Finland taking first steps in direct virtual democracy, this what Ireland needs

GlobalNomad

Hi,

I have learn that my home country Finland is taking first steps in true direct virtual Democracy.

governments. But in Finland, technology is about to make democracy significantly more direct.

Earlier this year, the Finnish government enabled something called a “citizens’ initiative”, through which registered voters can come up with new laws – if they can get 50,000 of their fellow citizens to back them up within six months, then the Eduskunta (the Finnish parliament) is forced to vote on the proposal.

Now this crowdsourced law-making system is about to go online through a platform called the Open Ministry. The non-profit organization has been collecting signatures for various proposals on paper since 1 March, when citizens’ initiatives came in, but a couple of days ago the government approved the electronic ID mechanism that underpins the digital version of the platform. That means it can now go live on 1 October.

http://gigaom.com/europe/online-crowdsourcing-can-now-help-build-new-laws-in-finland/

When I was uni in Finland 10 years ago theory was that because technology enables this it will be applied sooner or later.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Moved from the Political Theory forum.

This could make for an interesting debate, but, OP, this is a kind of thin start for a discussion thread. Could you tell us why you think this is what Ireland needs and how you think this would work?

SaoriseBiker

GlobalNomad wrote: »

Hi,

I have learn that my home country Finland is taking first steps in true direct virtual Democracy.

governments. But in Finland, technology is about to make democracy significantly more direct.



When I was uni in Finland 10 years ago theory was that because technology enables this it will be applied sooner or later.

When it comes to the Irish state, if voting could change anything they would abolish it.

Well done to the people of Finland ( a country I greatly admire that held back the much larger USSR in 1939 - 40. Incredible !!!) Switzerland has had this system for over a 100 years and it seems to work quite well, all the more reasons the cosy, corrupt parties that have run this state since 1922 will oppose it unfortunately. Here's more on the Swiss system. http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerlands-system-referendums.html Great idea but as long as the white collar criminals disguised as political movements run this state it wouldn't happen. Here's some examples.

In Ireland our great little political movements Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fail have shown us how much they respect the citizen's views when we rejected the EU Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in June 2008. FG/FF/Lab decided that they didn't like it, threats of kinds were made and then they a rerun in October 2009 and got the result they wanted, yes. Same happened with the Nice Treaty before when it was rejected in June 2001, again all sorts of threats were made and it was rerun in October 2002. I suppose if either had been rejected the second time we would have had a third, fourth, fifth etc referendum until FG/FF/Lab got the result they wanted in their version of democracy.

This is what the ruling political parties and their apologists call democracy in Ireland, you can have a referendum - only because they are duty bound by the a clasue in the Irish constitution of 1937 - but if you don't produce the result our ' democrats ' want, there'll be all sorts of threats about economic meltdown ( as if that hasn't happened anyway ), catastrophe, been isolated by our ' friends ' in the EU etc

OMD

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

GlobalNomad wrote: »

Hi,

I have learn that my home country Finland is taking first steps in true direct virtual Democracy.

governments. But in Finland, technology is about to make democracy significantly more direct.



When I was uni in Finland 10 years ago theory was that because technology enables this it will be applied sooner or later.

When it comes to the Irish state, if voting could change anything they would abolish it.

Well done to the people of Finland ( a country I greatly admire that held back the much larger USSR in 1939 - 40. Incredible !!!) Switzerland has had this system for over a 100 years and it seems to work quite well, all the more reasons the cosy, corrupt parties that have run this state since 1922 will oppose it unfortunately. Here's more on the Swiss system. http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerlands-system-referendums.html Great idea but as long as the white collar criminals disguised as political movements run this state it wouldn't happen. Here's some examples.

In Ireland our great little political movements Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fail have shown us how much they respect the citizen's views when we rejected the EU Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in June 2008. FG/FF/Lab decided that they didn't like it, threats of kinds were made and then they a rerun in October 2009 and got the result they wanted, yes. Same happened with the Nice Treaty before when it was rejected in June 2001, again all sorts of threats were made and it was rerun in October 2002. I suppose if either had been rejected the second time we would have had a third, fourth, fifth etc referendum until FG/FF/Lab got the result they wanted in their version of democracy.

This is what the ruling political parties and their apologists call democracy in Ireland, you can have a referendum - only because they are duty bound by the a clasue in the Irish constitution of 1937 - but if you don't produce the result our ' democrats ' want, there'll be all sorts of threats about economic meltdown ( as if that hasn't happened anyway ), catastrophe, been isolated by our ' friends ' in the EU etc

Ridiculous rant.

SaoriseBiker

OMD wrote: »

Ridiculous rant.

Very informative input to the discussion I must say !!!!

OMD

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

Ridiculous rant.

Very informative input to the discussion I must say !!!!

More than yours. I summed up your entire post in 2 words. You just went off in a rant about Irish politics despite the fact that the 3 parties you named have been democratically elected again and again in this country. You may not like them but hey, that's democracy. In election after election these 3 parties have a combined vote of 80% or more. That is the wish of the Irish people.

We have referendums in this country. People are free to vote in these. Both sides of the argument are put forward and then we have a result. If a democratically elected government calls a second referendum on the same issue, that is democracy. Also people have a second chance to accept or reject the referendum again. The parties elected and the referendum results may not suit you but again that's democracy. We have a written constitution and regular chances to alter it.

SaoriseBiker

OMD wrote: »

More than yours. I summed up your entire post in 2 words. You just went off in a rant about Irish politics despite the fact that the 3 parties you named have been democratically elected again and again in this country. You may not like them but hey, that's democracy. In election after election these 3 parties have a combined vote of 80% or more. That is the wish of the Irish people.

We have referendums in this country. People are free to vote in these. Both sides of the argument are put forward and then we have a result. If a democratically elected government calls a second referendum on the same issue, that is democracy. Also people have a second chance to accept or reject the referendum again. The parties elected and the referendum results may not suit you but again that's democracy. We have a written constitution and regular chances to alter it.

The govt calls a second referendum (and will call a thrid and fouth and fifth if they think neccessary ) with economic threats and the big stick is waived and they get the result they wanted - and you call that democracy !!!!! Quite clearly the establishment parties subvert democracy when it doesn't suit their ambitions, and hence in my reply to the OP I state that they wouldn't support the Finish model of democracy. Unfortunately, corruption and cronyism rules the day in our sad twisted little society !!!!!

OMD

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

The govt calls a second referendum (and will call a thrid and fouth and fifth if they think neccessary ) with economic threats and the big stick is waived and they get the result they wanted - and you call that democracy !!!!! Quite clearly the establishment parties subvert democracy when it doesn't suit their ambitions, and hence in my reply to the OP I state that they wouldn't support the Finish model of democracy. Unfortunately, corruption and cronyism rules the day in our sad twisted little society !!!!!

As I say that's democracy. People don't agree with your position on things. Tough. As I have said, in election after election the enormous majority of people have voted either FF, FG or Labour.

In terms of public support for referendums, good in theory. Waste of time in practice. It just gives the nutters a go. UK has a similar system.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions
Hard to see any great advantage in it

SaoriseBiker

OMD wrote: »

As I say that's democracy. People don't agree with your position on things. Tough. As I have said, in election after election the enormous majority of people have voted either FF, FG or Labour.

Makey uppy democracy, a bit like when the failed Austrian painter got a majority and decided he would abolish parliament.

In terms of public support for referendums, good in theory. Waste of time in practice. It just gives the nutters a go. UK has a similar system.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions
Hard to see any great advantage in it

Unlike the system the OP has stated where 50,000 signatures the Eduskunta (the Finnish parliament) is forced to vote on the proposal, their's no obligation on the Brit govt as per above.

OMD

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

OMD wrote: »

As I say that's democracy. People don't agree with your position on things. Tough. As I have said, in election after election the enormous majority of people have voted either FF, FG or Labour.

Makey uppy democracy, a bit like when the failed Austrian painter got a majority and decided he would abolish parliament.

Godwins Law within 9 posts. That has to be some kind of record.

Eggy Baby!

Makey uppy democracy, a bit like when the failed Austrian painter got a majority and decided he would abolish parliament.

Yep Hitler totally got a legitimate majority, without any mass intimidation campaigns of the electorate by the totally peaceful SA.

( a country I greatly admire that held back the much larger USSR in 1939 - 40. Incredible !!!)

Not particularly incredible when you take into account a little thing like context.

But these things are related to history, and not the thread.

This initiative in Finland is very interesting. I do wonder how they came up with the figure of 50,000 minimum for it.

amen

Yep Hitler totally got a legitimate majority, without any mass intimidation campaigns of the electorate by the totally peaceful SA

No he didn't. Even at the height of his power he got approx 4% of vote which made his party the largest but not a majority. (He only got the 44% after effectively banning, murdering and suppressing other parties.)

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

The govt calls a second referendum (and will call a thrid and fouth and fifth if they think neccessary ) with economic threats and the big stick is waived and they get the result they wanted - and you call that democracy !!!!! Quite clearly the establishment parties subvert democracy when it doesn't suit their ambitions, and hence in my reply to the OP I state that they wouldn't support the Finish model of democracy. Unfortunately, corruption and cronyism rules the day in our sad twisted little society !!!!!

The governments that called those referenda were based on parties that got large votes at election after election.

If we (the Irish people voting in a democracy) didn't like the fact that we were asked to vote on Nice a second time, we could have ensured at the following election that the parties that ordered the second vote and supported the second vote never got into government again. Ditto with the other one. But correct me if I am wrong but both FG and Labour supported a YES vote on both second occasions and they are now in government with the largest majority ever.

You can't argue with the democratic decision to re-elect FG and Labour politicians, can you? Or do you only believe in some democratic results?

Einhard

@SaoriseBiker...don't you think it's a tad contradictory to champion this Finnish move and pine for its introduction to Ireland, and yet at the same time post a lengthy attack on the parties that the Irish electorate have consistently returned to power for the past 90 years?

To be honest, I don't necessarily think that more democracy equals a better democracy. Direct democracy didn't work in Ancient Athens, and I don't think that human nature has changed to any great extent since. Afterall, there's a reason that referenda are prohibited in Germany.

Einhard

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Makey uppy democracy, a bit like when the failed Austrian painter got a majority and decided he would abolish parliament.

Excuse me, but that's a ludicrous contention. If you expect to be taken seriously, you might want to avoid making such absurd statements. For someone who champions more democracy, you really show contempt for the democratic choice in your posts.

Eggy Baby!

amen wrote: »

No he didn't. Even at the height of his power he got approx 4% of vote which made his party the largest but not a majority. (He only got the 44% after effectively banning, murdering and suppressing other parties.)

I know its hard to detect sarcasm over the internet but I though it was pretty obvious in this case

Executive Steve

I'm somewhat amused that with the frequency with which massive threads about travellers / immigrants / "scumbags" / the dole etc etc etc pop up here on Boards.ie (and the views generally expressed in them) that anyone in their right bloody mind would possibly think that allowing Irish internet users to crowdsource policy initiatives could ever be a good idea.

PopePalpatine

Einhard wrote: »

Direct democracy didn't work in Ancient Athens, and I don't think that human nature has changed to any great extent since..

Mainly because the electorate covered a tiny proportion of the Athenian population (i.e. only male freemen).

RedXIV

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

This initiative in Finland is very interesting. I do wonder how they came up with the figure of 50,000 minimum for it.

Just for your interest, the 50,000 works out at approx 1.2% of the population eligible to vote. at least according to the latest census figures anyway.

SaoriseBiker

Godge wrote: »

The governments that called those referenda were based on parties that got large votes at election after election.

If we (the Irish people voting in a democracy) didn't like the fact that we were asked to vote on Nice a second time, we could have ensured at the following election that the parties that ordered the second vote and supported the second vote never got into government again. Ditto with the other one. But correct me if I am wrong but both FG and Labour supported a YES vote on both second occasions and they are now in government with the largest majority ever.

You can't argue with the democratic decision to re-elect FG and Labour politicians, can you? Or do you only believe in some democratic results?

As stated - the govt calls a second referendum (and will call a third and fourth and fifth if they think neccessary ) with economic threats and the big stick is waived and they get the result they wanted - and you call that democracy !!!!!

Einhard wrote: »

@SaoriseBiker...don't you think it's a tad contradictory to champion this Finnish move and pine for its introduction to Ireland, and yet at the same time post a lengthy attack on the parties that the Irish electorate have consistently returned to power for the past 90 years?

The same parties who want a rerun when they loose a referendum !!!! Makey uppy democracy ( they have to give us a referendum thanks to the Crotty Judgement, if they had their way your great ' democrats ' wouldn't have any referendum at all !!! http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0521/1224316453128.html )

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

As stated - the govt calls a second referendum (and will call a third and fourth and fifth if they think neccessary ) with economic threats and the big stick is waived and they get the result they wanted - and you call that democracy !!!!!


The same parties who want a rerun when they loose a referendum !!!! Makey uppy democracy ( they have to give us a referendum thanks to the Crotty Judgement, if they had their way your great ' democrats ' wouldn't have any referendum at all !!! http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0521/1224316453128.html )

You are missing the point. You might be unhappy with second referenda but there is no evidence that the voting public at large have a problem with a second referendum.

Firstly, the turnout usually goes up for a second referendum which presumably means that more people think it important to vote. Therefore the result of the second referendum is more representative of the population. Secondly, second referenda are rarely defeated - FF attempts in the 1960s and 70s to change the electoral system are an exception. Thirdly, the parties which propose second referenda are not punished in subsequent elections for holding a second referendum.

So all of the evidence suggests that the general public supports holding a second referendum where the democratically elected government believes that a second, more reflective democratic decision is needed. It is only a few outliers in the political spectrum with little or no democratic support who think differently.

This is not unique to Ireland. Switzerland, the most direct democracy in the world, often has several referenda on the same subject - its people have democratically rejected EU membership on several occasions.

SaoriseBiker

Godge wrote: »

You are missing the point. You might be unhappy with second referenda but there is no evidence that the voting public at large have a problem with a second referendum.

Firstly, the turnout usually goes up for a second referendum which presumably means that more people think it important to vote. Therefore the result of the second referendum is more representative of the population. Secondly, second referenda are rarely defeated - FF attempts in the 1960s and 70s to change the electoral system are an exception. Thirdly, the parties which propose second referenda are not punished in subsequent elections for holding a second referendum.

So all of the evidence suggests that the general public supports holding a second referendum where the democratically elected government believes that a second, more reflective democratic decision is needed. It is only a few outliers in the political spectrum with little or no democratic support who think differently.

Instead of accepting the democratic decision the first time, the big stick is waived, economic and political armageddon etc and hey presto, it's passed the second time - some ' democracy ' !!!! ( and maybe third or fourth or fifth if necessary !!! )

This is not unique to Ireland. Switzerland, the most direct democracy in the world, often has several referenda on the same subject - its people have democratically rejected EU membership on several occasions.

The Swiss referenda are triggered by the proposals of the similar system of virtual democracy the OP suggests, from the citizens up and which is entirely different from been conjured with economic threats etc by the Gombeen politicans in our cronyist, incompetent state.

_Kaiser_

Godge wrote: »

The governments that called those referenda were based on parties that got large votes at election after election.

If we (the Irish people voting in a democracy) didn't like the fact that we were asked to vote on Nice a second time, we could have ensured at the following election that the parties that ordered the second vote and supported the second vote never got into government again. Ditto with the other one.

The problem was though - as already pointed out above - that in the interim all sort of disinformation was spread about being pariah's in Europe and economic meltdown if we say no, and mass unemployment would follow (YES for jobs anyone?). That's not democracy .. that's intimidation and blackmail.

But correct me if I am wrong but both FG and Labour supported a YES vote on both second occasions and they are now in government with the largest majority ever.

You can't argue with the democratic decision to re-elect FG and Labour politicians, can you? Or do you only believe in some democratic results?

FG/LAB are in power as the electorate hit out against the last government. They were elected as a protest vote and with a sense of resignation that "anyone else has to be better at this stage!"

Predictably of course what we actually got was more of the same as the 2 dominant parties are merely 2 sides of the same coin.

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Instead of accepting the democratic decision the first time, the big stick is waived, economic and political armageddon etc and hey presto, it's passed the second time - some ' democracy ' !!!! ( and maybe third or fourth or fifth if necessary !!! )

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

The problem was though - as already pointed out above - that in the interim all sort of disinformation was spread about being pariah's in Europe and economic meltdown if we say no, and mass unemployment would follow (YES for jobs anyone?). That's not democracy .. that's intimidation and blackmail.

you know guys, I have to tip my hat to you. In face of overwhelming popular democratic support for second referenda and for the parties that supported a yes vote in those referenda, you still have the gumption to come on here and somehow argue that it is anti-democratic to have a vote.

Are all second referenda bad ideas? Should we still have a ban on divorce in Ireland after the 1986 referendum and ignore the 1995 referendum????

Sponge Bob

We dont have universal broadband whereas Finland can supply you with fibre north of the Artic circle. So forget about it here.

_Kaiser_

Godge wrote: »

you know guys, I have to tip my hat to you. In face of overwhelming popular democratic support for second referenda and for the parties that supported a yes vote in those referenda, you still have the gumption to come on here and somehow argue that it is anti-democratic to have a vote.

Are all second referenda bad ideas? Should we still have a ban on divorce in Ireland after the 1986 referendum and ignore the 1995 referendum????

You just don't seem to get the point that's being made

The reason that there were 2nd referenda was not because the people demanded it, it was because the government of the day didn't get the answer they wanted first time round.

Therefore, a campaign of scaremongering was embarked upon (much as is happening at the moment with the budget "leaks") to coerce the population into voting the "right" way the 2nd time, coupled with indirectly "encouraging" people to stay at home (referenda fatigue/"what's the point in me voting when they'll just make me do it again if they don't like the answer anyway") so the general turnout was lower and therefore more likely to produce the desired result.

Again, that's not democracy. Democracy would have been the government accepting the people's decision in the first result and not making them "do it again" like bold schoolchildren - but then what can we really expect from a bunch of teachers playing statesmen?

As for the larger parties supporting the Yes vote - come off it! Are you really trying to tell me that there's any real difference between FF and FG, or that these parties would vote for anything that might upset the current status quo and balance of power whereby they benefit to the tune of ridiculous salaries, expenses and perks while insisting the rest of the country foots the bill?

Godge

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You just don't seem to get the point that's being made

The reason that there were 2nd referenda was not because the people demanded it, it was because the government of the day didn't get the answer they wanted first time round.

Therefore, a campaign of scaremongering was embarked upon (much as is happening at the moment with the budget "leaks") to coerce the population into voting the "right" way the 2nd time, coupled with indirectly "encouraging" people to stay at home (referenda fatigue/"what's the point in me voting when they'll just make me do it again if they don't like the answer anyway") so the general turnout was lower and therefore more likely to produce the desired result.

Again, that's not democracy. Democracy would have been the government accepting the people's decision in the first result and not making them "do it again" like bold schoolchildren - but then what can we really expect from a bunch of teachers playing statesmen?

As for the larger parties supporting the Yes vote - come off it! Are you really trying to tell me that there's any real difference between FF and FG, or that these parties would vote for anything that might upset the current status quo and balance of power whereby they benefit to the tune of ridiculous salaries, expenses and perks while insisting the rest of the country foots the bill?

The people voted in favour of the second referenda.
The people voted in favour of the parties that supported the Yes vote.

Which part of that is anti-democratic?

And again I ask, if we are hidebound on accepting the people's decision the first time around, are you calling for divorce to be banned because the first time we voted on it, we didn't remove it from the Constitution?

I am saying that the people voting in a democratic way are right, and if they subsequently change their mind voting in a democratic way, after 1 week, 1 month, 1 year or 1 decade, they are also right. I might not like it but they are right each time.

Finally, you argue that "a campaign of scaremongering was embarked upon (much as is happening at the moment with the budget "leaks") to coerce the population into voting the "right" way the 2nd time, coupled with indirectly "encouraging" people to stay at home (referenda fatigue/"what's the point in me voting when they'll just make me do it again if they don't like the answer anyway") so the general turnout was lower and therefore more likely to produce the desired result"

Eh, the actual facts are:

Lisbon 1: 53% http://electionsireland.org/results/referendum/refresult.cfm?ref=2008R

Lisbon 2: 59%
http://electionsireland.org/results/referendum/refresult.cfm?ref=2009R


Now will you admit you got that wrong?

maccored

democracy in Ireland is based on people stupidly voting, then changing their minds 6 months later. many of those who already voted FF, FG and Labour and who wont vote SF, will probably vote FF again in the next election. the only problem with democracy is the stupid people.

Godge

maccored wrote: »

democracy in Ireland is based on people stupidly voting, then changing their minds 6 months later. many of those who already voted FF, FG and Labour and who wont vote SF, will probably vote FF again in the next election. the only problem with democracy is the stupid people.

Are you proposing an IQ test for people wishing to vote? Or are the stupid people only those who disagree with you?

jimmycrackcorm

How long before Finland votes in parliament to make Jedi the official religion because some Finn starts a Facebook campaign...

SaoriseBiker

Godge wrote: »

you know guys, I have to tip my hat to you. In face of overwhelming popular democratic support for second referenda and for the parties that supported a yes vote in those referenda, you still have the gumption to come on here and somehow argue that it is anti-democratic to have a vote.

Are all second referenda bad ideas? Should we still have a ban on divorce in Ireland after the 1986 referendum and ignore the 1995 referendum????

:rolleyes: As Kaiser stated " Democracy would have been the government accepting the people's decision in the first result and not making them "do it again", it couldn't be simpler :rolleyes:. I knew the divource referendum would come up, the 2nd divorce referendum was held 11 years later and it wasn't on the same bill as in 1986 when Fitzgeralds typically inept attempt failed.

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

:rolleyes: As Kaiser stated " Democracy would have been the government accepting the people's decision in the first result and not making them "do it again", it couldn't be simpler :rolleyes:. I knew the divource referendum would come up, the 2nd divorce referendum was held 11 years later and it wasn't on the same bill as in 1986 when Fitzgeralds typically inept attempt failed.

It is not just the divorce referendum I used as an example.

I also used the example from earlier decades of FF attempts to change the voting system to the UK one. This was defeated twice. The people had the chance to change their mind and did not do so.

Also, there are many examples from abroad of electorates changing their minds. The history of minority rights in the U.S. would be illustrative of this. If you were not going to allow electorates to change their minds, the US would be a worse place to live for minorities.

What it comes down to is the people are always right (within constitutional limits but if you are voting to change the constitution, this is moot). Anything else is an attack on democracy and a symbol of sour grapes from the defeated side.

Finally, what you and others fail to realise is that one man's warning or threat is another man's reasoned calculation of the effects of a particular action. The people have spoken. End of.

SaoriseBiker

Godge wrote: »

It is not just the divorce referendum I used as an example.

I also used the example from earlier decades of FF attempts to change the voting system to the UK one. This was defeated twice. The people had the chance to change their mind and did not do so.

Also, there are many examples from abroad of electorates changing their minds. The history of minority rights in the U.S. would be illustrative of this. If you were not going to allow electorates to change their minds, the US would be a worse place to live for minorities.

What it comes down to is the people are always right (within constitutional limits but if you are voting to change the constitution, this is moot). Anything else is an attack on democracy and a symbol of sour grapes from the defeated side.

Finally, what you and others fail to realise is that one man's warning or threat is another man's reasoned calculation of the effects of a particular action. The people have spoken. End of.

Ofcourse I never said nor inferred that the constitution should be set in stone and never changed, however it's an abuse of the sysytem when the their is a referendum and the people vote against Nice or Lisbon or whatever but the Fine Fáilers demand another one and use scare tatics to blackmail the public into voting the way they want them to until they get the result. So if their is an election, say the EU ones, and the Govt don't happen to like the results, then going by your logic they could ignore the outcome, use scare tatics and then rerun the election until they get the results they want. They would if they could, and doubtless the Fine Fáil apologists would cheer them on.

But like I said in my reply to the suggestion of virtual democracy in the OP, since FG/Lab/FF ignore the democratic wish of the people if they vote no to some EU bill, the same people wouldn't support virtual democracy. Gombeenism rules for now unfortunately.

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

So if their is an election, say the EU ones, and the Govt don't happen tio like the results, then going by your logic they could ignore the outcome, use scare tatics and then rerun the election until they get the results they want. They would if they could, and doubtless the Fine Fáil apologists would cheer them on.

Nope, that is a ridiculous argument, you cannot rerun a European election or a local election, the dates are legislatively fixed. In a general election the parties that take government decide (either voluntarily or by losing members and therefore a confidence vote) when the next election takes place be that in one month or five years. You can't re-run a general election if you lose.


If you are referring to referenda, I am not suggesting that you could keep running a referendum until you got the right result. If a government lost two referenda on Europe in a row, the government would most likely go for a general election with the question being the future of the country.

SaoriseBiker

Godge wrote: »

Nope, that is a ridiculous argument, you cannot rerun a European election or a local election, the dates are legislatively fixed. In a general election the parties that take government decide (either voluntarily or by losing members and therefore a confidence vote) when the next election takes place be that in one month or five years. You can't re-run a general election if you lose.

Yes of course you cann't rerun an election, but it's not that they wouldn't if they had the chance now is it as can be shown with their attitude to referendum decisions that they don't like.

If you are referring to referenda, I am not suggesting that you could keep running a referendum until you got the right result. If a government lost two referenda on Europe in a row, the government would most likely go for a general election with the question being the future of the country.

I would have thought if the Govt lost one, never mind two referenda they would just accept the result, that's just what they are supposed to do accept the result. But no, expediency and cute hoorism rule in the political culture of Fine Fáilers and their apologists.

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

But like I said in my reply to the suggestion of virtual democracy in the OP, since FG/Lab/FF ignore the democratic wish of the people if they vote no to some EU bill, the same people wouldn't support virtual democracy. Gombeenism rules for now unfortunately.

You don't get it, they didn't ignore the democratic wish of the people, they just asked them are you sure and clarified the consequences. Happens all the time in normal conversations and normal decisions.

You get annoyed about something and you show someone in your office what you propose to do and they ask you are you sure you want to do that because x and y will happen, you reconsider and change your mind. That is life.

There is a referendum when people are annoyed with government and with the EU. They vote no. The government painstakingly explain again what is involved with the amendment, get some clarifications from Europe, set out the consequences of a no vote and ask the electorate are you sure. The electorate change their mind and vote yes. All fully democratic. All fully reasonable. That is life.

This stupid idea that the government bullies people is laughable. We elect them, if they bully us, we can just vote them out if we don't like them. If not enough people vote them out, then we weren't really been bullied.

I can tell you this, if we governed a country based purely on initial reactions to something, we would be even worse off. In fact the only time we did do something in a hurry and on intial reaction was the bank guarantee in September 2008 that messed up the country.

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Yes of course you cann't rerun an election, but it's not that they wouldn't if they had the chance now is it as can be shown with their attitude to referendum decisions that they don't like..

That is like saying that because I save game before the match in Football Manager and re-run the game when I lose that I would like to do it in the Premier League each weekend if I had the chance. Either you can do it or you cannot.

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

I would have thought if the Govt lost one, never mind two referenda they would just accept the result, that's just what they are supposed to do accept the result. But no, expediency and cute hoorism rule in the political culture of Fine Fáilers and their apologists.

I have been over this many times and we are now in a circular argument. If the people agreed with you, they wouldn't have voted for FG, Labour and FF in such numbers. The fact that the turnout went up between the referenda, the fact that those parties still had majority support in the subsequent elections shows that the people agree with my view on this and that you are the real anti-democrat.

SaoriseBiker

Godge wrote: »

You don't get it, they didn't ignore the democratic wish of the people, they just asked them are you sure and clarified the consequences. Happens all the time in normal conversations and normal decisions.

You get annoyed about something and you show someone in your office what you propose to do and they ask you are you sure you want to do that because x and y will happen, you reconsider and change your mind. That is life.

There is a referendum when people are annoyed with government and with the EU. They vote no. The government painstakingly explain again what is involved with the amendment, get some clarifications from Europe, set out the consequences of a no vote and ask the electorate are you sure. The electorate change their mind and vote yes. All fully democratic. All fully reasonable. That is life.

This stupid idea that the government bullies people is laughable. We elect them, if they bully us, we can just vote them out if we don't like them. If not enough people vote them out, then we weren't really been bullied.

I can tell you this, if we governed a country based purely on initial reactions to something, we would be even worse off. In fact the only time we did do something in a hurry and on intial reaction was the bank guarantee in September 2008 that messed up the country.

Waffle and Bertie speak, you shouldn't have bothered.

SaoriseBiker

Godge wrote: »

That is like saying that because I save game before the match in Football Manager and re-run the game when I lose that I would like to do it in the Premier League each weekend if I had the chance. Either you can do it or you cannot.

Never played Football Manager, don't know the first thing about it.

I have been over this many times and we are now in a circular argument. If the people agreed with you, they wouldn't have voted for FG, Labour and FF in such numbers. The fact that the turnout went up between the referenda, the fact that those parties still had majority support in the subsequent elections shows that the people agree with my view on this and that you are the real anti-democrat.

When people vote in a Dail election, they aren't voting for a party just on their policy they took on a EU referendum :rolleyes: And though they may vote Fine Fáil, however I might not like it, I accept the result and don't go asking for a rerun like Fine Fáilers do when they loose a referendum on a EU treaty. I am a real democrat and not a "lets rerun it until we get the result we want" one.

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

When people vote in a Dail election, they aren't voting for a party just on their policy they took on a EU referendum :rolleyes: And though they may vote Fine Fáil, however I might not like it, I accept the result and don't go asking for a rerun like Fine Fáilers do when they loose a referendum on a EU treaty. I am a real democrat and not a "lets rerun it until we get the result we want" one.

No problem, you are entitled to your opinion, you want to ban divorce in Ireland and homosexuality in the US, the people are always right first time around.

The Chileans voted twice for the military dictatorship of Pinochet, I suppose we should respect those democratic decisions and reinstate his successor by force if necessary.

Alcohol should still be banned in Iceland as the first referendum banned it.

I could go on at length about the contradictory referenda in Switzerland and the US but you can research that yourself. What two strange countries they would be if you only accepted the result the first time a question was asked.

View

The arguments being made in this thread about a second referendum being somehow "undemocratic" were argued before in the Supreme Court in a case in September 09 and completely dismissed by the judges.

From memory, the points made by them in response to the case were:

1) referenda are always democratic since it is the demos that get to make the decisions in them,
2) each of the demos' decisions are equally democratic, there is no "order of merit" to them,
3) the demos, in a referendum, gave the Oireachtas the authority (and absolute freedom) to choose when, and if, to call a referendum or referenda on a topic,
4) in the case of both these referenda, the Oireachtas decided to exercise that authority in a democratic vote, hence the decision to hold a "second" referendum is no more or less democratic than the decision to hold a "first" referendum.

This entire thread seems - to my mind to hinge on a misapprehension - namely that the electorate are asked about their opinion of the EU Treaties. We aren't and the confusion about this point must call the whole method being used by the Oireachtas to deal with them into question.

SaoriseBiker

View wrote: »

The arguments being made in this thread about a second referendum being somehow "undemocratic" were argued before in the Supreme Court in a case in September 09 and completely dismissed by the judges.

From memory, the points made by them in response to the case were:

1) referenda are always democratic since it is the demos that get to make the decisions in them,
2) each of the demos' decisions are equally democratic, there is no "order of merit" to them,
3) the demos, in a referendum, gave the Oireachtas the authority (and absolute freedom) to choose when, and if, to call a referendum or referenda on a topic,
4) in the case of both these referenda, the Oireachtas decided to exercise that authority in a democratic vote, hence the decision to hold a "second" referendum is no more or less democratic than the decision to hold a "first" referendum.

This entire thread seems - to my mind to hinge on a misapprehension - namely that the electorate are asked about their opinion of the EU Treaties. We aren't and the confusion about this point must call the whole method being used by the Oireachtas to deal with them into question.

Any link to substantiate that or do we have to rely on your ' opinion ' only ?

The Oireachtasalso has the authority to obfuscate and bury reports and issues allegedly in the public interest and the state etc, doesn't mean to say it's morally right even if they can get away with it as they too often do. But if you can back up your ' opinions ' as above, thanks

View

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Any link to substantiate that or do we have to rely on your ' opinion ' only ?

As I said, it was from memory but here are three links to reports about the case - two of which are behind a "pay per view" wall, I'm afraid:

RTE news report - last two paragraphs only

Irish Times report on the High Court case about it

Irish Times report on the Supreme Court case about it

After reviewing them, it is possible, the comments I remember may be from the High Court case but it is 3 years ago in fairness.

Either way, the comment from the last report though is fairly clear:

The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, said the submission by Mr Burke, of Duncummin House, Emly, that the same question as put to the Irish electorate in the first referendum could not be posed in a second vote was manifestly unfounded.

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

The Oireachtasalso has the authority to obfuscate and bury reports and issues allegedly in the public interest and the state etc, doesn't mean to say it's morally right even if they can get away with it as they too often do. But if you can back up your ' opinions ' as above, thanks

An interesting point but the issue under discussion is democracy rather than morality. As, you are essentially arguing a dubious moral proposition - namely, that the electorate should be denied the possibility of considering an issue again, even though the constitution contains no such constraint, an appeal to morality is perhaps not the best argument.

Godge

View wrote: »

An interesting point but the issue under discussion is democracy rather than morality. As, you are essentially arguing a dubious moral proposition - namely, that the electorate should be denied the possibility of considering an issue again, even though the constitution contains no such constraint, an appeal to morality is perhaps not the best argument.

A good point but even the morality argument is fatally flawed. Unless you hold two referenda one day after another, events have intervened and changed perspectives.

Consider similarly a murder case carrying a death sentence in the US. Can it be morally argued in such a case that if events intervene and perspective changes the original judgement must stand?

SaoriseBiker

View wrote: »

As I said, it was from memory but here are three links to reports about the case - two of which are behind a "pay per view" wall, I'm afraid:

RTE news report - last two paragraphs only

Irish Times report on the High Court case about it

Irish Times report on the Supreme Court case about it

After reviewing them, it is possible, the comments I remember may be from the High Court case but it is 3 years ago in fairness.

Either way, the comment from the last report though is fairly clear:

The only link that's working is stating the obvious - that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the holding of a referendum. However it's clearly wrong except to a Fine Failers holding another rweferendum with lies about economic armageddon etc if we don't vote yes as much as Fine Failers getting away with taking bribes etc and claiming them to be " dig outs " :rolleyes:

An interesting point but the issue under discussion is democracy rather than morality. As, you are essentially arguing a dubious moral proposition - namely, that the electorate should be denied the possibility of considering an issue again, even though the constitution contains no such constraint, an appeal to morality is perhaps not the best argument.

If morality isn't the basis of Govt policy - what the f*** is But that's Fine Failers for you !!!!!

And nowhere did I state that peopel shouldn't have the right to a second referendum such as the one divorce which happened 11 years later with a different bill, it's another thing demanding a rerun on a treaty along with threats of economic disatser as happens with our servile, slavish little Gombeen state.

Godge

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

And nowhere did I state that peopel shouldn't have the right to a second referendum such as the one divorce which happened 11 years later with a different bill, it's another thing demanding a rerun on a treaty along with threats of economic disatser as happens with our servile, slavish little Gombeen state.

So now we can agree that there is nothing wrong with holding second referenda.

It is just that there are particular second referenda that you disagree with. It is not a principled objection just an objection based on the subject matter and circumstances of the particular second referenda. The issue rather than the principle as I suspected all along this debate is more to do with the particular result than anything else.

As for the repeated derogatory references to Fine Failers, grow up.

C14N

The direct democracy idea sounds good in theory but it will be interesting to see how it pans out. Assuming we were to do the same thing in Ireland and require 1% of the population to get a motion into the Dáil (around 45,000 people) I could imagine a lot of joke proposals being put through which will just waste time. At the same time if too many ideas just get thrown out then people will become disillusioned and stop bothering.

This is still a bit away in Ireland though due to our much weaker broadband infrastructure.