Direct Democracy

[maxfish17]

Almost all "democratic" nations currently use a system of Representative Democracy. For example with ridings or worse - electoral college like they have in the U$. This system is usually biased and your vote counts very little.

Direct democracy is very simple - when voting on an issue, instead of representatives of the people that other people in the riding that you happened to be in elected making a decision, each person's vote counts as "1" and they are added up.

The problem is that its hard to do in big countries....

[Michael De Panama]

I'm absolutely in favor of it.

[abstractmentality]

direct democracy brings back some of the legitimacy of authority of the state, but not all of it. its better than representative democracy, but it doesnt bring complete legitimacy of authority.

[The Ax]

Hey,
The thing is, you need to have a good voting infastructure so it is easy to call a vote whenever you want.

The Ax

[PunkRawker677]

what if you have 10 or 11 bills needed to be passed in one week? and at different times? It would be very difficult and most people would be turned off to voting altogether.. It is a great idea but would be very difficult to implement. It would need a great voting infastructure where people would vote only a few times a month at max..

[Ymir]

I support direct democracy.

[suffianr]

Direct Democracy?? Well, I think that essentially it means to...hang on, hey, there's a flying pig outside my window! Look, there it is! Oh no, there's some more!! ;)

[Edelweiss]

Switzerland has direct democracy. And though it is one of he most capitalist countries of the world, ruled by a bunch of bankers.

[evil chris]

Democracy is when people make an *active and meaningful* decions on how best to live their lives.
Voting on issues and voteing alone is *not* democratic.Voteing is when you pick from a group of options but before you.This may be ok for some things but ,as you will often see, the otptions put before you are not the best soultions in isolaton.
An actul Democratic system is Consensus based.When something comes up, the effected members thrash out the issue until the best soultion can be found.
It is virtually impossible to have a working democractive _state_ by the nature of State and Democracy.For it to be both Democratic and direct small groups are nessessary.In small groups people arel ess afriad to speak out, decions can be made faster and everyone can get a say.You will work better with people you know aswell, be more inclided to take on their ideas as they will yours.

[Edelweiss]

http://www.vote.org/swiss.htm

[suffianr]

Whoa. Forgive my ignorance, Malte. I'm impressed! My views on democracy have been somewhat influenced by the lack thereof in my country's (Malaysia) so-called "democratic" processes. Sadly, our notions of democratic governance paples in comparison.

[Rob]

Direct democracy is a great idea, it might just be difficult to implement worldwide.

[evil chris]

malte, with respect, a country run by thye bankers even more ovetly than our, cannot be truely democractic.
They are hugely wealthy and will not vote against capitalist policy.If they do, see if it get implemented.
This exemplalar state is also the one that did not allow womens's surrage untill 1971.
They also gave and contiune to give financhal security to Fascits around the globe, gettin fat off a policy of non intervention.
I would suggest that that is not in the imtrests of humanity and therefore not demcratic.

[Edelweiss]

I perfectly agree with you, chris. Just wanted to proof that there already is a country which has a more or less working direct democracy, it's not just an utopia as suffianr said. I think there will even be a direct vote on the immoral banking laws in the near future. Recently the population voted for joining the UN.
One more crime of the exemplar state: thousands of Jewish refugees were rejected at the Swiss borders during the Nazi rule in Germany.

[solidarityinactive]

Maybe the country in itself is not a good exemple with its bankers and stuff but the democratic process is maybe better that what is going on in North America these days...

¸We should reform the system.. In my country, Canada, the parliament is starting -well has been for a long time- to be corrupted, controlled by an elected dictatorship. I am not telling that we are oppressed and blablabla, cause I know some countries are under very much worst thing but I think we can always improove....

[evil chris]

why bandage a corpse?
Parliement is set -up so that a small elite can rule a nation.
To create a Democratice system these kind of inherently courrupt systems must be pulled down.

"Power is the end in itself" - O'Brian

[abstractmentality]

i like what you are saying evil chris. the major problem i have had with direct democracy is that if people vote on an issue, and its a close vote, say 55%-45%, then the law that was just passed does not prove to be a legitimate law for the 45% against it. but, if as you say, the people come together, and work together for the best possible solution, than that seems a little better.

[Infamy]

There would be no possible way for EVERYONE to agree on simple solutions. its a lose-lose situation, we either directly vote on a topic, and whatever wins, WINS. or we select representitives to negotiate things for us. if it were up to me, i would have to say we directly vote on it and let it be that. No matter the closeness of the vote.

[evil chris]

exactly abstract!
The Tyranny Of The Majority is still a tyrrany.
Things have to be propperly worked out.Closed votes are inherently undemocratic becuase the people don;t get a forum, they get Brand A and Brand B.
Conensus, the discussion of a problem and the finding of a good solution is the most direct for of democracy.

Respect man,
Chris

[RedRevolutionary87]

hmm 50 billion people come together to creat the best solution....come on be realistic. how about 50 people living in one community come together and find the best solution, then they get one of the to represent them in the rest of the country, and then the country finds the best solution, and if needed they find someone to tell the rest of the world, and if its a global problem then those people find the best solution for the world.

[abstractmentality]

when you start to get into representational democracy, things get a little more tricky. when this one person that is to represent the community goes to the community convention and tells of its desires, s/he will have to compromise with other community representatives. when your rep. does this, they alter what you wanted, and therefore lose the legitimacy of authority over you. you are now almost the equivalent of a minority voter in a majoritarian democracy.
(it sounded good in my head, at least...lol)


evil chris: was it J S Mill that gave the line "the tyranny of the majority over the minority?"

(Edited by abstractmentality at 8:06 pm on July 13, 2002)

[evil chris]

redrevoultionary - well done, you had a moment of clarity.

Abstract- possibly, i never really read much into Utilitarianism in detail but it sounds like he'd say it.I had Ary Rand in mind myself