Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
What about some sort of hybrid constitutional republic and direct democracy?

Constitutional direct democracy. Republic with no representatives.

Yes, CDD with no representatives but lots of public servants, analysts, judges, some cops, reporters, accountants, etc. etc. So the people do not have to do all the work.

This is a very interesting thread! I am all for direct democracy.

and quite honestly shocked about how many votes are against direct democracy.

Let's look at switzerland, one of the most democratic nation on this planet:

- highest standard of living, zurich is always in the top3 in these statistics
- no involvements in wars since 700 years (except for self defense in WWII)
- amazing enoconomic numbers
- if you want to change something you only have to get 100 000 signatures of people who are for your idea and then this gets voted on by everybody. So even mindblowing things get a votation, like in the 1989 there was an initiative to get rid of the army, which got 35%. And the legalisation of cannabis which unfortunately did not get passed. (36% voted for for legalisation)

I ve never seen the states being really democratic when it comes down to voting for Dems or Reps, there are so many political subjects, stances and ideas it just cannot be covered by two parties alone (especially when they both have more or less the same programs, seems in the last ten years they both supported going into more wars...)

And to the side discussion about anarchy: in my knowledge there was never really a time or place in history with a working anarchy with no rulers. Even small indigene (spelling?) communities like in the jungle or on remote islands have their elders who sit together, discuss matters and take actions. It works more with respect than with force and is closer to the people than a government, but is also some sort of rulers.

On the other hand there is existingleaderless anarchy in so called failed states, like somalia. The result is a brutal 'the stronger gets it all' society with not much freedom and no justice.



Another add: the 'mob' subject: maybe i fail on understanding, in my book a mob is a group of people, mostly stirred by anger and has a negative subnote, like a gang or in 'mobbing'.
In a direct democracy decision have to have the consent of at least 50% of the voters. Which the majority of people, and not a mob.


And the last add ( it s bed time my brain is tired, but this is an important point) As mentionend before, for a direct democracy it is very important to have a good education system for everybody because everybody is a decision maker. but then again, if you have direct democracy you have a good education system because everybody wants their kids to have a good education and thus votes for it.

So thats it for today, heading of to sleep.
Keep up the good discussion

We are a REPUBLIC (as in Republicans) NOT a DEMOCRACY (as in Democarps). Granted, in the last 100 years we've let Liberals subvert our glorious PURE Republic form of Governance and control of the ignorant masses by the Blue Bloods, via introducing democratic representation and democratic methods, but rest assured, your owners care about you and don't want any of us rable in the majority 99% of the population to strain our puny little minds by making decisions for ourselves (sounds selfish doesn't it? making decisions for our selves?)

So, just wait until we go back to the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution, and remember, it isn't good enough to go back to the gilded age, we need to go back to the 1760s (or earlier).

Remember, individual liberty is only for those qualified ( your owners ) not YOU! Democracy in any form, direct or representative is MOB RULE! (Because it takes away power from your Blue Blood Masters).

Just watch FOX News, and turn off your brain and OBEY!

That is all.

Yes I am tired of the 2 party system representing the Corporatocracy.

What about Germany's system? Does anyone know about how it works? From what I understand, there are many political platforms, each with its own candidate. Each platform has a stated list of political ideas/values and issue commitments. And if 24% of the votes are cast for the Green Party, for example, then the legislative branch will be and must be filled to have 24% of the seats for representatives of the Green Party.

So, in America, there could be many parties, say for example, the dems and reps and several more independent parties. If 27% voted for Ralph Nader's Party, then 27% of the Congress must have members that represent the platform of Ralph Nader. I suppose this constitutes a rewrite of the Constitution? Or a Constitution Upgrade? Also, we would have to make a rule that says if your party member votes opposite of the stated platform, then they will be removed immediately from office by a vote somehow of the representatives of that party.

Please comment on this.

reply to post by ResistOrServe


Yes, when you want a party system, then proportional representation (like Israel has) is the way to go. Otherwise its not democracy.

Originally posted by ResistOrServe
Yes I am tired of the 2 party system representing the Corporatocracy.

What about Germany's system? Does anyone know about how it works? From what I understand, there are many political platforms, each with its own candidate. Each platform has a stated list of political ideas/values and issue commitments. And if 24% of the votes are cast for the Green Party, for example, then the legislative branch will be and must be filled to have 24% of the seats for representatives of the Green Party.

So, in America, there could be many parties, say for example, the dems and reps and several more independent parties. If 27% voted for Ralph Nader's Party, then 27% of the Congress must have members that represent the platform of Ralph Nader. I suppose this constitutes a rewrite of the Constitution? Or a Constitution Upgrade? Also, we would have to make a rule that says if your party member votes opposite of the stated platform, then they will be removed immediately from office by a vote somehow of the representatives of that party.

Please comment on this.

Both Germany and Switzerland are much wiser and fair and more representative than blood thirsty America. Why can't be be more like them? We just haven't been motivated, but now I think we are. We have been ignored and dumped on and exploited to the point where 99% of the People are pissed.

So now we grab the vote and the power and we decide what model we want to follow, and what political elements we want to include, such that we get what we want in the end. And if they don't want to appease us, then we will not please them. The main thing now is to set up a reliable voting process that tells us what the people really want; instead of what the mediocracy wants to sell us. Then we gotta start with the stuff everyone wants and move into debatable particulars as we get the time and consensus. Consensus can build quickly or slowly, as long as stay on track and get the people what they want.

The German, Swiss and tribal models certainly deserve to be emulated here.

reply to post by ResistOrServe


In Germany they have many political parties, currently
CDU Christian democratic union
CSU Christian social union
FDP Free Democratic Party formed a ruling coalition.

other (main) Parties are

SPD Sozial Demokratische Partei
Die Linke (The left) a spinoff of the SPD
Die Grünen (Greens)

Die Piratenpartei (Pirate party, very young, on subjects concerning web and privacy, would probably get many votes from ATS :-) Just got 10% in Berlin. (state level)

Check out the Wiki for how it works: Wiki[/url

There are more political parties which are smaller, some of them only operation on local / bundesland (state) level, get a full list here [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Germany]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Germany

Basically everybody can build his own political party. As well in switzerland. So you have everything covered from women rights to elder persons (The Greys !!) to animal rights, even the fascists have one.

Sometimes just funny ones as the "anti power-point" party
And not to forget the "Anarchist Pogo Party" by two punk musicians.

Originally posted by Ethericplane
Tired of the two party wrestling match?

Direct Democracy would empower the People to vote in new laws with a simple 2/3rds quorum. This quorum could be reached any day of the week if Internet Voting was continuous.

Internet voting could likely be made reliable if the voting was open ballot, open systems, and it contained a paper trail that was randomly verified by workers and the public. It would also require stiff penalties against tampering.

That aside, Direct Democracy could force Government to be economically responsible and environmentally sensitive in a week. It could end the war over night. It could fire underachievers and vote in measures and limits that would make the People feel in control again. It could ease out the Fed and dump the Patriot Act and even push out the NWO.

God only knows it would wake up the voters and get them involved like never before.

Anybody see an insurmountable problem with getting this?

I see a problem with this. A System such as this mean Majority Rules and it is exactly something our Forefathers did not want. Majority Rules does not protect the rights of the minority.

reply to post by MrWendal


Who rules in a current system?

Tyranny of the majority is not a democracy.

Therefore a direct appeal to direct representation that leaves all powers to the tyranny of the majority is absolutely a way to court disaster.

reply to post by Aeons

Tyranny of the majority is not a democracy.

What is democracy if not a tyranny of the majority?

Tyranny of the majority is not modern democracy. It is Electoral Fascism.

www.merriam-webster.com...

When the function of a true modern democracy is to represent the people, ignoring a minority and particularly a large minority is not representative of the electorate.

I don't argue that electoral fascism is within the greater definition of democracy. It simply isn't the only form possible. Frankly a republic is a form of democracy, even though in the US people are told otherwise.


I need to do some reading on more modern authours to get up to speed on the terminology people are currently using. There seems to have been a trend over the last 50 years at changing what everything means, provoking meaningless distinction, invoking complexity where there is none, ignoring simplicity, and believing that ignoring not just human nature but mammalian nature is some form of progressiveness. Like one can regulate away billions of years of evolution in the name of some undefined future of undefined superiority. Countered with meaningless appeals to a golden age of the past that didn't exist.

I think that what is needed here is some better definitions to hang things on. This seems to be the thing that has been under attack the most by all sides of any political debate. Definitions have become the enemy of everyone trying to control the populace in all the enlightenment electoral nations. Questioning this trend is attacked with some form of quasi-mystical claptrap about "labeling" being bad.

So, let us get ourselves some definitions here. Let us take back WORDS from the propagandizing attack dogs, and reclaim what is ours to define what the State is shall we?

Originally posted by Aeons
So, let us get ourselves some definitions here. Let us take back WORDS from the propagandizing attack dogs, and reclaim what is ours to define what the State is shall we?

edit on 2011/11/23 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

OK so what would you call a state where:
1. a constitution is the highest law of the land
2. on tha national level the people elect a president and depending on the percentage of votes for each party that participates in that election that party gets to place that percentage of its members in congress
3. at the local level the people vote directly for public officials
4. the people can contest laws passed at any level by petitioning for a referendum and strike down that law by a majority vote of 2/3
5. the people can call for a constitutional amendment by petitioning and have that amendment passed by a majority vote of 3/4

As far as I'm concerned you could call it whatever you want and it would still work better that what the US has today. Getting hung up on the labels and not what they represent, correctly or incorrectly, is a waste of time.

A system that completely ignores the function of having local representatives that are atuned to the local issues and the way they interplay with more global ones?

What is the use of a constitution that is changeable depending on mood of the populace this week?

How do you imagine that those with a larger minority opinion will react to being consistently overridden by the majority?

Originally posted by jcord
reply to post by Ethericplane

 

Yes. We should all quit our jobs and devote all the time necessary to researching and providing our thoughtful vote on the thousands of items that will require our action.

Lol we cant to that ! let us pay politicians to vote thousands of items , because they want ALL THE BEST for us, dont they ? and by the way they are the smartest people out-there too!

If you can refute this, with your desire for a Direct Democracy, then I will gladly discuss and debate why it would be a good idea:

Emphasis is mine --

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual

-James Madison, Federalist Papers #10

Madison continues in the same paper stating:

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

That is the reason that Democracy was feared by the Founding Fathers and why it was severely disseminated and diluted to the lowest levels of society. Where small groups have a propensity to have similar political rights, opinions and desires.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


That is about pure democracy vs. constitutional democracy, not about direct vs. representative one.

US can be turned into direct democracy by substituting representative congress voting with direct public voting.

reply to post by Aeons

That system does not ignore the function of local representatives any more than the current one.

You change core values and beliefs every week?

Larger minority? If that minority is large enough then they will not be overriden every time. From what I have seen it is the wealthy and/or a vocal minority that does most of the overriding. How is that any better?

ETA: You could also include a Bill of Rights that is untouchable by popular vote.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Of course he was talking about democracy in it's purest form and not within a constitutional republic. Besides the population has changed alot in the last 200+ years.