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

Direct Democracy, Why Not?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    I would not be opposed to direct democracy (or a model leaning more towards direct democracy) if:

    1. People are more informed and take time to inform themselves, maybe this could be tested with a quick exam on issue at hand? Sort of how we test people before we give them a driving license (i know i know :D its not perfect)

    2. An electronic voting system tied to some sort of biometric identification passport (something like irish passport + iris scan + fingerprint) is in place to uniquely identify each voter.

    This system would have to be completely transparent and open source (so citizens can ensure there is no shenanigans!), but thus would also mean anyone could examine the voting data in full and know which way you voted, basically to rule out fraud in the voting process, have everything in the open and transparent, yes this goes against the current your vote is a secret methodology, but that is the price to pay if you want a system that is free of rigging.

    I don't think we would ever achieve 1 and 2 here in this country.


  • Options
    #33
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    1. People are more informed and take time to inform themselves, maybe this could be tested with a quick exam on issue at hand? Sort of how we test people before we give them a driving license (i know i know :D its not perfect)
    I'll come back to this.
    2. An electronic voting system tied to some sort of biometric identification passport (something like irish passport + iris scan + fingerprint) is in place to uniquely identify each voter.

    This system would have to be completely transparent and open source (so citizens can ensure there is no shenanigans!), but thus would also mean anyone could examine the voting data in full and know which way you voted, basically to rule out fraud in the voting process, have everything in the open and transparent, yes this goes against the current your vote is a secret methodology, but that is the price to pay if you want a system that is free of rigging.
    I would oppose such a system to my last breath. I've repeatedly made it clear why I think electronic voting presents insurmountable difficulties. There are solid, concrete reasons for a secret ballot, and convenience of voting isn't a good enough reason to throw them away.

    That aside, I think your two points contain an inherent contradiction: the second point is designed to make it easier for people to participate in democracy, presumably to overcome voter apathy. The first is designed to make it harder, to overcome voter ignorance.

    Which really brings us back to the question: what exactly is the problem we're trying to solve?


  • Options
    #34
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That aside, I think your two points contain an inherent contradiction: the second point is designed to make it easier for people to participate in democracy, presumably to overcome voter apathy. The first is designed to make it harder, to overcome voter ignorance.

    Which really brings us back to the question: what exactly is the problem we're trying to solve?

    The way I see it for Direct democracy poses 2 issues that I outlined (and that we see popup every referendum):
    1. Un-informed voters

    2. Overheads and logistics,
    A voting system would be required that is bulletproof, since voting would occur more often. This would mean electronic voting which can not work without proper identification and transparency, both of which I would also be opposed to, like yourself!

    These 2 issues raised answer the OPs question of "why not", I do not see how a "complete" direct democracy system could operate without an informed populace and electronic voting for a large population and complex issues. But direct democracy at local level on small local issues on the other hand, maybe? maybe not?

    Now maybe a more interesting question could be, Would more referenda be good for democracy in this country? would more direct democracy be better for local issues and small populations??
    I dont see any issue for example with moving towards a more Swiss example (and not just politics!)


  • Options
    #35
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    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?

    the why not is because people are idiots.


  • Options
    #36
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    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?

    yet switzerland has a direct democracy and the highest standard of living. and you make argument against it by saying what we currently have is terrible? you're too much... what we currently have is terrible because there's so much room for individual corruption, for individuals profiting off our backs without our consent, and just individuals fvcking up, through decisions we've given them full control over... then compare that to a direct democracy, where those decisions go back to the public...would you be paying so high a bar tab to the dail? i doubt it... the dail would be eradicated simple as... there'd be no need of paying politician salaries or for their retarded tribunals, not to mind their drink... and the more heads managing something the better you'd think.. two heads are better than one and all that...

    boards could nearly become ireland's new dail...and then i'd argue vehemently and successfully enough against the likes of you that we'd make good of it :P


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    not to mean anything offensive by "the likes of you"... :P


  • Options
    #38
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    all sounds familiar doesn't it :)


  • Options
    #39
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    i see switzerland has been brought up... tuair dom cupla noimead!


  • Options
    #40
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    just for starters, in protection of democracy, as i've seen in shunned on the first page... the question's put to you: would you have yourself rule the country or some other person? you say yourself, obviously, but every other person would say themselves too... the only sensible compromise is democracy, and as direct as possible. i can't believe democracy was criticized outright...

    now, cupla noimead, ta rudai eile agam le deanamh...


  • Options
    #41
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    28064212 wrote: »
    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?

    on this here internet? no need of paying all those politicians anything, just a website... and yeah, pretty much as to the budgets... or you'd have posters, much like you'd have here, putting forward their ideas and we'd be free to follow them.. the politicians are drinking our money... bertie ahern didn't even have a bank account... how about we let an accountant looking for a bit of love from his society or for just the best as a citizen (as one reasonably would) sort it out for us... the problem is steering by individuals... they squander our money for themselves or let it to rich influences... simple as... how can that be democracy's fault? it's individual man's fault... how to solve those problems? make it truly collective...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    if the place fell into disrepair, we'd fix it as a democracy. simple. we all want to live well.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    and they'd be right of passing. and just who are you to be better than the majority? and we'd not cut welfare benefits i bet you, just make the system a whole lot better, efficient, motivative and such, and a whole lot faster while we were at it... the more people on the job of sorting it the better no?


  • Options
    #43
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    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.)

    internet.


  • Options
    #44
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    deise go deo wrote: »
    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.



    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.

    i'll march with you anyway buddy...


  • Options
    #45
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    I would not be opposed to direct democracy (or a model leaning more towards direct democracy) if:

    1. People are more informed and take time to inform themselves, maybe this could be tested with a quick exam on issue at hand? Sort of how we test people before we give them a driving license (i know i know :D its not perfect)

    2. An electronic voting system tied to some sort of biometric identification passport (something like irish passport + iris scan + fingerprint) is in place to uniquely identify each voter.

    This system would have to be completely transparent and open source (so citizens can ensure there is no shenanigans!), but thus would also mean anyone could examine the voting data in full and know which way you voted, basically to rule out fraud in the voting process, have everything in the open and transparent, yes this goes against the current your vote is a secret methodology, but that is the price to pay if you want a system that is free of rigging.

    I don't think we would ever achieve 1 and 2 here in this country.

    i'd say near every house in the country has an IP address and occupants capable of thinking up passwords and that that should do the trick.


  • Options
    #46
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    The problem in Ireland is not the system of government,nor the people we elect to it and what we expect them to do for us. The electorate is the problem- the elected are only the result. Until that changes nothing changes.


  • Options
    #47
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    marienbad wrote: »
    The problem in Ireland is not the system of government,nor the people we elect to it and what we expect them to do for us. The electorate is the problem- the elected are only the result. Until that changes nothing changes.

    might you by any chance tell me what the electorate is? i'd love you for it... i googled it but it wasn't working for me. i'd say i'd be more an interactive learner...

    or maybe you'd just need less words after a few drinks...

    not too many though! i'd be worthy of a response... tell me its problems and maybe i might march with you as well?


  • Options
    #48
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    JohnRiver wrote: »
    might you by any chance tell me what the electorate is? i'd love you for it... i googled it but it wasn't working for me. i'd say i'd be more an interactive learner...

    or maybe you'd just need less words after a few drinks...

    not too many though! i'd be worthy of a response... tell me its problems and maybe i might march with you as well?

    The electorate is anyone that has a vote, including those who choose not to exercise it .


  • Options
    #49
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    marienbad wrote: »
    The electorate is anyone that has a vote, including those who choose not to exercise it .

    lol, probably should've figured that... but what's the problem with them? you're better fit than the majority of people to run the country you're saying?


  • Options
    #50
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    This sort of scaremongering horse manure about direct democracy always entertains me greatly. The people cannot be trusted to govern themselves or make decisions which affect their lives! Oh God, no. We must have a clever elite to take those onerous decisions for us.

    Well, it seems to me that the one country where direct democracy is used, ie Switzerland, has been run an awful lot better than this own, with its clever elite of Fianna Fail gombeens.

    I say follow the Swiss model and trust decisions to the people.


  • Options
    #51
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    This sort of scaremongering horse manure about direct democracy always entertains me greatly. The people cannot be trusted to govern themselves or make decisions which affect their lives! Oh God, no. We must have a clever elite to take those onerous decisions for us.

    Well, it seems to me that the one country where direct democracy is used, ie Switzerland, has been run an awful lot better than this own, with its clever elite of Fianna Fail gombeens.

    I say follow the Swiss model and trust decisions to the people.

    That's Ok, if the Swiss model was simply direct democracy but it is not


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    I say follow the Swiss model and trust decisions to the people.
    As I've said more than once, when Irish people start thinking like Swiss people, maybe they can be trusted with direct democracy.


  • Options
    #53
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    As I've said more than once, when Irish people start thinking like Swiss people, maybe they can be trusted with direct democracy.

    so you're more capable of running this country than the majority of people together you're saying...well i'd certainly say otherwise anyway :P


  • Options
    #54
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    JohnRiver wrote: »
    so you're more capable of running this country than the majority of people together you're saying...
    No, I'm not saying that. Any chance you'd do me a favour and stop replying to my posts? Thanks.


  • Options
    #55
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, I'm not saying that. Any chance you'd do me a favour and stop replying to my posts? Thanks.

    yeah, i get why it'd bother you and your silliness :P but ammm...you actually are saying that...or you're placing yourself amongst your idiots...but if that's the case, what're you here voicing your opinions for? lol, you should just be listening to mine :P

    the only argument you should have against a direct democracy, resonably, should be one of efficiency, where i think you'd fail anyway...but otherwise you're quite simply proposing a system where the rulers' rulings go against the wants of the people, which would mean a tyranny, no?


  • Options
    #56
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    JohnRiver wrote: »
    yeah, i get why it'd bother you and your silliness :P but ammm...you actually are saying that...or you're placing yourself amongst your idiots...but if that's the case, what're you here voicing your opinions for? lol, you should just be listening to mine :P

    or do i need democratically granted powers first before you'll listen to me?...what you're saying is actually ridiculous... the only sense one could make out of it would be that maybe you were just lazy and wanted everyone else to look through everything without you and appoint one man to explain everything to you and do it for you...but then even that doesn't make much sense...

    the only argument you should have against a direct democracy, resonably, should be one of efficiency, where i think you'd fail anyway...but otherwise you're quite simply proposing a system where the rulers' rulings go against the wants of the people, which would mean a tyranny, no?
    The only tyranny you would have with your proposal JohnRiver is the tyranny of the majority, I know that is a cliche, but it is a cliche because it is true


  • Options
    #57
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    marienbad wrote: »
    The only tyranny you would have with your proposal JohnRiver is the tyranny of the majority, I know that is a cliche, but it is a cliche because it is true

    who cares if the majority rule though? that means rules are going to be made in benefit of the majority...as in that society will benefit, at the least, the majority...

    you give those powers to individuals...well there you could have rules being pushed for just tiny minorities or even individual people...

    which tyranny would be worst? obviously the one of more people, right? and i'd say there'd be no horrible tyrannies under the majority anyway...like what sorts could there be? i'm rather sick of this current "representative" tryanny anyway who're taking a nice chunk off my wages every week that they may go drinking...


  • Options
    #58
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    well obviously you care, marienbad, for some reason...but i don't think you're thinking it through properly. i mean if you're for representative democracy you're essentially for "majority tyranny" anyway... though maybe you could be, sensibly (unlike being against "majority tyranny"), for the system to be made more efficient through channeling those powers through individuals you'd consider professionals, but i'd say you'd be wrong there too...


  • Options
    #59
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    JohnRiver wrote: »
    well obviously you care, marienbad, for some reason...but i don't think you're thinking it through properly. i mean if you're for representative democracy you're essentially for "majority tyranny" anyway... though maybe you could be, sensibly (unlike being against "majority tyranny"), for the system to be made more efficient through channeling those powers through individuals you'd consider professionals, but i'd say you'd be wrong there too...

    No this does not reflect my thinking at all JohnRiver, and if anyone has'nt thought it true - might I suggest- it might be you .

    direct democracy , without any checks or balances, is just mob rule.


  • Options
    #60
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    as to any miscommunication there may exist between us, if you may only point to it, i would be much obliged to rectify it...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    marienbad wrote: »
    No this does not reflect my thinking at all JohnRiver, and if anyone has'nt thought it true - might I suggest- it might be you .

    direct democracy , without any checks or balances, is just mob rule.

    but who would set those checks and balances in the first place? not the mob no? making it essentially mob rule anyway no? i mean otherwise it's a dictatorship you're preaching for...

    and you may indeed suggest that, mademoiselle, whatever of its validity :P

    edit: well i'd not consider it essentially mob rule what with how our "representatives" are a corrupt shower of bastards, but that's what it's supposed to be... you can't call something a democracy that isn't a democracy... and democracy means mob rule...


Advertisement