Direct Democracy

pwd

Direct democracy is a system where the public can vote on all decisions directly, rather than being at the mercy of having the decisions made on their behalf by elected representatives.

There are three candidates who support direct democracy running in this election. If any our elected, their constituents will be able to vote directly on what stance they should take on various issues.

They are standing in Dublin North Central, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown, and Carlow-Kilkenny.

http://www.directdemocracyireland.org/

Paul Clarke's Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1416982103#!/pages/Paul-Clarke/113127422091599

Personally I think this system makes sense, and it would be a very positive step if it was put in place. They dont seem to have much exposure, so I thought I would mention them here.

jhegarty

So no more tax. Because who wants pay taxes ?

Everything wants a great local school and hospital , so lets build loads of them. Even if we can't afford them.

etc..etc...etc.....

Killer Pigeon

Direct Democracy doesn't work. It completely disregards the opinions of the minority and in the long run it will be logistically impossible to get a substancial number of voters on every issue so that the true opinions of the majority can also be respected. It will also slow down the decision making process. It's a nice idea but unfortunately it's not feasible except in the Cantons of Switzerland for some reason.

pwd

How does it disregard the opinions of the minority any more than party politics?

In party politics the party makes the decisions and the members go with that. The minority isn't represented well at all surely?

I understand that the model being proposed by these candidates is based on the Swiss system.

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

Switzerland seems to manage itself pretty well. It has maintained neutrality when we haven't. Its economy is extremely strong; ours is collapsing. Residents have some of the longest life expectancies in the world.

So yeah; it does work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dinner

The only group i trust less to run a country than FF is the general public.


EDIT: That Paul Clarke guy wants to run local referenda for every vote he casts in the Dail? For starters, who is going to pay for all of these votes?

pwd

Then how come Switzerland seems to manage itself so well? That's the same model that's being proposed here.

This is a genuine question btw- not just rhetoric.

I do get the logic of what you're saying too. And yeah the X-Factor analogy is terrifying and maybe possible!.. I see DD as a positive step rather than a solution per se. For it to work, I think people would need to educate themselves and start thinking objectively. Also steps would need to be taken to address the influences of the media (or maybe on the media?), which would be non-trivial and non-obvious.

Killer Pigeon

pwd wrote: »

Then how come Switzerland seems to manage itself so well? That's the same model that's being proposed here.

This is a genuine question btw- not just rhetoric.

I do get the logic of what you're saying too. And yeah the X-Factor analogy is terrifying and maybe possible!.. I see DD as a positive step rather than a solution per se. For it to work, I think people would need to educate themselves and start thinking objectively. Also steps would need to be taken to address the influences of the media (or maybe on the media?), which would be non-trivial and non-obvious.

Swiss people are genetically different to the rest of humanity, that's why.

KerranJast

They've a form of DD in California where every State Budget has to be voted on.

The State is bankrupt despite being a huge economy mainly because if you let the voters vote on every decision you get massive spending increases and huge tax cuts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pwd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ok unfortunately I agree with you that it is a cultural problem.

Consider the following though. If you look at the countries with the lowest levels of corruption, they tend to be places where the citizens appear to be empowered: Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Switzerland.

If you look at the countries with the highest levels of corruption, they tend to be places where the citizens appear to be disempowered, or to have been disempowered in recent history: Russia, China, Mexico, India.

The countries I've listed could be perceived as arbitrary choices, however they are not based on my own opinions, in case I am sounding like a racist! They are the top and bottom nations on the Bribe Payers Index:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribe_Payers_Index#BPI_2008_Rankings

So perhaps empowerment would be part of positive cultural change.

There are only three candidates standing, and I'd be surprised if any of them were elected tbh. It would be interesting to see the course of things if one of them were to get it, and how people would respond to their empowerment... The nightmare scenarios postulated above aren't possible when a maximum of three candidates of this type could get in. I acknowledge that significant questions are raised by some of the posts here about whether this system would work on a large scale in Ireland. However I still think it would be worth voting for these candidates, as I think the empowerment of citizens might be very positive, and it doesn't carry the dangers suggested above when it would be on such a small scale.

Ghost Estate

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

a completely direct democracy might not work.

a more direct democracy could very well work. shorter terms, make easier to veto or repeal an unpopular laws, issues like tax still handled by representatives.

but if something like more restrictive car licensing, a bank bailout or something similar comes along I don't see why the public shouldn't be allowed to have a direct say in the matter

southsiderosie

pwd wrote: »

Then how come Switzerland seems to manage itself so well? That's the same model that's being proposed here.

This is a genuine question btw- not just rhetoric.

I do get the logic of what you're saying too. And yeah the X-Factor analogy is terrifying and maybe possible!.. I see DD as a positive step rather than a solution per se. For it to work, I think people would need to educate themselves and start thinking objectively. Also steps would need to be taken to address the influences of the media (or maybe on the media?), which would be non-trivial and non-obvious.

From what I've read, Switzerland's direct democracy works because it is such a linguistically and ethnically fractured country that the law-making process is extremely slow and requires a great deal of negotiation and compromise between different groups. The referendums are a way to poke political leaders into action, not to manage daily affairs. General voting on everything would be chaotic.

In addition, Switzerland has a strongly federal system, and the cantons have a great deal of autonomy. In order to have DD at a local level, local governments would actually have to have some kind of autonomy and control over revenue raising. Irish local officials are extraordinarily impotent; local government is little more than a stepping-stone to the Dail.

Finally, the Swiss can't vote on everything - some issues are checked by the federal courts.

I've said this in other threads, but I don't think Ireland's problem is that voters don't have enough of a say. Irish voters have more contact with their elected officials than any of their European counterparts (including the Swiss), and Irish representatives are very responsive to their constituents. If anything, the problem in Ireland is that TDs are too clued-in to the wishes of their constituents, not vice-versa.

delta_bravo

Sounds like having 166 Jackie Healy Raes in the Dáil. Imagine that :O

Baralis1

I dont' think this would work in Ireland because the population is not evenly dispersed throughout the country. The two million plus people in the greater Dublin would massively dominate the decisions of the country and would easily outvote any other region when it would come to geographical dispersal of money, resources and employment.

leincar

What you propose is surely a version of Polish parliaments(Sejm) in the seventeenth and eighteenth century where any member of parliament could say 'Liberum Veto' and call a halt to any legislation they didn't like.

pwd

leincar wrote: »

What you propose is surely a version of Polish parliaments(Sejm) in the seventeenth and eighteenth century where any member of parliament could say 'Liberum Veto' and call a halt to any legislation they didn't like.

Why do you think that?

leincar

pwd wrote: »

Why do you think that?

First of all I'm not having a go for the sake of having a go. I think it is great that new ideas are being expressed at the moment. We need new thinking.

In the old Polish parliment a single deputy, who more often than not was being paid by outside sources(Russian and Prussian on a lot of occasions) could stand up and object and halt and obstruct legislation without having to give a reason. By using 'Liberium Veto' while on paper a noble idea, it could be used and taken advantage by anyone and everyone.

On the home page of http://www.directdemocracyireland.org/ they mention the following two points.

1. Any citizen can collect a certain number of signatures(a certain % of the population) to call a referendum.

2. Referendum, The referendum will empower the people to veto ministerial decisions, or government legislation, such as NAMA, Anglo Irish etc.

Both of these points(in my opinion I admit) bear a modern day similarity to 'Liberium Veto'. Points of legislation will be held up, sometimes indefinitely and I don't see it working.

For example: If there is a pro choice or pro life constitutional amendment proposed, the wording alone could be challanged thereby holding it up.

NAMA and Anglo Irish are used as examples. The legislation while bad and rushed would in any circumstances need a quick decision as International markets would not stop for an Irish referendum, in the meanwhile government would fiddle while the country votes.

jhegarty

leincar wrote: »

1. Any citizen can collect a certain number of signatures(a certain % of the population) to call a referendum.

2. Referendum, The referendum will empower the people to veto ministerial decisions, or government legislation, such as NAMA, Anglo Irish etc.

I don't like income tax. Either do most people.

Do you think the "no more income tax" bill would pass ?

bonkey

pwd wrote: »

Then how come Switzerland seems to manage itself so well? That's the same model that's being proposed here.

Its certainly not the model that you present in the OP....although it is close to what has been referenced from their homepage from another poster.

The Swiss elect representatives - the Bundeshaus - just like in Ireland the TDs are elected to the Dáil.

These people do exactly what TDs do. They sit in government, and they vote on policy. They don't refer to their constituents to make those decisions.

Where Switzerland differs from Ireland is that the public have the ability to demand a referendum. There are laws in place which also say that when a public initiative meets the necessary criteria, there is a finite timeframe (albeit several years) within which that referendum must be held.

This ability of the public's has far-reaching effects. Most controversial or significant national decisions get voluntarily put to the public by the government...because they know that if they don't, then regardless of which way the vote goes, there will almost certainly be an initiative to have a referendum on it anyway.

It is, therefore, far more practical for the government to ask first and then be empowered to act (one way or another) then to decide, start acting, and then be held up for an indeterminate period of time while they wait to see if the public change their minds.

I should note, at this point, that there are typically 3-4 referenda a year in Switzerland, every year, typically with multiple issues on the card. Townland, Cantonal and National issues are all handled at the same time. The Swiss have also put a lot of work into making voting easy. You get mailed your card. You fill it out and can post it back, or drop it in on the day, or drop in and vote 'in situ' on the day. They've experimented with SMS-based voting, as well as with internet-based.

How does it disregard the opinions of the minority any more than party politics?

In party politics the party makes the decisions and the members go with that. The minority isn't represented well at all surely?

In party politics, you can gain the votes of minorities by showing them some considerations. This bolsters the party.
In direct politics, the majority always get their say. There is no reason for anyone to consider minorities...as they will (by definition) always be outvoted.

bonkey

jhegarty wrote: »

I don't like income tax. Either do most people.

Do you think the "no more income tax" bill would pass ?

No, I don't.

bonkey

Baralis1 wrote: »

I dont' think this would work in Ireland because the population is not evenly dispersed throughout the country. The two million plus people in the greater Dublin would massively dominate the decisions of the country and would easily outvote any other region when it would come to geographical dispersal of money, resources and employment.

Again, I would reference the Swiss system. For a national issue to carry, it requires a majority of the vote, as well as a majority of the cantons (i.e. in a majority of the cantons, the popular vote was more then 50% yes)

pwd

bonkey wrote: »

Its certainly not the model that you present in the OP....although it is close to what has been referenced from their homepage from another poster.

The Swiss elect representatives - the Bundeshaus - just like in Ireland the TDs are elected to the Dáil.

These people do exactly what TDs do. They sit in government, and they vote on policy. They don't refer to their constituents to make those decisions.

Where Switzerland differs from Ireland is that the public have the ability to demand a referendum. There are laws in place which also say that when a public initiative meets the necessary criteria, there is a finite timeframe (albeit several years) within which that referendum must be held.

This ability of the public's has far-reaching effects. Most controversial or significant national decisions get voluntarily put to the public by the government...because they know that if they don't, then regardless of which way the vote goes, there will almost certainly be an initiative to have a referendum on it anyway.

It is, therefore, far more practical for the government to ask first and then be empowered to act (one way or another) then to decide, start acting, and then be held up for an indeterminate period of time while they wait to see if the public change their minds.

I should note, at this point, that there are typically 3-4 referenda a year in Switzerland, every year, typically with multiple issues on the card. Townland, Cantonal and National issues are all handled at the same time. The Swiss have also put a lot of work into making voting easy. You get mailed your card. You fill it out and can post it back, or drop it in on the day, or drop in and vote 'in situ' on the day. They've experimented with SMS-based voting, as well as with internet-based.



In party politics, you can gain the votes of minorities by showing them some considerations. This bolsters the party.
In direct politics, the majority always get their say. There is no reason for anyone to consider minorities...as they will (by definition) always be outvoted.

Interesting.

I seem to be cast as the apologist for this. Honestly, I dont fit the role too well, because I'm not terribly well informed! But I'm the only poster so far who seems positive about the notion, and I started the thread, so here I am..

The DD campaign has the following policies:

1.Initiative – Any citizen can collect a certain number of signatures, (a certain % of the population), to call a referendum.

2.Referendum – The referendum will empower the people to veto ministerial decisions, or government legislation, such as NAMA, Anglo Irish Bank etc.

3.Recall – A mechanism will also be introduced whereby politicians can be ‘removed’ if they are not performing their job to the satisfaction of the electorate.

4.Economy – To create realistic economic choices based on public debate, and transparent policies, without vested interests or party politics.

Their primary objective is to

restore articles 47 and 48 of the 1922 constitution, to create full participatory democracy on a national level (based on the political system in Switzerland).

These seem like very desirable changes.

I said in a previous post that the problems postulated here would be unlikely to become too significant if there was a maximum of three DD TDs: So I still see voting for them as a good idea because of what they stand for (as quoted here).

randomhuman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Dinner wrote:

The only group i trust less to run a country than FF is the general public.

Democracy'd be great if it wasn't for all the people wanting to have a say in how things are done, eh?

I like this idea, I hope one or more of them gets in so we can see what becomes of it. I'd vote for them if our democracy wasn't structured along purely geographical lines, and me on the other side of the country...

southsiderosie

There seems to be an implicit assumption in a lot of the debate around DD that somehow, by directly voting on certain initiatives, individual citizens will reclaim control of the government from not only politicians but "special interests" (I.e. the bankers), and justice will reign.

Frankly, from what I've seen of the Irish general public over the last two years, most people are too lazy and civil society is too weak and fractured to get major initiatives off of the ground, and the entire process would be hijacked by the same moneyed interests that proponents of DD thing they are shutting out of the process.

In addition, the idea that politicians will put every decision to DD is daft. If people are just going to vote for everything anyway, then what the hell do we need the actual politician for? Is he going to forgo his government salary and pension since citizens are doing all of the work anyway?

If people were so unhappy about the current government over the last two years, they could have done what most Europeans with coalition-based parliamentary systems do - put enough pressure on key legislators and/or coalition partners to withdraw their support from the government, thus triggering elections. Yet nobody beyond the far-left (all twenty of them) could be arsed in Ireland, even as the government signed the country up for generations of penury.

johnmcdnl

nice idea in an idealistic world - but who's going to vote for an increase in tax or a reduction in spending in any sector when we really need extra taxes or reductions in certain areas??

I know I wouldn't

That system is more flawed than communism tbh - we elect leaders and government to make the decisions for us because we know we need the decisions - direct democracy would be notoriously slow and would never achieve anything because the ordinary person would never vote for a tax increase etc etc when it is most needed

nesf

randomhuman wrote: »

Democracy'd be great if it wasn't for all the people wanting to have a say in how things are done, eh?

I like this idea, I hope one or more of them gets in so we can see what becomes of it. I'd vote for them if our democracy wasn't structured along purely geographical lines, and me on the other side of the country...

The public is not well equipped to vote on complex pieces of legislation or legislation that has complicated consequences. That's the core problem even before you start considering that the interests of the individual voter may run contrary to the interests of the populaion. Getting people to make spending cuts to services because the long term consequences of nor doing so would be a nightmare would be extremely hard to do. People are notorious for voting on short term issues, just looks at voting in the 70s and 80s in this country.

thebman

nesf wrote: »

The public is not well equipped to vote on complex pieces of legislation or legislation that has complicated consequences. That's the core problem even before you start considering that the interests of the individual voter may run contrary to the interests of the populaion. Getting people to make spending cuts to services because the long term consequences of nor doing so would be a nightmare would be extremely hard to do. People are notorious for voting on short term issues, just looks at voting in the 70s and 80s in this country.

See I disagree that the public is not well equipped or rather I disagree that they couldn't be well equipped.

You are right at the moment but the inability of people to pay any attention to politics in this country is a large part of the problem IMO.

One of the reasons the Swiss do have their sense of civic duty is because they are a core part of the political process and have to if they are going to vote on such things.

I think you'd also find that if you had votes as often as the Swiss do, the less informed would simply not vote in the unimportant ones.

The uninformed vote here as they are told to and encouraged by politicians to give them their no.1 to get the possibility of a favor in future.

IMO the problem with the Irish political system is the vote is viewed and used more like a currency by many and it is quite sickening.

bonkey

thebman wrote: »

I think you'd also find that if you had votes as often as the Swiss do, the less informed would simply not vote in the unimportant ones.

I'd be more inclined to say that the less motivated simply do not vote.

Over here (i.e. Switzerland), there's no shortage of people willing to vote along party lines.
There's no doubt that posters and slogans are massively effective (the SVP are particularly good at this side of things).

bonkey

pwd wrote:

I seem to be cast as the apologist for this. Honestly, I dont fit the role too well, because I'm not terribly well informed! But I'm the only poster so far who seems positive about the notion, and I started the thread, so here I am..

Don't get me wrong. I think the Swiss system is particularly good...although when one lives inside that system, its weaknesses and flaws are far more obvious...

I also think that a transition towards something like the Swiss system would benefit most democracies, including Ireland.

That said, one has to bear in mind that Switzerland has had their system up and running for a long time. If Ireland were to switch to such a system overnight...there's no doubt but that it would take years (decades?) before it really began functioning smoothly. In the interim...I'd expect people to get disillusioned.

Regarding the specific points on the DD campaign, this one really caught my eye...

3.Recall – A mechanism will also be introduced whereby politicians can be ‘removed’ if they are not performing their job to the satisfaction of the electorate.

I think thats an absolutely dreadful idea - populism at its worst.

There's already a mechanism to remove politicans...its called "don't re-elect them". That should be sufficient.

bonkey

johnmcdnl wrote: »

nice idea in an idealistic world - but who's going to vote for an increase in tax or a reduction in spending in any sector when we really need extra taxes or reductions in certain areas??

I know I wouldn't

Really?

Look at it this way...

People voting on referenda issues like that is not that different to the type of choices facing the Irish electorate right now

I realise that there isn't a party offering to dig the country deeper into economic ruin as their economic agenda. (which might have to be on a referendum) I'm guessing, though, that the reason no-one is running on that platform is almost-certainly because they know they wouldn't get elected on it.

Maybe you'd vote for them...but the vast majority of the Irish electorate are voting for whoever they think can get the economy back on track. They're voting for tax hikes and spending cuts.

That system is more flawed than communism tbh

Which is "clearly" why Switzerland has one of the strongest economies in the world, enjoys one of the highest standards of living, and is generally seen as massively successful....

whatstherush

There's a good article in todays's uk indo about CA "link

Here is the section on Direct Democracy
"California's greatest mistakes, however, came as a result of its obsession with "direct democracy". In rules designed to put citizens at the heart of government, small interest groups were allowed to create new laws by electoral "ballot measures". Any "proposition" that can attract the support of a few hundred thousand people prepared to sign a petition can then be put to voters in a referendum. If more than 50 per cent of them support it, that "proposition" becomes law.

In theory, this concept sounds empowering. In practice, it has in recent decades resulted in legislative chaos. Ballot papers on election day run to dozens of pages, with referendums on anything from gay marriage to drug legalisation. And dozens of measures, passed over the years by different generations of voters, have left State government paralysed, and unable to properly manage its finances.

Property tax, a mainstay of revenues, was frozen for many residents in the 1970s, as a result of one public vote. Income tax cannot be raised unless two-thirds of lawmakers agree thanks to another ballot measure, passed in the 1980s. A raft of further referendums endorsed by the people control California's spending to the extent that only a only a quarter of its entire budget is considered "discretionary". The rest is already earmarked for a particular cause. Endless business legislation has driven employers to greener pastures."

nesf

whatstherush wrote: »

There's a good article in todays's uk indo about CA "link

Here is the section on Direct Democracy
"California's greatest mistakes, however, came as a result of its obsession with "direct democracy". In rules designed to put citizens at the heart of government, small interest groups were allowed to create new laws by electoral "ballot measures". Any "proposition" that can attract the support of a few hundred thousand people prepared to sign a petition can then be put to voters in a referendum. If more than 50 per cent of them support it, that "proposition" becomes law.

In theory, this concept sounds empowering. In practice, it has in recent decades resulted in legislative chaos. Ballot papers on election day run to dozens of pages, with referendums on anything from gay marriage to drug legalisation. And dozens of measures, passed over the years by different generations of voters, have left State government paralysed, and unable to properly manage its finances.

Property tax, a mainstay of revenues, was frozen for many residents in the 1970s, as a result of one public vote. Income tax cannot be raised unless two-thirds of lawmakers agree thanks to another ballot measure, passed in the 1980s. A raft of further referendums endorsed by the people control California's spending to the extent that only a only a quarter of its entire budget is considered "discretionary". The rest is already earmarked for a particular cause. Endless business legislation has driven employers to greener pastures."

To be fair though the Californian system is very different to that implemented in Switzerland.

Cork boy 55

We had direct democracy in Ireland in the orginal Free state constitution
it was never fully put into law and in 1938 it was dropped by de Valera
in the new constitution

See Initiative and referendum
section of wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Irish_Free_State#Individual_rights

here's the text below
http://www.directdemocracyireland.org/2011/02/the-text-of-articles-47-and-48-of-the-1922-irish-constitution/
The text of articles 47 and 48 of the 1922 Irish Constitution

Article 47.

Any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses may be suspended for a period of ninety days on the written demand of two-fifths of the members of Dáil Eireann or of a majority of the members of Seanad Eireann presented to the President of the Executive Council not later than seven days from the day on which such a Bill shall have been so passed or deemed to have been so passed. Such a Bill shall in accordance with regulations to be made by the Oireachtas be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people if demanded before the expiration of the ninety days either by a resolution of Seanad Eireann, or by a petition signed by not less than one-twentieth of the voters then on the register of voters, and the decision of the people by a majority of the votes recorded on such Referendum shall be conclusive. These provisions shall not apply to Money Bills or to such Bills as shall be declared by both Houses to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety.

Article 48.

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 provision 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 that

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.

Nodin

pwd wrote: »

Then how come Switzerland seems to manage itself so well? That's the same model that's being proposed here.

Like some places not giving the vote to women until the 1970's...

Cork boy 55

Nodin wrote: »

Like some places not giving the vote to women until the 1970's...

Women were granted the right to vote in the first Swiss cantons in 1959, at the federal level in 1971.

Not too far behind some other places nothing to do with direct democracy IMO. It was actually a direct democracy referendum that got it for them
The swiss referendum on women's suffrage was held on 1 February 1959
They only got the vote in 1984 in Liechtenstein maybe its an alps thing.
Its a odd anomaly in European history of Women's suffrage alright.

Wonder what the delay was?

dvpower

Dinner wrote: »

EDIT: That Paul Clarke guy wants to run local referenda for every vote he casts in the Dail? For starters, who is going to pay for all of these votes?

Just listened to him in this debate with all of the DNC candidates. Every one of his contributions was read from a prepared script. Cringeworthy stuff.
http://nearpodcast.org/upload/election2011dublinnorthcentral.mp3

Maybe it's all part of his plan for other people to do his thinking for him.

analucija

I don't know much about Swiss system and how effective it is but I do know that they banned minarets on mosques because they don't suit local architecture.

I know well the system in Slovenia though. About certain number of TD's or 40000 people can demand referendum. Certain demands can be thrown out by supreme court (because they interfere with the rights of minorities...). Mostly they are referendums on complete nonsense that nobody really cares about or knows what they are voting about. The last one was referendum on new laws regarding national television. 10% of people showed up and voted for whatever their party advised them to vote for, without really knowing the subject. There were also referendums on important topics like IVF, building of power plants, shop opening times on Sundays and similar nonsense.

It would be good to have referendum on certain topics but at least 20% of voters should ask for it.