Your Party - Direct Democracy for Great Britain

Your Party

Aims and Objectives

"Your Party aims to give the public genuine power to vote in the decisions they care about. We believe that society, like any other organisation, works best when people are engaged and involved in identifying both the issues and the solutions. That those solutions are much more likely to be of high quality when benefiting from the input from a wide range of society. And that those solutions are much more likely to be implemented when people have a sense of ownership, rather than a sense of imposition.

We believe that low voter turnout is not due to a lack of interest in issues - it’s a lack of trust and belief in politicians and the political process, and a lack of power to influence the issues they care about.

It's our intention to create a system where politicians vote in line with the public's wishes after a full debate of the issue in question. We start with no bias about the best way forward in the future and seek to find common ground between citizens of all persuasions."

As someone who personnally knows, Chris Rowe, who stood for election in Banbury/Bicester constituency I was wanting to get the views of you lot on:
A) Your Party
B) Direct Democracy
C) Any alternatives to the present Government structure of Britain and;
D) Any problems that exist with the British Government at the moment.

Thank you kindly;
Jayce

When I hear the phrase 'direct democracy' I shudder.

I wonder, does this mean umteen referenda put to the people ad infinitum?

I can't agree that this is a way forward at all.

I much prefer representitive democracy.
Whatever it's flaws it enables issues to be treated with a degree of seriousness that the drive to populism inherent in repeated referenda just cannot match, indeed I am surely not alone in seeing the scope for dangerous abuse in this referenda idea, am I?

Firstly there are a lot of checks and balances placed on referendums, on a major issue such as a change of the constitution it would be "illegal" not to vote but also you would need the general public and the states to both have a majority (and not a simple majority at that.) so that no "abuse" could happen. Also in some respects certain issues such as Fox Hunting, the War in Iraq, etc, should have been given to the public. The amount of "support" shown against the wat (if you agree for it or not) shows that a large majority of people did want their say. So why should they not be given it?

Secondly, it would be roughly two referendums a year at most. When yuo have a General Election there would only be one referendum, but you can have more then one issue covered. If you look at places like Switzerland there has never been an abuse of the Direct Democracy system nor has their even been a "fascist" verdict and they've been using the system since the 1880's.

Bump up,
bump up
and up.