, which is a really badly drafted piece of legislation and is being challenged in the High Court (and is likely to suffer the same fate as the previous law did in the C case). The opposition could have made helpful suggestions to amend the legislation, but instead they spent most of the time having a go at the government for political gain.

We need governors not politicians.

SimpleSam06

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The solution would be to have better politicians

It usually is.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the solution is government so small it could fit on the head of a pin. we should dig up milton friedman and put him in charge.

Rebeller

Thirdfox wrote: »

I have thought about this for some time now and it seems to me that democracy, in the way we currently practise it in Ireland, is not a very efficient system (or could be drastically improved).

I agree, but as others here have pointed out, if we wanted efficiency we'd eliminate elections entirely and remove any popular participation in government, the whole "benevolent dictatorship" idea if you will.

In our system (take for example the Lisbon referendum) people can remain ignorant of the question being asked and issues involved (both sides) and play a major part in deciding the future of the country

.

A fatal flaw in all existing implementations of what is termed "democracy" in the modern world: one man one vote, meaning the vote of someone whose sole source of info on the world is gleaned from Murdoch's toilet roll press and Sky "news" carries the same weight as the person who takes the time to read between the lines and truly inform themselves about the issues.

True democracy as I understand it does not exist anywhere in the world. There are no key differences between any of the maninstream political parties in Ireland. Election campaigns are no longer focused around differences in policy or concrete proposals to improve the quality of life of as many as possible; instead they are run like advertising campaigns, presenting a series of almost indistinguishable political "brands" to the electorate. Just as is the case with marketing in general, there are no discernible differences between any of these brands.

I don't think that true democracy can truly exist in any centralised, large population form. Ideally, all decisions should be taken at the lowest, local level as is practicably possible, with perhaps a loose community of directly elected, limited mandate small town councils which are directly elected from amongst the people in whose locality they sit.

Princess Innocent Knickers wrote:

we should dig up milton friedman and put him in charge.

.

A man renowned for his love of participatory democracy:rolleyes: evidenced by the swathes of human wreckage his legacy left strewn everywhere. Chile anyone?

Thirdfox

Thanks for the opinions everyone - I think we can agree that the current system isn't perfect, but whether a better solution can be found seems to be the controversial issue.

The reason why I think a benevolent dictatorship cannot work in the long term is that ultimately there will be one bad apple who tries to grab power for all time. When elections still exist (in a more regulated fashion) perhaps we can have the best of both worlds - thoughtful (though perhaps still not "good") decisions coupled with a dilution of control into the hands of many people so that a dictator cannot rise to power.

But all the problems that have been pointed out are certainly important considerations too. I still believe that personal responsibility is something that has been sadly neglected quite often in an age where people are only concerned about their "rights" and not their duties as responsible citizens of a state.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Rebeller wrote: »

A man renowned for his love of participatory democracy:rolleyes: evidenced by the swathes of human wreckage his legacy left strewn everywhere. Chile anyone?

bloody naomi klein

Carawaystick

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

For example, here are some sample questions:
Will the Lisbon treaty allow abortion to take place in Ireland? y/n
Will the Lisbon treaty make it easier for the voice of the people of Ireland to be heard? y/n

The first question is simple, answer wrongly and you can't vote. .

Ah but how would you really know?
back in '83 when 67% of the people voted for the amendment to add 40.3.3 to the constitution, they thought they were definitely preventing abortion occurring in ireland. Nine years later this was found to have the opposite effect.

abortion is constitutional in Ireland under certain circumstances, legislation prevents it becoming legal as far as I can remember- the same law that made it illegal pre-1983

so sam, what's the answer to the first question??

SkepticOne

Thirdfox wrote: »

When elections still exist (in a more regulated fashion) perhaps we can have the best of both worlds - thoughtful (though perhaps still not "good") decisions coupled with a dilution of control into the hands of many people so that a dictator cannot rise to power.

I get the feeling that you still think there should be some sort of qualification involved in voting despite the objections raised. Do you have any response to those objections?