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

bgrizzley

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm questioning it. I can't think where you might have got the idea that I'm 'afraid' of it. That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

maybe a bad choice of words, just sounds like you are afraid of change. i cant see how it would make a difference to the core of people who do vote and want to have more of a say in decisions that effect them. The people that wont vote, still wont vote, but the people that do, have more say.
win, win.

Hijpo

Phoebas wrote: »

If the electorate can't be bothered to decide what is and what isn't an election issue at election time, I can hardly see them setting the agenda mid term.

What are you on about? the electorate dont make election issues. If they did have the power to make election issues we probably wouldnt need direct democracy to make sure the election issues that were put forward by parties were upheld in the first place.

currently there are 4 main parties, none of them make pay an election issue. How does the electorate make it an election issue?

Hijpo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Undeniably the case, but also the point. View's post makes the rather stronger case, since there's not much involved for the average citizen other than signing up to the initiative.

cordially,
Scofflaw

if the average citizen was aware of such initiatives im sure they would sign up.
Is it the citizens fault for not digging to find out about these inititiatives or is it the governments fault for not educating the citizens about these initiatives, does it benefit the government by not educating citizens about these initiatives?

Scofflaw

Hijpo wrote: »

if the average citizen was aware of such initiatives im sure they would sign up.
Is it the citizens fault for not digging to find out about these inititiatives or is it the governments fault for not educating the citizens about these initiatives, does it benefit the government by not educating citizens about these initiatives?

It's actually the job of the initiatives' organisers to make citizens aware of them. I can't see why they would necessarily find that more difficult in Ireland than in other European countries, which suggests some other explanation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Phoebas

Hijpo wrote: »

currently there are 4 main parties, none of them make pay an election issue. How does the electorate make it an election issue?

By engaging with the 4 parties or by engaging with party number 5.

Scofflaw

Hijpo wrote: »

What are you on about? the electorate dont make election issues. If they did have the power to make election issues we probably wouldnt need direct democracy to make sure the election issues that were put forward by parties were upheld in the first place.

currently there are 4 main parties, none of them make pay an election issue. How does the electorate make it an election issue?

By making it clear that they would vote for someone who made it an issue. Voting in a democratic polity is a "market", and the rule is there should be no votes left up for grabs, as long as there's no discriminatory bar on candidacy. In Ireland, virtually anyone of age can stand for the Dáil, and we have a strong tradition of electing independents - if pay is a major issue, it should be possible to stand on that basis and win.

Even if pay is not a major issue - that is, not strong enough to give an independent a platform sufficient to get elected - it should still offer an electoral advantage to main party candidates if the electorate actually care about it. A candidate who might otherwise lose - and therefore not get the well-paid position of TD at all - has an incentive to promise pursuing lower pay for TDs if that will get him the position. If it were a generally important issue, one of the major parties could promise, say, a 5% reduction in TD salaries as a general government policy, and might thereby pick up enough votes to be in government as opposed to on the opposition benches.

Having said all that, which is the evidence and logic that inclines me to the idea that TD pay is not really a very important issue, I would think that if presented with a referendum on reducing TD pay, the result would be a Yes vote. But the outcome of a referendum is always a Yes or No, and that, to me, doesn't prove that the issue is important.

What would interest me in that case is whether you'd get enough signatures - assuming that's the mechanism - to hold a referendum in the first place, and whether the turnout in that referendum would be sufficient to uphold the result. My betting is probably not, and no.

One of the things representative democracy does is filter out those questions on which there is a definite majority opinion one way or the other, but which aren't actually considered important enough by enough of the electorate to make a major difference - that is, it's possible for an issue to be definite but trivial. Many of the issues that some people feel are ones to be decided by direct democracy seem to me to be of this kind.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

One of the things representative democracy does is filter out those questions on which there is a definite majority opinion one way or the other, but which aren't actually considered important enough by enough of the electorate to make a major difference - that is, it's possible for an issue to be definite but trivial. Many of the issues that some people feel are ones to be decided by direct democracy seem to me to be of this kind.

Yes but there are also certain decisions which are considered important enough to make a major difference to the social or moral life of the State.

These may be questions upon which the Irish Constitution may be silent (rare) or more likely, other questions upon which the Constitution may appear to speak weakly, often out of some directive spillover from a vaguely similar provision (e.g. McDonald v Bord na gCon; presumed constitutionality of Oireachtas Acts; X v The Attorney General, possibly the most well written and yet most vaguely inspired judgements ever delivered in the Courts), which can have eternal effect in the life of the State.

In the sense that we now have a reasonably brief Constitution which is expected to speak on almost everything in a changing world, it would be very sensible for the State to have greater recourse to the people, and less trips to the Supreme Court. I am not just writing about Ordinary Referenda, which amazingly, we have never had, but also about Constitutional Referenda, for which there is even less democratic provision.

As often seems the case in Irish Constitutional law, the further back you go, the more enlightened the law seems to have been. Maybe because of innocence. Perhaps we might consider something like Article 47 of the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann to enhance public access to the legislative process in between elections:

http://acts.oireachtas.ie/en.act.1922.0001.2.html

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

That would be the equivalent of an Ordinary Referendum; in terms of the Constitutional Referendum, the Saorstát retained popular sovereignty in mind in Article 48:

The Oireachtas may provide for the Initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments. Should the Oireachtas fail to make such provision within two years, it shall on the petition of not less than seventy five thousand voters on the register, of whom not more than fifteen thousand shall be voters in any one constituency, either make such provisions or submit the question to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum. Any legislation passed by the Oireachtas providing for such Initiation by the people shall provide (1) that such proposals may be initiated on a petition of fifty thousand voters on the register...

So maybe we don't need to look to Europe in this instance,maybe we just need to look back over our own Constitutional history for satisfying solutions to overcome undesirable Dáil and Supreme Court decisionmaking.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yes but there are also certain decisions which are considered important enough to make a major difference to the social or moral life of the State.

These may be questions upon which the Irish Constitution may be silent (rare) or more likely, other questions upon which the Constitution may appear to speak weakly, often out of some directive spillover from a vaguely similar provision (e.g. McDonald v Bord na gCon; presumed constitutionality of Oireachtas Acts; X v The Attorney General, possibly the most well written and yet most vaguely inspired judgements ever delivered in the Courts), which can have eternal effect in the life of the State.

In the sense that we now have a reasonably brief Constitution which is expected to speak on almost everything in a changing world, it would be very sensible for the State to have greater recourse to the people, and less trips to the Supreme Court. I am not just writing about Ordinary Referenda, which amazingly, we have never had, but also about Constitutional Referenda, for which there is even less democratic provision.

As often seems the case in Irish Constitutional law, the further back you go, the more enlightened the law seems to have been. Maybe because of innocence. Perhaps we might consider something like Article 47 of the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann to enhance public access to the legislative process in between elections:

http://acts.oireachtas.ie/en.act.1922.0001.2.html


That would be the equivalent of an Ordinary Referendum; in terms of the Constitutional Referendum, the Saorstát retained popular sovereignty in mind in Article 48:



So maybe we don't need to look to Europe in this instance,maybe we just need to look back over our own Constitutional history for satisfying solutions to overcome undesirable Dáil and Supreme Court decisionmaking.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that, and don't disagree either with recourse to the people, or with greater recourse to the people. I like the idea of a Seanad capable of calling a referendum - it could be a valuable constitutional mechanism if well used, and even the threat of it would be valuable. Interestingly, though, it wouldn't have prevented the bank guarantee:

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

No it wouldn't have changed the bank guarantee...emergency legislation of an irreversible effect is a strange animal and we can't expect a referendum to strike it down. And in some cases we wouldn't want it to, even if popularly demanded, eg, necessary budget measures.

But it might save the state might save the state from undesirable legislation arising from the Courts or the Dáil, and it might give some enhanced legitimacy to the Oireachtas as well.

Of course you don't just need a referendum to do that.

The point is, for those who seek direct democracy, that we can achieve the best bits of direct democracy in the important cases, without the negative side effects, i.e. the costs and inefficiencies of voter awareness of minor details.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No it wouldn't have changed the bank guarantee...emergency legislation of an irreversible effect is a strange animal and we can't expect a referendum to strike it down. And in some cases we wouldn't want it to, even if popularly demanded, eg, necessary budget measures.

But it might save the state might save the state from undesirable legislation arising from the Courts or the Dáil, and it might give some enhanced legitimacy to the Oireachtas as well.

Of course you don't just need a referendum to do that.

The point is, for those who seek direct democracy, that we can achieve the best bits of direct democracy in the important cases, without the negative side effects, i.e. the costs and inefficiencies of voter awareness of minor details.

By using representative democracy as a filter - somehow I don't think that will be popular with many DD adherents.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Well there will always be people with unrealizable political goals, but I would suspect the majority of people supporting DD are those who, with good reason, are just fed up of a ridiculously impotent Oireachtas. Calling for DD is an over-reaction, but at least it's an over reaction in the right direction.