Direct Democracy cuts through all the crap

reply to post by Honor93


I keep seeing that argument.

The have a representative government that makes laws. They don't sit and vote on everything they just veto if enough signatures are gathered against a particular law.

For example, if a law passes like the Repeal of Glass–Steagall, watchdog groups would have been out there getting the petition signed and with that the government is forced to put it to a vote. Maybe on that one issue the US citizens would have come together but even if they hadn't then things would be the same as the are today. The only difference is that they would have had the chance to stop it which was never an option under the current system.

Everything else stays the same so I don't understand why it wouldn't work when it can be implemented with 99.9% of what is already in place.

reply to post by daskakik

i'm not following your argument because the US system (although not a parliamentary one) does allow for such a referendum but it is seldom practiced.
why the desire to change a government structure simply to exercise an existing right of the people?

edit to add: all laws on all levels can be called into question via referendum ... getting the ball rolling is another story though and generally, time is of the essence in such an effort.

Originally posted by Aeons
Oh no. I have no interest in elitist scoundrels continuing to make decisions that over ride everyone else.

However, that doesn't mean that I buy into your logical fallacy of that YOUR solution of being tyrannized by a majority somehow more appealing. This isn't an either-or situation.

edit on 2011/11/24 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Please enlighten us what is the third option. Either government is controlled by selected minority, or majority. There is no other way.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Maslo

 

The problem with direct democracy is that checks and balances can be removed with a simple vote.

The same is in essence true for constitutional republic. The difference is, in constitutional direct democracy, its the votes of the people, in constitutional republic, its the votes of the representatives.

NO it is not the same, in a CR ... the representatives are supposed to vote the voice of the ppl which may be a minority opinion and they should change regularly which is also intended to reflect the voice of the ppl they represent, regardless if the opinion is of the majority or minority, it is represented at the highest levels of decision making.

In a DD, you lose your voice if you are not in the majority.

The representatives are voted in by majority vote, ergo they always represent the voice of the majority, never the voice of the minority (representing minority at the expense of majority is the best way to not get elected the second time). The difference is, they represent it indirectly, which is suspectible to corruption.

reply to post by Honor93

the Swiss, collectively, total less than 1/3 the population of Texas ... how is that any kind of comparison or evidence of success ??

Why should absolute number of people in a country matter for the government system?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

i'm not following your argument because the US system (although not a parliamentary one) does allow for such a referendum but it is seldom practiced.
why the desire to change a government structure simply to exercise an existing right of the people?

Well doing a quick search and pulling up a wikipedia page gives me:

There is no provision for the holding of referendums at the federal level in the United States; indeed, there is no national electorate of any kind. The United States constitution does not provide for referendums at the federal level. A constitutional amendment would be required to allow it. However, the constitutions of 24 states (principally in the West) and many local and city governments provide for referendums and citizen's initiatives.

This leads me to believe that the citizens would not have been able to stop the repeal of Glass-Steagall or any other federal law.

I believe that the right of the people was what the founding fathers had in mind, just my opinion, why wouldn't an american citizen want to get back to that fundamental principle?

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Honor93

 

If you had read the thread you would have seen that the Swiss have a system very similar to the US but the people can veto laws and call for amendments. It is DD within CR. It works for the Swiss and I'm sure that it could work for the US but like I said on page 2 of this thread getting americans on-board would be the hard part.

The Swiss system would not be sustainable in the US. The size of the US alone would create regional differences alone. You can operate it within a single state and maybe get away with it; however, as I have said before , just look at california. That system is the primary cause of the political volatility of the state not the perceived liberal political bias out there.

Originally posted by daskakik

There is no provision for the holding of referendums at the federal level in the United States; indeed, there is no national electorate of any kind. The United States constitution does not provide for referendums at the federal level. A constitutional amendment would be required to allow it. However, the constitutions of 24 states (principally in the West) and many local and city governments provide for referendums and citizen's initiatives.

This leads me to believe that the citizens would not have been able to stop the repeal of Glass-Steagall or any other federal law.

I believe that the right of the people was what the founding fathers had in mind, just my opinion, why wouldn't an american citizen want to get back to that fundamental principle?

The founding fathers were scared to death of the people at large (mainly the mob mentality and stupidity). They witnessed what happened with the debtor revolutions in colonial state governments following the revolutionary war. The system is going to have to be tweaked but not changed from it's core. There used to be gentleman's rules type game played in congress. Compromises were made, but now its a "we don't negotiate" mentality and the people who would be in charge of the voting applaud them for that stance because they are sticking to their "principals' while really they are sabotaging the whole system.

The country was never intended to be a direct democracy. That's why the philosophy of the one, few and many was instituted. it is reflected in the rhetoric of the time and it was how the country was founded, even the shape of the government follows this principle.
One = Executive Branch
Few = Judicial
Many = Congressional
Its a core concept of American political theory

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Aeons
Oh no. I have no interest in elitist scoundrels continuing to make decisions that over ride everyone else.

However, that doesn't mean that I buy into your logical fallacy of that YOUR solution of being tyrannized by a majority somehow more appealing. This isn't an either-or situation.

How can it be a logical fallacy if it exists? You have no proof that there would be tyranny under that system. The Swiss system proves you wrong.

Maslo asked what would be the ideal form of government and nobody even offered an answer. If it isn't either-or then what?

The Swiss system proves why I'm right.

That system worked because of being a small geographic area with a mostly homeogenous population. A population which is relatively well dispersed over the area of the country minimizing regionalism.

As they are Balkanizing the population, that system is beginning to see cracks. Radicalization. Lack of cooperation.

(wrong thread!)

Originally posted by Aeons
The Swiss system proves why I'm right.

That system worked because of being a small geographic area with a mostly homeogenous population. A population which is relatively well dispersed over the area of the country minimizing regionalism.

As they are Balkanizing the population, that system is beginning to see cracks. Radicalization. Lack of cooperation.

No it doesn't. It proves it works in a small country but that in no way means it wouldn't work in a larger country.

Any links to prove that they are being Balkanized. Lack of cooperation wouldn't mean anything because the are a constitutional republic with a representative government which means that even if they can't agree to use their veto power things still move along.

Originally posted by cypruswolf
The system is going to have to be tweaked but not changed from it's core. There used to be gentleman's rules type game played in congress. Compromises were made, but now its a "we don't negotiate" mentality and the people who would be in charge of the voting applaud them for that stance because they are sticking to their "principals' while really they are sabotaging the whole system.

Already pointed out that a Swiss type model would use 99.9% of what is already in place so no change to the core is needed. The only thing needed would be an amendment giving the people veto power through petition and referendum. That would mean that instead of Occupying or sending letters to representatives that couldn't care less the people could act for themselves.

reply to post by Maslo

The representatives are voted in by majority vote, ergo they always represent the voice of the majority, never the voice of the minority (representing minority at the expense of majority is the best way to not get elected the second time). The difference is, they represent it indirectly, which is suspectible to corruption.

this is where we strongly disagree.
representatives are chosen by a majority vote of the region represented ... not a majority of all voters.
in the last 50yrs of US voting, you will not find greater than a 70% voter response at the polls. like it or not, this failure to exercise the right to vote is directly effecting the outcome of said vote ... not just the majority opinion.

also, 2 neighboring regions may produce opposing majority votes which is how a "minority" opinion prevails. in a DD, any dissenting/opposing/minority opinion or vote is summarily dismissed.

the only part of your opening statement which is factually true is this ... "the representatives are voted in by majority vote" ... everything after that statement is a product of your imagination.

when a national minority opinion IS the majority vote of a specific region, that minority opinion remains represented throughout the legislative process. not so much in a DD styled government.

truthfully, the best way for Americans to embrace our own diversity is to replace said representatives, regularly (minus the lobbyists) ... which will be directly reflected in the legislative process.
IMHO, no representative should be permitted greater than 2 terms in their lifetime.
(and never consecutively)

since there are nearly 9 times the number of representatives vs states, they (the representatives) are supposed to be the "voice of the people" ... perhaps this is where the change should begin ??

and btw, all humans are susceptible to corruption ... their status of representation whether direct or indirect really has no impact on their susceptibility to being corrupted.

Why should absolute number of people in a country matter for the government system?

because a system based on a majority vote is quite dependent on the number of persons that equal the majority.
the Swiss, have a majority threshold of merely 3.8 million persons ... not 150+ million like the US.

so, considering quantity ... how would you rally some 150+ million ppl to vote the majority in any given situation??
considering present history, we the people don't seem to successfully influence the 400+ congress-critters elected to vote as OUR representatives. how is that their fault ?????

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik

 

i'm not following your argument because the US system (although not a parliamentary one) does allow for such a referendum but it is seldom practiced.
why the desire to change a government structure simply to exercise an existing right of the people?

Well doing a quick search and pulling up a wikipedia page gives me:

There is no provision for the holding of referendums at the federal level in the United States; indeed, there is no national electorate of any kind. The United States constitution does not provide for referendums at the federal level. A constitutional amendment would be required to allow it. However, the constitutions of 24 states (principally in the West) and many local and city governments provide for referendums and citizen's initiatives.

This leads me to believe that the citizens would not have been able to stop the repeal of Glass-Steagall or any other federal law.

I believe that the right of the people was what the founding fathers had in mind, just my opinion, why wouldn't an american citizen want to get back to that fundamental principle?

wiki huh ??? well, try a more succinct source like this one ... State I&R w/map

Every state allows the legislature to place a measure on the ballot. Every state except Delaware requires a popular vote to approve constitutional amendments.

i tend to think (based on your posts) that you are confused about the rights of the State vs the Federal govt. ... no Constitutional amendment is necessary to specify or outline rights already possessed, protected and practiced by the State.

getting the persons of the States to participate ... therein lies the challenge.

edit to add: using Glass-Steagal as any kind of example is a poor choice.
that legislation was akin to using a band-aid to set a compound fracture ... please choose a better example next time.
the PEOPLE have desired/wanted to End the Fed for years/decades now ... where is OUR representation? oh that's right ... he was murdered (see Kennedy)

reply to post by Honor93

when a national minority opinion IS the majority vote of a specific region, that minority opinion remains represented throughout the legislative process. not so much in a DD styled government.

Thats not because the system is representative, but because there are divided voting regions. The same thing can be accomplished by direct democracy divided into voting regions. There is simply no justification for representatives. Voting regions can be justified.

and btw, all humans are susceptible to corruption ... their status of representation whether direct or indirect really has no impact on their susceptibility to being corrupted.

To corrupt direct democracy law voting process, you would have to bribe millions of people. While theoretically possible, in practice its impossible. I would say that corporation that bribes millions into voting as it wants deserves the cake.

because a system based on a majority vote is quite dependent on the number of persons that equal the majority.
the Swiss, have a majority threshold of merely 3.8 million persons ... not 150+ million like the US.

so, considering quantity ... how would you rally some 150+ million ppl to vote the majority in any given situation??
considering present history, we the people don't seem to successfully influence the 400+ congress-critters elected to vote as OUR representatives. how is that their fault ?????

When I mean majority, I mean majority of those who vote, just like with normal elections, not all citizens. Those who do not care to vote even when they can effectively say "I dont care about this issue, let the others decide". Majority of those who care is who should decide about a law. It would still be far more people than now, when its only a few representatives.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by Aeons
The Swiss system proves why I'm right.

That system worked because of being a small geographic area with a mostly homeogenous population. A population which is relatively well dispersed over the area of the country minimizing regionalism.

As they are Balkanizing the population, that system is beginning to see cracks. Radicalization. Lack of cooperation.

No it doesn't. It proves it works in a small country but that in no way means it wouldn't work in a larger country.

Any links to prove that they are being Balkanized. Lack of cooperation wouldn't mean anything because the are a constitutional republic with a representative government which means that even if they can't agree to use their veto power things still move along.

edit on 25-11-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Sorry, still not feeling it.

And I'd go find you an example, but if what I think is happening does you'll be being provided with one in the next couple of years.

Homoegenous population. The part of what I said that you missed, and it isn't a throw away point.


People invest in leadership. That you don't understand this, and how this is essentially different than me believing that the mass of people who are mainly motivated by dinner and Dancing With The Stars have the right to absolute rule just shows that you don't understand people at all.

reply to post by daskakik

because the are a constitutional republic with a representative government

not with a parliamentary system, you would be confused or purposely trying to mislead the members, which is it?

in previous postings you claim the Swiss operate under Direct Democracy then this ???
i no longer believe you are confused ... more like purposefully muddying the waters ... shame on you.

Originally posted by Aeons
Sorry, still not feeling it.

And I'd go find you an example, but if what I think is happening does you'll be being provided with one in the next couple of years.

Homoegenous population. The part of what I said that you missed, and it isn't a throw away point.


People invest in leadership. That you don't understand this, and how this is essentially different than me believing that the mass of people who are mainly motivated by dinner and Dancing With The Stars have the right to absolute rule just shows that you don't understand people at all.

edit on 2011/11/25 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

I see that you haven't even taken the time to find out how the Swiss government works. They don't have absolute rule so painting your fellow citizens as fools and unable to make their own decisions is pointless.

I have checked it out. And the reason it works is HOMEOGENOUS POPULATION.

Which is why it is starting to crack, as the bureaucracy is cracking that population.

Originally posted by Honor93
wiki huh ??? well, try a more succinct source like this one ... State I&R w/map

Every state allows the legislature to place a measure on the ballot. Every state except Delaware requires a popular vote to approve constitutional amendments.

i tend to think (based on your posts) that you are confused about the rights of the State vs the Federal govt. ... no Constitutional amendment is necessary to specify or outline rights already possessed, protected and practiced by the State.

getting the persons of the States to participate ... therein lies the challenge.

Nice try but that isn't the power to veto individual pieces of legislature at the federal level. It would not have prevented the Repeal of Glass-Steagall no matter how many may have been against it. I&R is about proposing laws that congress can choose to ignore and they still don't have the power to veto whatever congress does push through.

I understand the rights of the State vs. Federal government that is why my example was a federal law.