direct democratic republic

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
hello,
i have been tortured by this idea of directly representing ourselves for about 30 years now. i started a forum to dissect and discuss my ideas as well as build a consensus to develop political parties, but trying to let you know about it here does breech the T&C ... i checked with the ATS gods first!!

so i figured, what if i post some thoughts here, and see how you guys react, and maybe i will copy and paste some of your responses and ideas back to where i am housing it.

if you are on facebook you can also participate there

so.

i propose, via long discussion and voting, the establishment of a global political movement. The main objective is to eliminate the systems of politic and party, that bind us all to a system we are disenfranchised with, or outright distrust.

via technological means, the proposal is to build a new "INTRANET" via some secure means parallel to, and separate from the internet.

this would be run to everyone's homes. with some kind of secure access portal, that would enable EVERY person to directly submit, vote and learn about new law, existing law, and societal needs.

for example, why cant 20 or 30 of the top accountants/economists all submit a budget? why cant you or i have some say about how our taxes are allocated? through direct democracy these things would be possible.

i dont have all the answers, hell maybe all i have is some good ideas. but the point of this system is i don't need to. the internet has brought the entire world together. using this, a platform and policy can be developed and a party formed to run in elections everywhere in the western democratic nations.. and in fact anywhere enough people were interested!

im not using this to drive you to my forum ... since i like ATS and i dont want to lose my membership.

im also not putting this here for you to tell me why it cant work, i know it has elements that cant work. right now.
but, if you see a reason it cant work, post that... AND a suggestion of what could help it work.

everytime i talk with people they say that cant work because... and the reason is some part of the existing system. once they realise we are able to change anything we want, it gets easier.

its the 21c. we can design an entirely new society from the ground up. so dont get locked in the box when you are thinking.

the first question i asked myself was... why wont this work. then i ask, what can i change to make it work?

i am more than interested in you opinions.
please make them count.




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by okamitengu
 


i am a fan of this motivation and have had similar thoughts and desires for the internet to be utilized to form a global community

one problem that comes to mind is the many people who dont have computers or internet access (most likely in poverty or in third world countries) wont have representation for themselves?

anyhow ive had many concepts on what to include for an online network community (with politics)

i think one important thing to keep in mind is how to get people to be active in a global community on the internet
maybe a lot of people spend a lot of time on facebook but that doesnt necessarily mean that everyone will be willing to log on to their political website even each month



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
What happens when, for example, a minority applies for a business license in a small tightly knit town that is intolerant of that minority's culture or other societal label and they democratically vote against the business license despite a possible need for the business?

Would agricultural areas have policy that is voted upon by citizens in a nearby industrial area? Would this present a bias between the voters?

Who determines who the top economists are? Economics is not a single theory, it is a mass of theories. Look at the city of Atlanta, GA in Fulton County. Fulton County stretches from N. GA through Central GA and into S. GA, each of these areas of GA are marked by vastly different economies. Those who live in Northern Atlanta have better accessibility to technology and have a high median income, they also inhabit what in GA is known as the Red Sea (Staunchly Republican, with a good portion on the far right). Those who live in South, West, and East Atlanta have low to middle median incomes and inhabit what is known as the Blue Island (Staunchly Democratic, with a good portion on the farther left). Population density in the areas other than the Northern section (where there are also larger plots of land) would misrepresent the Northern area. That is their chief complaint now, their tax revenues pay for projects in the lower income areas and they feel unrepresented in some regards. They would be very against welfare economics, where its argued the other areas are welfare dependent in many regards.

I think that you've got a good idea but there will need to be representation, pure democracy can be pretty inhumane.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Government by the mediocre, taken to the extreme.

I can depict for you what will happen after a period of time. It'll look essentially like smart motivated people getting tired of your bs and removing you from the process. In a more profound way than they do right now.

Further, most of you will not participate most of the time. So, your direct democracy will distill down to a small group less than 30% of the population, who will control most decisions. Probably 10%-25% most of the time. This is not direct democracy - this is direct voter fascism taken to a modern format.

Which is fine with me on a personal level, as I'd be one of those 30%. However, as someone who actually likes modern civilization and admires the principles of enlightenment governance and understands the problems of regionalism, I have to object based on my ethics.
edit on 2012/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Democracy and republic are contradictory. If a majority can eliminate civil rights, its not a republic, if a republic does not respect a groups interests, it is not democratic.

No form of government works. All systems of government can and does become corrupted and destructive. Will comes from individuals, the best we can do is get along by individual means and stop the failed policy of trying to control people.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by trust_no_one
reply to post by okamitengu
 

i am a fan of this motivation and have had similar thoughts and desires for the internet to be utilized to form a global community
one problem that comes to mind is the many people who dont have computers or internet access (most likely in poverty or in third world countries) wont have representation for themselves?
anyhow ive had many concepts on what to include for an online network community (with politics)
i think one important thing to keep in mind is how to get people to be active in a global community on the internet
maybe a lot of people spend a lot of time on facebook but that doesnt necessarily mean that everyone will be willing to log on to their political website even each month


not everyone will want to involve themselves with all aspects. But I think a kind of civic responsibility would need to be pushed. (part of revamp of education)
if you told someone they could decide on things that directly affect them, I think you would find participation increase.
The representation issue is actually simple. As part of the establishment of the system, secure end user devices would be installed. There are so many detailed facets of how to actually implement any of this, that it is difficult to cover here in a single introductory post.



Originally posted by mretgis
What happens when, for example, a minority applies for a business license in a small tightly knit town that is intolerant of that minority's culture or other societal label and they democratically vote against the business license despite a possible need for the business?

Would agricultural areas have policy that is voted upon by citizens in a nearby industrial area? Would this present a bias between the voters?

Who determines who the top economists are? Economics is not a single theory, it is a mass of theories. Look at the city of Atlanta, GA in Fulton County. Fulton County stretches from N. GA through Central GA and into S. GA, each of these areas of GA are marked by vastly different economies. Those who live in Northern Atlanta have better accessibility to technology and have a high median income, they also inhabit what in GA is known as the Red Sea (Staunchly Republican, with a good portion on the far right). Those who live in South, West, and East Atlanta have low to middle median incomes and inhabit what is known as the Blue Island (Staunchly Democratic, with a good portion on the farther left). Population density in the areas other than the Northern section (where there are also larger plots of land) would misrepresent the Northern area. That is their chief complaint now, their tax revenues pay for projects in the lower income areas and they feel unrepresented in some regards. They would be very against welfare economics, where its argued the other areas are welfare dependent in many regards.

I think that you've got a good idea but there will need to be representation, pure democracy can be pretty inhumane.


You know, im glad you brought this up. I don’t think there needs to be representation as you describe it, but many many things couldn’t be done at the local level. They would need to be overseen by some kind of upper level. Again, I wouldn’t want representatives to decide on things at this level, just to ensure civil rights, equality and distribution of resources.
But, its not up to me. That’s the point. Im going to copy and paste this post specifically to the forum as it has a lot of points I would like to address in MUCh greater detail and this site, isn’t really the place for it.
In short somethings would be local, something’s would be… im going to say national, but that’s really just a word to describe a concept that is familiar to you.. (and me)
What levels of who does what would need to be nutted out. Again, I DO NOT have all the answers.
How would you suggest this work?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Government by the mediocre, taken to the extreme.

I can depict for you what will happen after a period of time. It'll look essentially like smart motivated people getting tired of your bs and removing you from the process. In a more profound way than they do right now.
Further, most of you will not participate most of the time. So, your direct democracy will distill down to a small group less than 30% of the population, who will control most decisions. Probably 10%-25% most of the time. This is not direct democracy - this is direct voter fascism taken to a modern format.
Which is fine with me on a personal level, as I'd be one of those 30%. However, as someone who actually likes modern civilization and admires the principles of enlightenment governance and understands the problems of regionalism, I have to object based on my ethics.
edit on 2012/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

I love how you set yourself apart from the beginning of this post. Elitist much?
Some things would require compulsory participation. (not very familiar to you americans, but other countries survive with their civic duty)
And getting tired of my BS? How is it my BS if im just getting the ball rolling. I don’t want anything out of this but to get rid of politicians and build a better world for my son.
Since the system would be designed from the start to include everyone, there would be no way to “remove me from the process” as you put it.
Im curious, what percentage of the population (in your country) currently control most decision’s? is it higher than 30%?
If American politics is ruled by big money and corporate interests I would wager FAR less that 30%, and occupy groups would probably say 1-2%
Don’t get me wrong I appreciate your personal insight, but this post is very condescending, and not at all geared towards contributing.
Thanks for trying… or not trying.


Originally posted by filosophia
Democracy and republic are contradictory. If a majority can eliminate civil rights, its not a republic, if a republic does not respect a groups interests, it is not democratic.

No form of government works. All systems of government can and does become corrupted and destructive. Will comes from individuals, the best we can do is get along by individual means and stop the failed policy of trying to control people.


The problem is I only have words to describe the system, and in order to make it understood I need words that invoke a certain idea.
A majority CAN NEVER remove a set of basic human rights, I LOVE the American constitution. Maybe not as it is now, but having a bill of rights and a constitution enshrining some things is a brilliant idea, and one no political movement should consider being without.
The 2 tiered system has survived for 2000 or more years. It’s a good concept. Its one I would continue. However, making the upper level work well with the lower level is something that needs to be wrestled with…. Maybe constantly.
The system we have now is only geared to control people. How do we let go of that?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Yes, I'm elitist on this. You want my vote to be cancelled out by you forcing stupid people who don't care and will vote based on some ad.

No.

You can't force people to care about all these issues. Even if you wanted to force them to.

I am not American. I'm Canadian. Direct Democracy would mean that people in Montreal was making decisions for people in the middle of Northern Territories, when they are not stakeholders. This is not a system for success.

I am not a fan. I see problems with it, and because I know your system has problems which are serious you attack me. Problems are contributing. Your system has killer problems.
edit on 2012/2/15 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


you misunderstand, im not attacking you. im disputing you.

you simply misunderstand what i am suggesting, instead you are implementing your own idea of what i am suggesting.

people in montreal would have say over montreal, AND contribute to larger issues, exactly as they can now. just without politicians in the way.

thanks again for contributing



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by okamitengu


You know, im glad you brought this up. I don’t think there needs to be representation as you describe it, but many many things couldn’t be done at the local level. They would need to be overseen by some kind of upper level. Again, I wouldn’t want representatives to decide on things at this level, just to ensure civil rights, equality and distribution of resources.
But, its not up to me. That’s the point. Im going to copy and paste this post specifically to the forum as it has a lot of points I would like to address in MUCh greater detail and this site, isn’t really the place for it.
In short somethings would be local, something’s would be… im going to say national, but that’s really just a word to describe a concept that is familiar to you.. (and me)
What levels of who does what would need to be nutted out. Again, I DO NOT have all the answers.
How would you suggest this work?


The local level is where the most impact on daily life is made and would be critical for advancing this idea I think, but it poses its own challenges because of the vast amount of decisions that need to be made.

Another local challenge is municipal resource management, many cities use water, sewage, and refuse services as income generators. How will these municipalities be managed and if it is left to a corporate entity would this just be a different shade of gray?

Another challenge I see and I think another poster brought this up, non-participation. To give people a benefit of a doubt and say that non-participation wouldn't be caused by apathy but rather an over abundance of information. The burden, though justified, is that voters will be faced with a large range of social issues that they may lack an understanding for. There may also just be 'too much' and some voters could feel overwhelmed or not be able to discern a starting point. Oft when an individual lacks an appreciation for a starting point they respond by not starting at all.

National politics are important for macro level policies, culture, sovereignty, diplomacy, trade, and many more. National agendas though are very different than state agendas who also face the same dilemmas but are focused to a smaller social and cultural group. Likewise this is also true for districts, counties, cities, and I've even seen "business corridors (essentially a business zoned street)" have their own governmental body. Without each of the small parts the large parts crumble but also vice versa.

Famous sociologist Emile Durkheim attributes a lack of social integration as well as rapid social change to cause deviant behaviors in individuals. While some deviant behavior is only relevant to the views of a dominant social agency other deviant behaviors can arise from tensions between local social groups who are unable to continue identifying with the larger social body. Hegel and Marx appreciate such tensions as they contribute a conflict which for them is a tool instituting change. Durkheim agrees in a limited context where Hegel and Marx propose a constant conflict to inflict growth.

Implementing a change to self-representation would have to be a slow process to maintain a functional social body within local communities. I would say that we would need to start small, smaller even than voting, I would start with subjecting policy to review by a jury of peers. The local jury could then impose deadlines for votes and respond to non-participation by entering a decision on behalf of the citizenship if the turnout doesn't make a threshold of accepted participation.

For reference:
Emile Durkheim
Division of Labor, published 1893 France

This book is essential reading for anyone interested in advancing society and how we are impacted by society. It was written during a great time of change and some things which Durkheim faced are relatively similar to what we face in the modern century. I'm sure a free version is available online. This wiki article does not directly address what I mentioned above, but is the reference for it. There are many scholarly articles that address Durkheim's views. Pay special attention to Anomie

Rules for the Sociological Method also has some good information but its more for forming Sociology as a science (He is considered the father of Sociology)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Democracy and republic are contradictory.

This is a common misconception, usually by US citizens. Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία) was first established in ancient Athens and that's what Greeks still call it today. Republic (Latin: res publica) is what the ancient Romans called it after they copied it from ancient Athens some 200 or 300 years later.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


It has no more problems than representative government, all other things being equal.

What you argue against is centralism, not direct government.



I am glad you brought this up OP, I had very similar thoughts lately. There is simply no reason for representatives in this day and age.

Direct government also does not have to be pure simple majority democracy. There can be a constitution which would require 2/3 of votes or more to change, just like in a republic. There can also be quorums.

I have yet to see a single good argument against direct government (in favor of representative one) which would be valid, or wont be a strawman.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
All other things are not equal, and never could be.

So I assume in your system, that we all vote instead for representatives for International affairs. Or are we all voting every day on those matters to?
edit on 2012/2/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
So I assume in your system, that we all vote instead for representatives for International affairs. Or are we all voting every day on those matters to?
edit on 2012/2/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


We would vote when its needed (when something is proposed) and when we want to.



All other things are not equal, and never could be.


Why not?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Generally speaking, I think it makes sense to more democratically involved systems of governance as you get to lower levels. It doesn't work well at larger levels for some of the reasons mentioned by Aeons and others.

I've run several political campaigns here in the US, for both major parties and a few independents, and the one universal truth is the majority of the population is disaffected, apathetic, misinformed, or worse. It is a very sad situation that is the product of a broken education system for sure and probably the decline of adult involvement in their children's lives.

But anyway, the examples of direct democracies show what happens, as does Thucydides. A populist demogogue will invariably capture the spirit of the people (think Pericles), and will take power and control with their consent and desire. Most people have no desire for the day to day management of things that is the unfortunate reality of the modern social welfare state.

I'm sympathetic to the impulse, and I think a good compromise is found in having a referendum process whereby citizens can make laws, but would shy away from having a system requiring everyone to participate all the time.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


International decisions alone would be voting everyday on all sorts of matters, everyone spending their time boning up on every little detail.

Most people aren't capable of that. I'm sorry, I know that people want to think that they are but they aren't.

Or is your idea to essentially leave most decisions to bureaucrats?


Are you asking me why things aren't equal? Because the difference between my intelligence level and the intelligence level of the bottom end of the bell curve is vaster than the difference between someone in the middle of the bell curve and a chimpanzee.

That's reason one. We can start going off on how resources are not equally distributed on the planet and they don't magically become so because it creates inconvenient levels of disparity. Or how differences in cultural and religious memes cannot be evened out because you just really really want them to be. Or that if you did, you'd be utilizing force to do so proving inequality of force and lattitude of action based on some criteria like intelligence, knowledge, resources....

I believe strongly in equality amoung humans. This really isn't the issue at hand in accounting for stakeholders, or cohesivity of political boundaries.
edit on 2012/2/16 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


For those who are more intelligent than others, what do you see as legitimate and illegitimate means through which governance can be exerted over them?

I don't want to misquote you, Aeons, but I'm genuinely curious what sort of government you think would be most desirable given the observable inequality in individuals. In democratic systems, the presumption has usually been that no entity/group has the right to make those determinations, specifically because of their flaws, which is why this inefficient system has been accepted so often.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 




That voting everyday on all sorts of matters, eveyone spending their time boning up on every little detail. Most people aren't capable of that. I'm sorry, I konw that people want to think that they are but they aren't. Or is your idea to essentially leave most decisions to bureaucrats?


Another positive - the laws and bureucracy would get simpler. Noone would propose, or vote for 10 000+ page bills.



Are you asking me why things aren't equal? Because the difference between my intelligence level and the intelligence level of the bottom end of the bell curve is vaster than the difference between someone in the middle of the bell curve and a chimpanzee.


Even if we take your rather elitist opinion that common people are stupid (when compared to politicians) as true, what is worse, a bit stupider lawmakers or intelligent, but corrupt lawmakers? Direct government would make corruption impossible.

And if you really think it would be such a problem, simple modification with vote weight based on tests and/or education would solve it. Again, no need for representatives.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 




That's reason one. We can start going off on how resources are not equally distributed on the planet and they don't magically become so because it creates inconvenient levels of disparity. Or how differences in cultural and religious memes cannot be evened out because you just really really want them to be. Or that if you did, you'd be utilizing force to do so proving inequality of fo


How is this different than problems of representative state?

I believe any state can function without great problems only if the culture, religion and even class differences are not very high. But thats a different topic.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The system in place where I am could be tweaked a bit and I'd be pleased enough with that. Some extra decisions rolling down to the populace, better controls on constituency boundaries to make it harder for sitting governments to game the next election, fiscal restraints put on campaign contributions.

What I would really like to see:

The current system were I am could have the Senate replaced. The House of Commons has taken over that function, and I see room for a variation of your system replacing what the original House of Commons was supposed to do but with cabinet ministers still as elected positions. Then the current House of Commons could be renamed, to the Senate since they have take over the job the Senate used to do. The Senate would be voter elected.

For international consortiuums making decisions that have the force of laws inside their member states, I would like to see those positions not be appointed, but voter driven.

Further, I would like to see Lobby Groups significantly more regulated, but in a New Senate given some predefined portofolios positions which are constituent driven in those groups. These would not be full Senate positions, but given a partial vote so that the Lobby groups would have to work together to achieve a vote.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join