Direct democracy - a new party delivering democracy direct to you-time to vote?

newsunglasses

From the parties website,directdemocracyireland.ie ..

What is direct democracy?

Direct democracy is a form of democracy in which the people have the right to:

1. Select their own candidates to represent them.
2. Call a referendum on any topic if a sufficient number of people deem it necessary, by gathering a set number of signatures.
3. Create legislation and put it to a referendum if a sufficient number of people agree with it, by gathering a set number of signatures.
4. Recall, remove from office, any representative deemed to have acted in breach of their terms of employment.

Goal:

Implementing direct democracy in Ireland returns the power to the people to call referendums, instigate legislation, and recall representatives who fail to perform.

• STOP Bondholder Payments: There is no legal liability for Irish people and their children to pay for private banking debts.
• REDUCE Family Home Mortgages: A substantial write down of personal debt to keep people in their homes and stimulate our domestic economy.
• ABOLISH All Taxes on Family Homes: “It is morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a persons home” – Enda Kenny, 1994.
• PROTECT Services & Allowances: Review all cuts made to essential services and people’s vital allowances.
• CUT Business Rates: Reduce costs for business to help make them more affordable and competitive thus protecting Irish jobs.
• PREVENT State Asset Stripping: Keep water, oil, gas, forestry, fisheries and mineral assets working for the people.

I don't see one thing that i do not disagree with - Under our current coalition government we are being co -operatively being screwed by both parties.

Joan burton and her job bridge,paying millions to job bridge to rob what could be a paid job from the community,instead of attracting real paid work.

Councils getting paid via prsi off of peoples working tax,and getting paid through the property tax,which holds no merit at all - are they going to mow my ****ing lawn anytime soon for what i pay on my property?


Its a no purpose tax as far as im concerned,as they already get paid by prsi off of peoples tax.

Now they are getting paid off prsi and the property tax.Ive seen potholes down the end of my road that still need doing.

Were not getting a fair deal off our government. I think its time to vote direct democracy,for us all to have a real oppurtunity to affect change in the system,instead of leaving it up to greedy double jobbers,tax evaders,and expense scammers, like we have in the dail:mad:





For further reading look up their website - its growing in popularity.http://directdemocracyireland.ie/


Im thinking of becoming a member too..

joe swanson

Run by a lunatic who promotes 'freeman' lies and conspiracy theories which are manipulating vulnerable people. And u just need to look at their websites to see they are heavily involved and intertwined.

newsunglasses

He is no lunatic as far as i can see,and how exactly is he manipulating people.

If anything we are being wholly manipulated by the shower that is in there now,nothing but broken promises and lies.

Didnt enda kenny say the property tax was wrong?


I like the part where ben gilroy says he would like to see a re calling of any politician that has acted dishonestly or not in the best interests of the public.

Recall, remove from office, any representative deemed to have acted in breach of their terms of employment.

What about that ''independant'' pink shirt lunatic,(who raided public funds)along with the expenses scammers and tax evaders/greedy double jobbers,i for one would like to see a recalling of anybody who has acted dishonestly.

MagicMarker

lol, will facebook petitions be included when counting "signatures"?

The money we'd save by burning the bondholders could be used to fund the amount of referendums there would be on a yearly basis.

joe swanson

newsunglasses wrote: »

He is no lunatic as far as i can see,and how exactly is he manipulating people.

If anything we are being wholly manipulated by the shower that is in there now,nothing but broken promises and lies.

Didnt enda kenny say the property tax was wrong?


I like the part where ben gilroy says he would like to see a re calling of any politician that has acted dishonestly or not in the best interests of the public.





What about that ''independant'' pink shirt lunatic,(who raided public funds)along with the expenses scammers and tax evaders/greedy double jobbers,i for one would like to see a recalling of anybody who has acted dishonestly.

I agree re: pink shirt. You have conveniently skipped his 'freeman' beliefs and connections which are most definitely manipulating vulnerable people.

Scofflaw

newsunglasses wrote: »

He is no lunatic as far as i can see,and how exactly is he manipulating people.

If anything we are being wholly manipulated by the shower that is in there now,nothing but broken promises and lies.

Didnt enda kenny say the property tax was wrong?


I like the part where ben gilroy says he would like to see a re calling of any politician that has acted dishonestly or not in the best interests of the public.

What about that ''independant'' pink shirt lunatic,(who raided public funds)along with the expenses scammers and tax evaders/greedy double jobbers,i for one would like to see a recalling of anybody who has acted dishonestly.

There's a minor problem there, which is that there's no sign that the electorate generally care. The likely outcome of a recall mechanism can be judged from the re-election - often repeated re-election - of politicians whose honesty has been brought very much into question.

Another issue is - how, in a multi-seat constituency, do you set a recall threshold that prevents, say, people who object to having a Sinn Fein TD in their constituency, from putting a successful recall motion based on their dislike of that TD or their party? And who votes in a recall? Presumably everyone, which conjures up the following scenario:

1. a 4 seat constituency has 75% FF voters, 25% SF voters.
2. at a general election, the seats go 3 to FF. 1 to SF.
3. following the general election, the FF voters put a recall motion on the basis that the SF TD is a terrorist.
4. there's then a vote on that seat, which FF wins handily, producing 4 FF seats.

Come to that, voters in the two main parties, holding the majority in most constituencies, could always collude in disposing of minor party TDs.

You'd have to have a legal trigger for recall, not a popular one, and there we run into the problem that it's damned rare for a TD to be convicted of any of the offences people find specifically offensive in a politician.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OCorcrainn

Don't trust that party, their leader along with its members. That party has links and sympathize with the far right in Britain.

http://irishstudentleftonline.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/ben-gilroy-and-the-far-right/#more-298

jimmycrackcorm

Why do we need another party when we already have Sinn Fein for idiotic populist policies.

VinLieger

Ugh more freeman bullshit

Pride Fighter

Ben Gilroy and DDI support Sean Quinn, Nigel Farage and UKIP amongst other dubious things. I'd never vote for them, they strike me as a single issue party, with no real ideology and with sinister links to right wing groups.

OCorcrainn

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why do we need another party when we already have Sinn Fein for idiotic populist policies.

You are confusing Sinn Féin with Fianna Fáil, you know...the party with all the populist bs that ran this country into the ground?

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a minor problem there, which is that there's no sign that the electorate generally care. The likely outcome of a recall mechanism can be judged from the re-election - often repeated re-election - of politicians whose honesty has been brought very much into question.

Another issue is - how, in a multi-seat constituency, do you set a recall threshold that prevents, say, people who object to having a Sinn Fein TD in their constituency, from putting a successful recall motion based on their dislike of that TD or their party? And who votes in a recall? Presumably everyone, which conjures up the following scenario:

1. a 4 seat constituency has 75% FF voters, 25% SF voters.
2. at a general election, the seats go 3 to FF. 1 to SF.
3. following the general election, the FF voters put a recall motion on the basis that the SF TD is a terrorist.
4. there's then a vote on that seat, which FF wins handily, producing 4 FF seats.

Come to that, voters in the two main parties, holding the majority in most constituencies, could always collude in disposing of minor party TDs.

You'd have to have a legal trigger for recall, not a popular one, and there we run into the problem that it's damned rare for a TD to be convicted of any of the offences people find specifically offensive in a politician.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Create an entirely new offense, Scoffy. A statement to the media to be made under oath, and if it can be absolutely proven beyond reasonable doubt that a politician knew they weren't telling the truth when they made a statement, a bye-election is called.
In other words - unless you know for a fact that what you're saying is true, don't comment. This would cut out so, so much of the absolute bullsh!t we have to put up with from our politicians on a weekly basis.

hatrickpatrick

MagicMarker wrote: »

lol, will facebook petitions be included when counting "signatures"?

Why not? Social media campaigns have been hugely successful in recent times for political movements. It's the new "forum" as they had in ancient Rome. If 150,000 people sign a petition online - using some sort of verifiable identity, of course - why is that any less legitimate than paper signatures?

The money we'd save by burning the bondholders could be used to fund the amount of referendums there would be on a yearly basis.

Why exactly does a referendum have to be expensive? Any particular reason? They're expensive now, but why do they have to be? No reason we can't change the referendum system... Personally I wouldn't have a problem with televoting or internet voting provided again you had some way of proving your identity, and if that's possible with electronic credit card transactions I don't see why it can't be possible with remote voting...?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Create an entirely new offense, Scoffy. A statement to the media to be made under oath, and if it can be absolutely proven beyond reasonable doubt that a politician knew they weren't telling the truth when they made a statement, a bye-election is called.
In other words - unless you know for a fact that what you're saying is true, don't comment. This would cut out so, so much of the absolute bullsh!t we have to put up with from our politicians on a weekly basis.

Unfortunately, I suspect that one would actually catch out only the enthusiastic and impulsive.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with televoting or internet voting provided again you had some way of proving your identity, and if that's possible with electronic credit card transactions I don't see why it can't be possible with remote voting...?

Oh, dear gods.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, dear gods.

Why is this exactly?
Seriously though, think about it - if we came up with a way of securely casting a ballot over the internet or by phone or post, why is it such a ridiculous concept? You can already vote by post in a lot of countries particularly if you're a citizen abroad, is it really such a massive step to say phone voting?

When registering to vote, which would still require all the usual identification it does now, you could choose a "password" of some kind, and this along with your polling ID could be used to verify you. I'm only thinking off the top of my head here, I'm sure there are far more secure ways of doing this, point is, if it's possible to move thousands of euro around securely through the phone or the internet I don't see why the same could never be said for ballots...?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is this exactly?
Seriously though, think about it - if we came up with a way of securely casting a ballot over the internet or by phone or post, why is it such a ridiculous concept? You can already vote by post in a lot of countries particularly if you're a citizen abroad, is it really such a massive step to say phone voting?

When registering to vote, which would still require all the usual identification it does now, you could choose a "password" of some kind, and this along with your polling ID could be used to verify you. I'm only thinking off the top of my head here, I'm sure there are far more secure ways of doing this, point is, if it's possible to move thousands of euro around securely through the phone or the internet I don't see why the same could never be said for ballots...?

In short, because the whole point of a secret ballot is that your vote should not be individually identifiable - whereas for payment systems the point is that you are.

With the current much-derided "pencil and paper" system, you are visibly assured that nobody is looking over your shoulder, that your ballot paper isn't visible to the staff, and that it's dropped anonymously into a standard ballot box. The staff, on the other hand, are visibly assured that you are you, that you're not handing the ballot paper to somebody else, and that nobody is standing over you in the booth making you vote a particular way.

Identification mechanisms available online that can identify you as a voter can also identify your individual vote invisibly. Separating the digital ballot paper from the identification of the voter, on the other hand, means that there is no assurance that the voter has not passed on the ballot paper to someone else, had it hijacked in some way, or is subject to intimidation or other pressure while filling it out on their own computer.

Beyond that there are issues of exclusion of those without computers/internet access and various other forms of accessibility issue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

^ Reasonable points, I'll see if I can come up with any potential solutions later on, but bravo, Scoffy (no pun intended) for offering a more reasonable rebuttal than "Oh dear gods"

Iwasfrozen

OCorcrainn wrote: »

Don't trust that party, their leader along with its members. That party has links and sympathize with the far right in Britain.

http://irishstudentleftonline.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/ben-gilroy-and-the-far-right/#more-298

Ah here. Nigel Farage is a bit of a twat but calling him racist scum? That's going too far.

LeinsterDub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why not? Social media campaigns have been hugely successful in recent times for political movements. It's the new "forum" as they had in ancient Rome. If 150,000 people sign a petition online - using some sort of verifiable identity, of course - why is that any less legitimate than paper signatures?

We will end up having to build a Death Star .
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/wlfKzFkN

goose2005

Scofflaw wrote: »

You'd have to have a legal trigger for recall, not a popular one, and there we run into the problem that it's damned rare for a TD to be convicted of any of the offences people find specifically offensive in a politician.

Not to mention that a TD is automatically sacked already if sentenced to more than 6 months in jail

Iwasfrozen

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We will end up having to build a Death Star .
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/wlfKzFkN

Hell yeah!

hatrickpatrick

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We will end up having to build a Death Star .
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-resources-and-funding-and-begin-construction-death-star-2016/wlfKzFkN

Might put some manners on Merkel if we had one of those to back up our negotiating position

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ Reasonable points, I'll see if I can come up with any potential solutions later on, but bravo, Scoffy (no pun intended) for offering a more reasonable rebuttal than "Oh dear gods"

Fair enough; my less-than-helpful response was more of a "here we go again" response to the umpteenth suggestion that internet voting is no more difficult a problem to solve than internet banking.

Internet voting is not so much a difficult problem to solve; it's impossible to do it securely and anonymously. It quite simply can't be done. This is a problem that has been studied in a great deal of detail by much cleverer people than me, and that is their conclusion.

jimmycrackcorm

OCorcrainn wrote: »

You are confusing Sinn Féin with Fianna Fáil, you know...the party with all the populist bs that ran this country into the ground?

They're both equally as dodgy. FF pushed for spending and no cuts during the boom whilst SF are doing the same when we have no money.

Iwasfrozen

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

They're both equally as dodgy. FF pushed for spending and no cuts during the boom whilst SF are doing the same when we have no money.

Both economically illiterate but only the latter knows how to manage a firearm.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Might put some manners on Merkel if we had one of those to back up our negotiating position

If we could even afford to build one, we wouldn't be worried about what Merkel thought in the first place...

oscarBravo wrote:

Internet voting is not so much a difficult problem to solve; it's impossible to do it securely and anonymously. It quite simply can't be done. This is a problem that has been studied in a great deal of detail by much cleverer people than me, and that is their conclusion.

And no loss, says I. The exercise of voting is not merely one of expressing a preference, but of engagement with the life of the demos. Internet voting would be more convenient, efficient, and cheaper, but in the same way that masturbation is more convenient, efficient and cheaper than sex.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hijpo

looking past the "freeman lunatic" who admires "racist scum" because he told the european parliament to respect the irish vote. This democratic model is better for the people, it gives us some kind of protection against being raided by arrogant snobs who have complete disregard for other peoples livelihoods but there own.

Whos to say Gilroy wont be demoted due to inconsistencies with his affiliations? Will people have a different opinion of Direct Democracy then?
Surely they will have to, seen as the name Gilroy seems to be the only basis people are using to discredit this model.

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

looking past the "freeman lunatic" who admires "racist scum" because he told the european parliament to respect the irish vote. This democratic model is better for the people, it gives us some kind of protection against being raided by arrogant snobs who have complete disregard for other peoples livelihoods but there own.

Whos to say Gilroy wont be demoted due to inconsistencies with his affiliations? Will people have a different opinion of Direct Democracy then?
Surely they will have to, seen as the name Gilroy seems to be the only basis people are using to discredit this model.

Whatever the merits of Direct Democracy itself, DDI are deeply flawed.
Apart from looking for the introduction of Direct Democracy, they have a list of other 'policies' (most of them are vague aspirations really, but anyway)

For example they are going to launch a legal review of the bailout.

Launch a full independent, international legal review of the bailout, which we hold to be an odious debt and illegal under international law

Nothing wrong with that, but they are also going to do this:

Suspend all payments relating to the bailout, capital and interest, pending the results of the legal review.

This obviously triggers a default. So, not only are they going to make one of the major decisions in the history of the state without even waiting for the results of their own legal review, they don't even plan to put it to one of their referendums.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

Whatever the merits of Direct Democracy itself, DDI are deeply flawed.
Apart from looking for the introduction of Direct Democracy, they have a list of other 'policies' (most of them are vague aspirations really, but anyway)

For example they are going to launch a legal review of the bailout.

Nothing wrong with that, but they are also going to do this:

This obviously triggers a default. So, not only are they going to make one of the major decisions in the history of the state without even waiting for the results of their own legal review, they don't even plan to put it to one of their referendums.

Point taken, however if it is proven to be an illegal odious debt (in part at least) what happens?
The term used is suspended, my guess is if its found to be a completely above board debt then it will be paid as soon as its judged to be legal and not "we are not paying this debt legal or otherwise.
The beauty of the DD system is atleast you can call a referendum on there decisions.

Hijpo

Hijpo wrote: »

The beauty of the DD system is at least you can call a referendum on there decisions.

Would that make a bailout difficult if our creditors (the IMF, EU or whoever) thought we could repudiate any debt at the whim of the electorate?