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.