Representive democracy V One part direct democracy

[Hiero]

Im one party direct democracy the reasons:
1) different parties become corrupt when they have to get funding off big corporations so they owe a debt to them in power 2) Can split the nation 3) having one party government then the people can have direct democracy ie in communities, in running of business factorie etc 4) There still can be votes for people to be in power of the party.

I have more reason and will express them thorughtout the debate.

If precautions are taken in making the government then leaders being paraniod of assanisations of lower power gready peoiple can be stoped and making the party eventually not as powerfull as the workers then it wont become corupt.

[Hoppe]

1) And the corruption will be gone with a one-party system? I don't think so.

2) People have different priorities and preferences

4) Or taking absolute power

[antieverything]

One-party direct democracy? Doesn't the idea of direct democracy imply the absence of parties since each citizen votes as an individual on every issue?

I think you are confused as to what direct democracy means. If you mean "democratic" centralism, then you are refering to a form of representative "democracy".

[Pete]

How about no party communalized and decentralized, though interconnected, direct democracy system?

The benefits is that everything would require a consensus (lesser being 85% greater being 100%), and the most extreme, such as war, would require the greater consensus, while the less pressing matters would require the lesser. People being able to air their voice would be locked into immobility on many actions, which is benifical as after a while only those that really matter will come up and they will be torn to shreds and put back together before coming up.

Also, everything would have to be voluntary. This means everything, from acutally doing work to getting an education. If you don't work then you won't be able to eat, as your production will be 0 and thus your intake will also be 0. Anyways, less corruption on a smaller scale, less waste, less bureaucracy.

Fuck the one party all aroudn, we have seen what it does in too many cases, leftist and not.

-Pete

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:35 PM
How about no party communalized and decentralized, though interconnected, direct democracy system?

The benefits is that everything would require a consensus (lesser being 85% greater being 100%), and the most extreme, such as war, would require the greater consensus, while the less pressing matters would require the lesser.
Agreed.

[Autarky]

What is the attractiveness of democracy?

[Y2A]

The USSR was a One-Party centralized "democracy", look what happened there.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If what you described as a one-party direct democracy where people elect party leaders existed, parties would begin to form to run candidates for the single party.

I kind of like Cuban democracy (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html)

[LSD]

What is the attractiveness of democracy?

The obvious, the people can control their own lives and society serves the interests of those who make it up.
Why? You have a better system?

[apathy maybe]

Direct Democracy is a tautology. Democracy is rule by the people. No where is there rule by the people. We have representativeocracy (what's the greek for representative?) in most 'liberal democracys'. There is a difference.


comrade neonate Posted on Feb 6 2004, 10:52 PM
I[n] one party direct democracy the reasons:
1) different parties become corrupt when they have to get funding off big corporations so they owe a debt to them in power 2) Can split the nation 3) having one party government then the people can have direct democracy ie in communities, in running of business factorie etc 4) There still can be votes for people to be in power of the party.
1) ban donations above a certain amount. (or just tax them at 100% above a certain amount).
2) wtf? Who gives a shit.
3) having no parties achives this. having many parties (such as 10 or more) achives this
4) who needs parties?

[Autarky]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 7 2004, 12:34 AM

What is the attractiveness of democracy?

The obvious, the people can control their own lives and society serves the interests of those who make it up.
Why? You have a better system?
Just asking.

I guess it's just unlucky to be in the minority.

[LSD]

I guess it's just unlucky to be in the minority.

Yes. But then that's true of pretty much any political system. No matter what governmental form is ostensibly present, if enough of the people are against something, it won't happen. It's just a sad fact of human society that the minority is overpowered by the majority. Be it through force or through legislation, numbers matter.

[Pete]

We are walking into the age of dictatorships, which after reading most of this (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/) site seems amazingly obvious. It also makes me sick in the stomach... A few witty quotes that make me laugh with a bad aftertaste...

Democracy is going to be challenged shortly due to economics very soon, and the outcome is laying in the future, yet it seeds are in the present. If you want a dictatorship, then be happy for the next 100 years. Then wait for your fall, and a new age will rise. And I sound like a crazy apolocolyctic fool.

[DEPAVER]

"Primitive" societies carried out the anarchistic ideal, truly democratic societies, living in place, based on community, mutual aid, self-reliance and self-responsibility. The good of the individual depended on the good of the community; social structures were maintained to balance the needs of the individual with the needs of the group.

Democracy should be implemented in the streets, in the communities and in the bioregion. If we cannot create a just and equitable society at the local level, how can we possibly hope to create a just and equitable nation at the continental level?

Democracy is simply rule by the people. Democracy recognizes nothing other than the people deciding their own fate. It says nothing about authority or majority rule. Majority rule is a particular form of representative republicanism used in the United States to prevent democracy. Majority rule means the ruling authority can still maintain control in spite of public opinion. Majority rule means the ruling minority need only convince a majority of the people who vote to go their way. This is not democracy.

Factor in economic control of elections in our corporate oligarchy and you have an electoral system unresponsive to the people, acting to support corporate interests.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Direct democracy is the only democracy. Representative democracy is a well-planned lie.

[Saint-Just]

I am not in favour of multi-party representative democracy or one party direct democracy. I advocate one party representative democracy, a synthesis of the two ideas.

[guerrillaradio]

Representative democracy is not democracy.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 12 2004, 07:16 PM
I am not in favour of multi-party representative democracy or one party direct democracy. I advocate one party representative democracy, a synthesis of the two ideas.
Who selects these "representatives?"

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+Feb 12 2004, 07:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DEPAVER @ Feb 12 2004, 07:59 PM)
Chairman [email protected] 12 2004, 07:16 PM
I am not in favour of multi-party representative democracy or one party direct democracy. I advocate one party representative democracy, a synthesis of the two ideas.
Who selects these "representatives?" [/b]
The 16/18+ electorate.

[DEPAVER]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 13 2004, 01:48 PM
"Who selects these "representatives?"

The 16/18+ electorate.
Hmmm.

And how do you arrive at this 16/18+ electorate?

A few nights ago, I was reading a book about the history of the Cherokee&#39;s and Chickasaw&#39;s in Tennessee when I ran across an interesting passage discussing the so called "weaknesses" of Cherokee town government I thought I&#39;d share:


"The king has neither guards, power or revenue. The council is not otherwise respected than as their merit entitles them to it; and both may forfeit their rank and dignity by meanness and cowardice. None of the dignitaries, whether hereditary or raised to office by merit, must have any power contrary to the will of the nation....The councils are attended by the whole nation, men, women and children. The progress of deliberation is frequently impeded, in order to consult the assembled nation. A few dissenting voices will often destroy the most salutary measures."- John Haywood

Sounds good to me&#33;

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by DEPAVER+Feb 13 2004, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DEPAVER @ Feb 13 2004, 02:08 PM)
Chairman [email protected] 13 2004, 01:48 PM
"Who selects these "representatives?"

The 16/18+ electorate.
Hmmm.

And how do you arrive at this 16/18+ electorate?

A few nights ago, I was reading a book about the history of the Cherokee&#39;s and Chickasaw&#39;s in Tennessee when I ran across an interesting passage discussing the so called "weaknesses" of Cherokee town government I thought I&#39;d share:


"The king has neither guards, power or revenue. The council is not otherwise respected than as their merit entitles them to it; and both may forfeit their rank and dignity by meanness and cowardice. None of the dignitaries, whether hereditary or raised to office by merit, must have any power contrary to the will of the nation....The councils are attended by the whole nation, men, women and children. The progress of deliberation is frequently impeded, in order to consult the assembled nation. A few dissenting voices will often destroy the most salutary measures."- John Haywood

Sounds good to me&#33; [/b]
A bit of an anarchic view. I don&#39;t think the majority of people under 16 or even 18 have the maturity to vote. To vote one must be capable of understanding some complex issues.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 13 2004, 05:30 PM
I don&#39;t think the majority of people under 16 or even 18 have the maturity to vote. To vote one must be capable of understanding some complex issues.
That might be true, but instead they can be prepared by asking them what they think about different issues, so that they can argue and start preparing themselves for the moment when they start using their power.