direct democratic republic

wow, what great contributions on both sides.

i really didn't think there would be this much input, ... i HOPED, but didn't believe.

no matter whether you think it good bad, the fact we are discussing at all means that we can all at least, get our opinions heard.

our voices are heard.

i hope more people join this discussion, because there is only a small segment of opinion in here so far.

i especially applaud those who are against this... as it is your opposition that allows clarification of what those of us who like the idea are trying to put forward.

Originally posted by Maslo

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

...
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.

On your first point, definitely see this as a plausible outcome.

Corruption is still very easy to do. Manipulation is an art form, it is ugly and beautiful at the same time. Social engineering is becoming easier to achieve in the modern era. In times past societies could be whipped into compliance, and some still are, but it is easier achieved through 'the hearts and minds'. Getting rid of a representative body doesn't get rid of the lobbyists they will always be there.

There is no fair method of restricting votes or weighing votes based on individual merits or education. Once that door is opened it would get ugly fast. There is apparently very little interest in my post concerning social deviance but this is exactly a conflict generating method that will force a segment of the population to be unable to identify with the larger social body which will create a massive rift.

I too foresee that this would increase violence. In giving away a section of their personal power and investing it in someone else as a leader, people actually find reasons to not engage in violence.

Leadership has a legitimate role in intercultural violence, and this idea of direct democracy without modification fails to account for that.

To increase your "block" of power, people will engage in violence. Or they will engage in a creating regional blocks, where people of similar views/religions will group up to increase their voter power as stakeholders in decisions.

reply to post by mretgis

Corruption is still very easy to do. Manipulation is an art form, it is ugly and beautiful at the same time. Social engineering is becoming easier to achieve in the modern era. In times past societies could be whipped into compliance, and some still are, but it is easier achieved through 'the hearts and minds'. Getting rid of a representative body doesn't get rid of the lobbyists they will always be there.

In direct democracy, corruption is impossible by definition. There is simply noone to corrupt.

Now, persuading people, lying to people, manipulating people, lobbying etc.. is possible, but that is not corruption in true sense of the word. Corruption means bribing elected representatives or government officials.

If some corporation manages to bribe millions of ordinary people to vote for a law they want even if they originally did not want to vote that way, I say it deserves to have it.

There is no one to corrupt?

I'm speechless. That actually made me sputter out loud.

Everyone is open to being bought. Everyone is open to direct manipulation. Most of the population adhere swing voting, meaning that they completely understand the concept of block voting which in itself is a form of manipulation.

You really believe that people only cooperate for the "greater good."

The sheer lack of understanding of humans displayed just astounds me.

If this is the level of comprehension that proponents of this voting system have, you terrify me with your inability to project the consequences this would have on non-homogeneous populations, and a lack of comprehension of the investment of violence.

Originally posted by okamitengu
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.

a lot of people come up with concepts such as these without realizing these concepts already exist and have been put to practice (and worked), they just don't go by the names you give them:

Libertarian Socialism
Spanish Revolution
Ukrainian Free Territory
Israeli Kibbutzim
Freetown Christiania

You are talking about these systems working in small areas, with homogeneous populations surrounded on all sides by regions that act as pressure valves and trade support.

Not independent. Not large scale.

reply to post by okamitengu


Hello,you are not alone,as a matter off fact I thought of it first..!
Just kidding,I also have more or less the same agenda which I have been trying to publicise
one way or another for a similar time.First time I talked to some guys in germany who were going around
in a bus from city to city collecting signatures on a referendum for more direct democracy,I asked if they were interested in using modern communication to make direct voting possible and they said no, they just wanted to collect 3 million signatures in favour of more democracy...It was weird man let me tell you.
I think poeple prefer to be against something rather then for something. Its easier and more of a quick shot for the ego or something. I´ve been flaunting direct democracy localy - globaly for years and it would be sad if it wasn´t so pathetic when you listen to poeples arguments as to why it will not work and why they are opposed to it even if it could work.

reply to post by Aeons

Everyone is open to being bought. Everyone is open to direct manipulation. Most of the population adhere swing voting, meaning that they completely understand the concept of block voting which in itself is a form of manipulation.

Thats NOT corruption. That would exist in ANY conceivable voting system with the same people. You CANNOT fix manipulation if people themselves are open to manipulation.
What you cannot fix is simply not a problem.
And it exists even MORE in representative systems, since in addition to groups that wold benefit from the law, representatives themselves lie and manipulate the voting base.

Or, I dare you to formulate a voting / government system that would be immune to manipulation and human stupidity.

Swing voting exists only in two-party systems. Direct democracy is not a two party system. It is not a perty system at all.

You really believe that people only cooperate for the "greater good."

Define "greater good". People cooperate becaus its advantageous for them, otherwise they wont cooperate. Simple as that.

If this is the level of comprehension that proponents of this voting system have, you terrify me with your inability to project the consequences this would have on non-homogeneous populations, and a lack of comprehension of the investment of violence.

Very non-homogenous populations should not be in the same state in the first place, because they by definition can NEVER formulate a system of laws that would satisfy both groups, IREGARDLESS of the voting or government system. Representative system would not fix this at all.

The sheer lack of understanding of humans displayed just astounds me.

You have yet to formulate an argument against direct government that would stand to scrutiny, or the same disadvantage would not also apply to representative systems you advocate (and even far more).

I am not saying that direct government is perfect, the whole idea of state has some inherent disadvantages that cannot be fixed.
But it is an improvement over representative government. Thats enough.

The idea of state is an extension of normal psychological boundaries. A literal figment of the collective imagination. Just because it is a figment doesn't make it unnecessary.

You don't understand what I am saying mainly because you don't want to, which is really not the same thing as my not having coherent arguments.

reply to post by Aeons

The idea of state is an extension of normal psychological boundaries. A literal figment of the collective imagination. Just because it is a figment doesn't make it unnecessary.

I am not saying the state is unnecessary (I am not an anarchist), or that the advantages of well run state do not far outweight the disadvantages of state. But the state has some inherent disadvantages which should be recongnised, and correctly attributed to state itself, not direct government. You attiributed disadvantages of state system itself to direct democracy, which is not correct.

Please present just one flaw which would be present in constitutional direct republic, AND would not be also present in constitutional representative republic.

again thanks to everyone,

i would like to make sure everyone knows. i dont claim to have invented this, and to the poster who added the links of other places using direct systems, thanks you, i will go through those in detail.

my goal is not to roll this out tomorrow, but to discuss these ideas.

no system is perfect, especially one that people are involved in. this is the 21st century, and for the first time in known history we have access to a massive percentage of the people on the planet. surely amongst all of us, world wide, we can come up with ways to design a new system.

im not suggesting we implement any existing direct democracy, im suggesting we all get together, even those who disagree (especially those who disagree) we can find holes, and then, using our brains, design ways to over come them.

those of you who disagree are presenting some valid reasons in your minds why this wont work. and thats awesome, but. i ask again, think hypothetically about the situation.

if you can see the hole, can you also see anyway you can plug it.

I think poeple prefer to be against something rather then for something. Its easier and more of a quick shot for the ego or something. I´ve been flaunting direct democracy localy - globaly for years and it would be sad if it wasn´t so pathetic when you listen to poeples arguments as to why it will not work and why they are opposed to it even if it could work.

im seeing that in the internet, but that isnt happening face to face. people are trained in schools and by the system to believe its the only system that can work, even if it has flaws. even i find myself thinking "that cant work" but then i keep thinking and i usually realise if i let go of something from the old system, and think of a new way to do it, it can work. and its only the old system holding me back

it is hard for people to let go. what they dont realise is, they dont have to let go ... no one is forming jackboot squads to implement this.

its just a conversation about how it could be done.

then, if a policy is formed, we still have to have members run in regular elections, to get voted into the old system with a view to gaining a mandate to change. nothing like this could start from an october revolution.

whats your idea. not just politics, but things that keep us trapped to the system? if you could change one thing about our westernised world, what would it be, how would u make it work?

free education for all? the abolition of mass media conglomerates? the abolition of jersey shore?

seriously though, i would love to hear what else you could see redesigned for a 21st century world. what else would we need to change to give power back to all of us,

and take it from those who leech form us.

This would only work on the smallest of levels (like in a small town, county etc.). I believe this was the original intent of the founders – that at the local level people would and could vote on relevant issues while they elected “representatives” to handle the broader and very limited tasks of State and Federal Government.

Those issues were to be severely limited to those in their respective Constitutions - nothing more nothing less.

The reason was so that people could band together and decide how they wanted to live for themselves with the will of the majority being exercised in decisions regarding local law, taxation, and education etc.

People who didn’t like the way of the local majority could be free to move elsewhere and find likeminded neighbors with whom they shared values.

Think how diverse the US is in population just on the basis of rural vs. urban and the vast difference in what matters to their populace.

I live rural and do not care for the massive throngs of urban dwellers (with vastly different values and priorities) who would force their ideas by sheer virtue of numbers down my 2nd amendment, god fearing, country loving throat.

It is sad that the 17th Amendment basically took away any pretence at States representation at the Federal table. It is even more sad that more and more the central, over reaching Federal Government insist that all people in the US regardless of their State or locality live under more and more uniform regulations and laws. We are not all the same and should not be required to live our lives thus.

I think this would be the end result of direct democracy. Idiocracy
www.imdb.com...

reply to post by Maslo


1. Investment of violence in leadership diminishing interpersonal violence

2. Increase in (re-named) tribalism

Originally posted by Aeons
You are talking about these systems working in small areas, with homogeneous populations surrounded on all sides by regions that act as pressure valves and trade support.

Not independent. Not large scale.

the entire country of Spain is not large scale/independent???

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Maslo

 

1. Investment of violence in leadership diminishing interpersonal violence

2. Increase in (re-named) tribalism

1. I would like to see some proof of that. I do not believe it is the case. Being able to directly vote on laws, instead of voting politicians would certainly not increase my interpersonal violence. Why? How would it increase your violence?

2. I believe exactly the opposite will happen - nothing fosters tribalism more than a few political "tribes" in the form of political parties or famous electable representative candidates to choose from. It may foster political individualism (thinking for yourself), not tribalism. Which would be only good. Thinking in brackets (left vs. right..) is one of the biggest problems with current systems.