I have a Mandate from the people

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...an online system like the whte house does for petitions, which still manages to ensure that every vote is a genuine vote from an individual who hasn't voted already.

How do you know?

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing about a local referendum is that they take time to organise and run slowing decision making. Grand for some people that's a perfectly acceptable trade off.

It would be for me, personally. Slow decision making is better than undemocratic decision making.

It also means getting rid of multi seat constituencies which for me wouldn't be a bad thing.

Does it, necessarily?

On the bank guarantee I think the system you've laid out will guarantee similar decisions being made again and again in the future. The decisions that led us having to bailout the banks and current austerity were taken between 2002-2007 with the full support of voters and judging from memory of what the opposition problems with Fianna Fails decisions our situation could have been worse. No one was out protesting about big increases in public expenditure that was only afforded because of the bad lending practices of the banks.

Given the policies of the current opposition parties theres no evidence that this has changed. Most still peddle the notion that there some magic bullet that will make things better overnight.

I'm talking very specifically about bailing out the banks, not what led up to it. Do you honestly think the people would have voted to bail out? I sincerely doubt it myself. Of course, if I'm wrong, then it still would have been a democratic decision, which I would have a far easier time accepting liability for than I do for the current bank guarantee which was voted on in secret, in the dead of night, by an absolutely tiny subset of our politicians (the cabinet).

You might but hardly anybody wants to vote a daily/weekly basis. We choose a representative democracy for this reason. So that our representatives would vote on a daily/weekly basis and as full time "politicians" would have the time to study the legislation in detail. People have lives to get on with.

How about this then: Such a vote is only taken if enough people demand it through petitioning. That way you ensure that only the issues people are really in massive disagreement with the politicians on end up going to a public vote.
If people have time to vote on something like X Factor I think they'd probably also have time to vote on whether we bring in minimum alcohol prices, for example...

Umm basic tenant that people have time to examine the proposal and debate it? Your proposal is the antithesis of a informed democratic society.

48 hours was a massive exaggeration in the heat of the moment. A couple of weeks though is surely adequate? A month? How long do you think is appropriate? We're not talking about massive constitutional issues here, we're talking about everyday legislation.

Re technology No - it's remarkably uneasy to implement. Big difference between a petition and a vote and look how difficult e-voting disaster was.

Why is there a big difference? It could be done in any number of ways. You register to vote as you do now, you get a polling card in the post, you use an ID on the polling card and a password you provided when registering to log on to a website and cast a vote. Not any less secure than our current method of voting, I've never even been asked to produce ID at my polling station so arguably this is actually more secure.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It would be for me, personally. Slow decision making is better than undemocratic decision making.

That's a perfectly acceptable view personally I don't think having referendums every month for basic decisions is a good thing. Also its not undemocratic people gave them powers through the constitution and mechanisms within it. Just you would prefer a different system for them to operate under.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Does it, necessarily?

Yes unless you just have an internal party vote. A local referendum would mean potentially say a People before profit TD would have to vote in line with say Labour/Fianna Fail/Gael etc voters wishes if the local people decided so. Rendering their promises pointless as the TD with largest voter base can just force the rest of the TD's in the electoral area to vote the way his/her supporters want.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm talking very specifically about bailing out the banks, not what led up to it. Do you honestly think the people would have voted to bail out? I sincerely doubt it myself. Of course, if I'm wrong, then it still would have been a democratic decision, which I would have a far easier time accepting liability for than I do for the current bank guarantee which was voted on in secret, in the dead of night, by an absolutely tiny subset of our politicians (the cabinet).

It doesn't matter. The bank guarantee was always going to happen in some shape or form. People don't like having bailed out the banks but would be more unhappy if they woke up the next morning with jobs and saving gone. I don't want to get bogged down in this as its a bit off topic but if you've been involved in any business large or small you'll understand the potential consequences if the formal credit services banks provide were removed overnight. People decided they'd bail out banks when they consistently supported policies that could only be sustained by suicidal bank lending policies. You can't bust pin on one decision the mess isn't that simple. Even putting the blame solely on government fiscal policy and banks ignores the impact of disastrous planning polices at a local level had.

Also on the whole thing of direct democracy the thing you need to take into account is that the majority of people don't want it. No major political party supports the idea. Even for constitutional referendums turnout can be an issue despite substantial publicity campaigns and in most cases people still don't actually read up on the topic/question thats being asked. Grand you may feel very passionately about it which you are perfectly entitled to be.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How about this then: Such a vote is only taken if enough people demand it through petitioning. That way you ensure that only the issues people are really in massive disagreement with the politicians on end up going to a public vote.
If people have time to vote on something like X Factor I think they'd probably also have time to vote on whether we bring in minimum alcohol prices, for example...

Comparing X Factor to voting for actual laws. I hope that comparison is a joke. X Factor in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. The laws that run our country not so. Vote for x,y or z is not the same as sitting down to read through and consider the implications of a legal document.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How about this then: Such a vote is only taken if enough people demand it through petitioning. That way you ensure that only the issues people are really in massive disagreement with the politicians on end up going to a public vote.
If people have time to vote on something like X Factor I think they'd probably also have time to vote on whether we bring in minimum alcohol prices, for example...

X-Factor????, are you having a laugh? So if a petition is signed by enough people that Jedward's hair should be cut or that Giovanni Trappaptoni should be fired, then we should have a vote on it?

I really don't get why you harp on about minimum alcohol pricing, if there was a vote tomorrow on this, it is likely that the vote would be in favour of increasing minimum alcohol pricing because of the health issues, the access by minors etc.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

48 hours was a massive exaggeration in the heat of the moment. A couple of weeks though is surely adequate? A month? How long do you think is appropriate? We're not talking about massive constitutional issues here, we're talking about everyday legislation.

Everyday legislation? Have you ever read a bill or an Act to see how complicated they are.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2013/a3513.pdf

Have a look at this simple piece of everyday legislation to implement a Supreme Court decision, which we would definitely have got enough signatures for, 23 sections full of legal language that you would require specialised training to understand.

"A section 13 certification shall be deemed to be—
(a) a section 7 certification where section 12(2) applies, and
(b) a section 9 certification where section 12(3) applies,"

Makes your head go around reading it. A couple of weeks is adequate????? Have you thought through your idea?

For example, have you gone back to the legislation for 2012 and examined each Act and estimated how many sections of each piece of legislation would need a referendum? for example, the Finance Bill contains hundreds of tax-related issues, some too small to be of significance, but certainly there would be tens that would need a referendum by your definition. Have you worked out the cost of each referendum? Have you factored in that few people would be willing to spend every second Saturday in a polling booth voting on something.

The turnouts for referenda are notoriously low in Ireland. How do you envisage increasing them?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is there a big difference? It could be done in any number of ways. You register to vote as you do now, you get a polling card in the post, you use an ID on the polling card and a password you provided when registering to log on to a website and cast a vote. Not any less secure than our current method of voting, I've never even been asked to produce ID at my polling station so arguably this is actually more secure.

We had a referendum to introduce electronic voting a few years ago and it failed. The public did not trust the machines. If you were introducing your system, you would need another referendum and that would fail as well for the same reasons.

Coming up with an idea on an internet forum is all well and good. Demonstrating how it would actually work in practice is the hard part.

micdug

Godge, I think you're being a little harsh with Hatpatrick there. We just need to fine tune his idea.

The issue is that voters won't have all the time to read that legislation. So we should allow people nominate people to read on their behalf and make a call. I'd say 160 would do the country. I guess if they read the legislation and make a call we may as well let them make the vote (to save a little time). We would have to pay these people (as there will be so much legalisation they can't have another job. We'd need to guarantee them four/five years work though at a time. We would choose them at the same time from our locality.
I suspect that given some of these people will team together into "groups" that would tend to vote together. They could in fact put together a list of things they'd like to vote for so we'd know what it is they are going to vote legislation on our behalf. Come to think of it, they'll probably know enough to actually propose the legislation. We'd need some building in town for them to sit in as well.
Does that work for you Hatpatrick?

hatrickpatrick

Can I just say before I respond to either of those that I'm not really sure how we got into talking about direct democracy here, as all I was suggesting initially is that politicians shouldn't have a whip and should be forced to vote in whatever direction they felt necessary in order not to lose votes. I don't necessarily advocate the system we've been discussing, I just think the current system is absolutely abhorrent and needs to be scrapped. Any democratic system would be better than the current "the cabinet makes all the decisions and are guaranteed to get everything through almost every time" system we have now. There's absolutely no room for people power in that system.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

as all I was suggesting initially is that politicians shouldn't have a whip and should be forced to vote in whatever direction they felt necessary in order not to lose votes.

Politicians aren't forced to follow a party whip, they usually choose to respect the majority view within their parties and follow it.

That's the case over 90% of the time even within the European Parliament even though it is explicitly written into EU law that MEPs have absolute freedom when voting.

hatrickpatrick

View wrote: »

Politicians aren't forced to follow a party whip, they usually choose to respect the majority view within their parties and follow it.

That's the case over 90% of the time even within the European Parliament even though it is explicitly written into EU law that MEPs have absolute freedom when voting.

And this is the argument I'm making, they should be respecting the majority view within the population, not just the party. I'm not suggesting that a local referendum is necessary, but the whip allows politicians to make decisions which very obviously and definitely go against the will of the people and then hide behind "My hands were tied".

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is the argument I'm making, they should be respecting the majority view within the population,

Again, this is just an attempt to limit the electorate's political choice. You are basically advocating a one party state since why do you need a second party presenting an alternative view in that case? After all, both sets of elected representatives must vote the same way.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Abut the whip allows politicians to make decisions which very obviously and definitely go against the will of the people

Does it?

Why then did the electorate vote for us to have the current system?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is the argument I'm making, they should be respecting the majority view within the population, not just the party. I'm not suggesting that a local referendum is necessary, but the whip allows politicians to make decisions which very obviously and definitely go against the will of the people and then hide behind "My hands were tied".

The whip does not allow politicians to make decisions which obviously and definitely go against the will of the people (aside from this, how do they know the will of the people?). It is their conscience, or lack of it, that allows it. Many politicians lose the whip because of their consciences. Just because you believe that some politicians with no consciences have been elected, you don't need to change the whole system

They must also use their discretion. You might think, from a straw poll in the pub, that the will of the people is against minimum pricing for alcohol. A politician might think, looking at the long-term health costs to society, the damage done by excessive drinking to spouses and families, the policing costs etc. that society is better served by imposing minimum pricing on alcohol.

In your view, he is going against the will of the people, in his view he is making the judgment call that the people elected him to do.

hardCopy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And this is the argument I'm making, they should be respecting the majority view within the population, not just the party. I'm not suggesting that a local referendum is necessary, but the whip allows politicians to make decisions which very obviously and definitely go against the will of the people and then hide behind "My hands were tied".

Does a politician have a duty to all of their constituents or just the ones that voted for them?

If they were going to seek guidance from their whole constituency then why would a voter with a minority view vote for them in the first place?

How can they be expected to know exactly why each voter voted for them?

Bear in mind that under PRSTV, most voters won't even know where their own vote ended up.

No individual politician can really claim a 'mandate' for anything since people usually vote for them as a compromise. I've never found a politician or a party that I agreed with on everything, all you can do is weigh up their professed beliefs and their party manifesto. Then you have to factor in the inevitable watering down of their positions once they create a coalition.

Compromise and horse-trading is inevitable under our system since we almost always have a coalition. If whips were not enforced no coalition government could ever survive. Labour wouldn't pass any budget that cut pay or benefits and FG wouldn't have passed the abortion legislation.

If your party aren't popular enough to secure an overall majority then it's hard to justify complaining when they do something to keep their coalition partners happy.

If the representative you voted for is unhappy with the direction of their leader they can oust him or push for a change in party policy through their Ard Fheis. If you want a representative that will listen to your opinion and act on it at all times then run for office then stand yourself, but be prepared to represent the disparate group of voters who all voted for you for different reasons, as well as the other locals who will claim they voted for you after you get elected, if you run for a party then be prepared to do what the party membership demand of you, and if you're in a coalition then be prepared for some quid pro quo.

micdug

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Can I just say before I respond to either of those that I'm not really sure how we got into talking about direct democracy here, as all I was suggesting initially is that politicians shouldn't have a whip and should be forced to vote in whatever direction they felt necessary in order not to lose votes. I don't necessarily advocate the system we've been discussing, I just think the current system is absolutely abhorrent and needs to be scrapped. Any democratic system would be better than the current "the cabinet makes all the decisions and are guaranteed to get everything through almost every time" system we have now. There's absolutely no room for people power in that system.

I think the fundamental point Hatpatrick is that when you devise a system of governance you need to balance accountability with the need to govern effectively. All of your proposals are reactive and swing the pendulum so far to the "everybody involved in every decision" that the state will become ungovernable. Sometimes you have to put distance between the governed and the government so they can get on with the task of running a country without being second guessed or boxed into short term populist decisions. If you look at the US political system you will see many checks on the authority of the people such as no direct election of the president - you vote in a college of electors. This was done deliberately to avoid demagogues getting in based on some short term inflammatory and populist politics. Given most of your thoughts on the running of this country run in this vein I can appreciate your frustration but ultimately I and the vast bulk of the electorate disagree and we democratically vote not to endorse your views.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

The whip does not allow politicians to make decisions which obviously and definitely go against the will of the people (aside from this, how do they know the will of the people?). It is their conscience, or lack of it, that allows it. Many politicians lose the whip because of their consciences. Just because you believe that some politicians with no consciences have been elected, you don't need to change the whole system

They must also use their discretion. You might think, from a straw poll in the pub, that the will of the people is against minimum pricing for alcohol. A politician might think, looking at the long-term health costs to society, the damage done by excessive drinking to spouses and families, the policing costs etc. that society is better served by imposing minimum pricing on alcohol.

In your view, he is going against the will of the people, in his view he is making the judgment call that the people elected him to do.

I suppose that's where we fundamentally disagree about the function and purpose of government. No amount of debating is going to change either opinion I don't believe the government is there to tell us what's best for us, they're there to do what we tell them to do. They are our public servants, not babysitters.

hatrickpatrick

micdug wrote: »

I think the fundamental point Hatpatrick is that when you devise a system of governance you need to balance accountability with the need to govern effectively. All of your proposals are reactive and swing the pendulum so far to the "everybody involved in every decision" that the state will become ungovernable. Sometimes you have to put distance between the governed and the government so they can get on with the task of running a country without being second guessed or boxed into short term populist decisions. If you look at the US political system you will see many checks on the authority of the people such as no direct election of the president - you vote in a college of electors. This was done deliberately to avoid demagogues getting in based on some short term inflammatory and populist politics. Given most of your thoughts on the running of this country run in this vein I can appreciate your frustration but ultimately I and the vast bulk of the electorate disagree and we democratically vote not to endorse your views.

That's fair enough. But ask yourself, is either country run in a way that a majority of the people are actually happy with? Most people seem pretty pissed off at the culture of elitism and impunity which rules the day in Ireland. The US issues with the NSA could never have happened in a more democratic system - these are just two examples.
As I say, it's a personal opinion, I'm not suggesting I'm right about it. But I will continue to campaign for more democracy as ultimately I believe that the will of the people is by far the lesser of two evils - our current system allows people in high places, such as banks and large corporations, to buy public policy even when it goes against the wishes of almost everybody. In my view, that is the worst possible system imaginable.

micosoft

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's fair enough. But ask yourself, is either country run in a way that a majority of the people are actually happy with? Most people seem pretty pissed off at the culture of elitism and impunity which rules the day in Ireland. The US issues with the NSA could never have happened in a more democratic system - these are just two examples.
As I say, it's a personal opinion, I'm not suggesting I'm right about it. But I will continue to campaign for more democracy as ultimately I believe that the will of the people is by far the lesser of two evils - our current system allows people in high places, such as banks and large corporations, to buy public policy even when it goes against the wishes of almost everybody. In my view, that is the worst possible system imaginable.

Well, yes! 70% of the electorate turned out at the last election in Ireland - a ringing endorsement. 63% turned out for the last American presidential election, the highest since 1968. The legitimacy of either systems is beyond reproach.

You continuously mistake your personal beliefs as being applicable to the general public and that's simply not true. Just because the people you associate with or the articles you choose to read support your beliefs does not make it a majority view. Election after election proves you wrong.

You also make this mistake many do that just because you vote for something you'll get it. I mean, we could all vote to have no taxes, but no responsible Government will do that. There is such a thing as telling the electorate they can't have their pony. That's not an affront to democracy. That's responsible governance.

With regard to the NSA - it was 12 years ago to the day that the World Trade towers came down. The legislation that introduced a lot of this surveillance capability had overwhelming public support after the event because the general electorate there reacting irrationally to the perceived threat to their safety. Indeed if it had been put to the people no 9/12 I suspect the fate of American Muslims and the Middle east would not have good. The electorate may have changed their minds now that the memory of 9/11 has receded but that's my point - the electorate can and do act irrationally - sometimes more then their politicians.

Seriously - there are good reasons why Ireland's representative democracy is the way it is, much like every other western democracy.

Read up on Public Choice Theory and specifically rational ignorance to get a more nuanced theory on the relationship between the public and political system.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't believe the government is there to tell us what's best for us, they're there to do what we tell them to do. They are our public servants, not babysitters.

Neither of these statements is correct. You are labouring under fundamental misconceptions about government.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I suppose that's where we fundamentally disagree about the function and purpose of government. No amount of debating is going to change either opinion I don't believe the government is there to tell us what's best for us, they're there to do what we tell them to do. They are our public servants, not babysitters.

They are our representatives, not our servants, there is a huge difference.

Michael Collins went to London and got three-quarters of the job done and has been criticised (and ultimately killed) ever since for not getting the whole job done, even though it was an impossible task. We still expect the impossible from our politicians. The average person wants low taxes on me and high social welfare for my friends while taxing someone else in a way that doesn't affect me i.e. some rich person out there who won't really mind while at the same time ensuring a cheap and plentiful supply of booze.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's fair enough. But ask yourself, is either country run in a way that a majority of the people are actually happy with? Most people seem pretty pissed off at the culture of elitism and impunity which rules the day in Ireland. The US issues with the NSA could never have happened in a more democratic system - these are just two examples.
As I say, it's a personal opinion, I'm not suggesting I'm right about it. But I will continue to campaign for more democracy as ultimately I believe that the will of the people is by far the lesser of two evils - our current system allows people in high places, such as banks and large corporations, to buy public policy even when it goes against the wishes of almost everybody. In my view, that is the worst possible system imaginable.

After the next general election, FF, FG and Labour who have been in all governments since the start of the state will have a majority of votes and seats. So, your statement that "Most people seem pretty pissed off at the culture of elitism and impunity which rules the day in Ireland." is not backed up in the ballot box. The truth is actually more nuanced. While a lot of people (possibly even a majority) are unhappy with some of the decisions that have been taken in the last five years and with some of the politicians who have taken them, the vast majority of the people are happy enough with our system of governance.

You are making the common mistake of assuming that because the system of governance is churning out the "wrong" decisions that the system needs to be changed when in actual fact the problem lies with the raw material (politicians from FF) which we put into the system in the general election of 2007 which was the real problem.

It is a classic Irish reaction, blame the system for out own failures.

micosoft

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24055400

And this is exactly what happens in Hatpatricks version of "democracy"

hatrickpatrick

micosoft wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24055400

And this is exactly what happens in Hatpatricks version of "democracy"

Problem? If I lived there I'd sure as hell be in favour of gun control, I think their current setup is crazy, but if the rest of my fellow constituents didnt agree I'd have to accept that as a democratic decision. That's the price you pay for living in a participatory democracy and it'd be a price I'd be willing to pay.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Problem? If I lived there I'd sure as hell be in favour of gun control, I think their current setup is crazy, but if the rest of my fellow constituents didnt agree I'd have to accept that as a democratic decision. That's the price you pay for living in a participatory democracy and it'd be a price I'd be willing to pay.

That's the point though. People are by and large reasonably happy with the system we have. Grand most would want it tweaked but judging from party manifestos and no of independents there is absolutely no desire for the overhaul that direct democracy would require.

That doesn't and shouldn't prevent you arguing for direct democracy but does mean that the system we have is democratic and calling it undemocratic means you have to ignore democratic polls. Obviously your system could be implemented if you could convince the majority that it is better. In that situation people who disagree would have to live with it just as you have to in the current environment.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Problem? If I lived there I'd sure as hell be in favour of gun control, I think their current setup is crazy, but if the rest of my fellow constituents didnt agree I'd have to accept that as a democratic decision. That's the price you pay for living in a participatory democracy and it'd be a price I'd be willing to pay.

The recall elections in Colarado largely seem to have been the plaything of out-of-state interest groups with a small subset of Colorado voters - not them all - being put on the spot as a result.

This would be equivalent in Irish terms to having the Oireachtas make a decision on, let's say, Schengen and then having interest groups from other EU member states piling in to force recall elections in marginal seats here to "swing" the Oireachtas' decision.

Do that a few times and pretty soon our politicians would start making decisions based not on what they thought was right for us nor on what "the people" thought was right for us but rather on what those outside interest groups who might target their seats thought.

The Colorado situation is the worst of all worlds. It is neither representative democratic decision making nor is it direct referendum decision making. Instead it is "opinion poll" decision making with the clear purpose of intimidating legislators in Colorado and other states.

micosoft

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Problem? If I lived there I'd sure as hell be in favour of gun control, I think their current setup is crazy, but if the rest of my fellow constituents didnt agree I'd have to accept that as a democratic decision. That's the price you pay for living in a participatory democracy and it'd be a price I'd be willing to pay.

Yes there is a problem - your democracy is far worse then the current system in that the influence of special interests and money is far greater with snap votes.

Would you read the article on public choice theory I posted three posts ago? It explains succinctly why the logical thing for most members of the electorate to do is not to engage in every possible political activity in a given country but vote for someone to do that and let them get on with living their lifes. That's what people want and that's what they vote for.

Good loser

micosoft wrote: »

Yes there is a problem - your democracy is far worse then the current system in that the influence of special interests and money is far greater with snap votes.

Would you read the article on public choice theory I posted three posts ago? It explains succinctly why the logical thing for most members of the electorate to do is not to engage in every possible political activity in a given country but vote for someone to do that and let them get on with living their lifes. That's what people want and that's what they vote for.

Excellent post. The guy's opinions are shallow and populist. We need less populism (FF above all) rather than more.