What's your thoughts on introducing regular referendums and the following comments ?
Elections are based on the flavor of the moment, resulting in dissatisfaction amongst a large proportion of the population.
Between election campaigns, people need the opportunity to have a say on issues as they arise (such as the choice of war and sanctions).
Referendums are the way to achieve this and we have the technology to do this regularily (via ATM's, terminals for gambling, etc).
It is up to the people to work together to push for the introduction of referendums, as it is hard to imagine a government that would let this happen. Could businesses support this or is their preference for stability going to let any government continue to have their way ?
Historically, the ruling class has worked to divide and conquer the people from having such power (e.g. the nobility reinforced the idea of witches so that people became suspicious of each other rather than rising up against the ruling class).
Some possibility interesting side comments ...
Now days, people are disillusioned about only having a choice between two political parties. The divide and conquer approach also seems to rule out serious competition from others.
Interestingly, communications in binary format has been shown to be the most efficient way of transferring information (hence the change from analog to digital mobile phones, TV, etc). It seems that even the general population is biased towards "binary politics", even if they are dissillusioned.
Originally posted by STANGI say no. There are dificukt moral questions which I think require careful thought. In this country, our elected representatives decide questions like capital punishment, prostitution, homosexual rights, abortion, length of prison sentences and other contentious issues.
What's your thoughts on introducing regular referendums and the following comments ?
Elections are based on the flavor of the moment, resulting in dissatisfaction amongst a large proportion of the population.
Between election campaigns, people need the opportunity to have a say on issues as they arise (such as the choice of war and sanctions).
Refere ...[text shortened]... n the general population is biased towards "binary politics", even if they are dissillusioned.
I think they do a good job of it - because they are accountable to their electorate and give it careful thought. Care to have Murdoch run a TV programme followed by a referendum question on these matters?
Originally posted by steerpikeMurdoch already does that, what would be the difference?
I say no. There are dificukt moral questions which I think require careful thought. In this country, our elected representatives decide questions like capital punishment, prostitution, homosexual rights, abortion, length of prison sentences and other contentious issues.
I think they do a good job of it - because they are accountable to their electorat ...[text shortened]... ght. Care to have Murdoch run a TV programme followed by a referendum question on these matters?
As to your other point, elected representatives are better informed, and usually well-educated and that's what distinguishes them, or should, from the rest of the population. And yet they still make mistakes and they still choose the path of greed and corruption.
If the general populace were to have the same level of information and education, do you honestly think they would make the same mistakes? If you think they would make different ones, what would they be and why?
MÅ¥HÅRM
Originally posted by STANGThis is confusing. Binary means two and binary data means a choice between only two possibilites.
Interestingly, communications in binary format has been shown to be the most efficient way of transferring information (hence the change from analog to digital mobile phones, TV, etc). It seems that even the general population is biased towards "binary politics", even if they are dissillusioned.
So wouldn't binary politiics mean only two parties are allowed? I think I prefer a multiparty system.
Originally posted by MayharmGood questions.
Murdoch already does that, what would be the difference?
As to your other point, elected representatives are better informed, and usually well-educated and that's what distinguishes them, or should, from the rest of the population. And yet they still make mistakes and they still choose the path of greed and corruption.
If the general populace were to ...[text shortened]... me mistakes? If you think they would make different ones, what would they be and why?
MÅ¥HÅRM
If you can have a group dedicated to homeland security, for example, can there be a group dedicated to "people power" that calls for referendums and presents facts so that the general population can turn to them, make their own decision and vote ?
Wouldn't this dilute concerns about media influence and minimise corrupt government actions ?
Surely people can put their imaginations to it and come up with models and processes that give more satisfying results than the crap we're stuck with ?
Originally posted by STANGHow about organising a referenda on accepting refugees? Sending migrants home? Capital punishment? Making homosexuality illegal? Or cutting middle class taxes and social welfare benefits?All driven by media campains - with the biggest money having the biggest voice.
Good questions.
If you can have a group dedicated to homeland security, for example, can there be a group dedicated to "people power" that calls for referendums and presents facts so that the general population can turn to them, make their own decision and vote ?
Wouldn't this dilute concerns about media influence and minimise corrupt government actio ...[text shortened]... up with models and processes that give more satisfying results than the crap we're stuck with ?
Happy to let people power decide these things?
Originally posted by STANGI think you're putting this question in the wrong perspective.
An interesting quote in response to some concerns given above about average people deciding serious issues ... "U.S. Law thinks no one wiser than a sample of 12 randomly picked Americans".
A more direct Democracy is desirable regarding to some questions, but in most issues it would result in a dictatorship of the majority.
Question related only to small portions run the risk of being voted against their will as the majority has no direct interest, even if the absolute cost for this majority is minimal.
Areas with smaller populations would suffer as budget expenses would become disproportionately in favour of more populated ones.
Originally posted by PalynkaAha! Very good, very good...
I think you're putting this question in the wrong perspective.
A more direct Democracy is desirable regarding to some questions, but in most issues it would result in a dictatorship of the majority.
Question related only to small portions run the risk of being voted against their will as the majority has no direct interest, even if the absolute cost f ...[text shortened]... ould suffer as budget expenses would become disproportionately in favour of more populated ones.
Here's a little proposal, see what you make of it. (while reading this, bear in mind this is completely hypothetical and obviously unworkable...well, in the present at any rate...)
Say we had direct democracy, BUT vested interests weren't allowed to vote.
So, on a vote on gay marriage, gays wouldn't be allowed to vote. On the flip side the religous right wouldn't get to vote over banning abortion.
In essence the minorities would have to convince the majority that their plight was worthy AND majorities would have to convince several minorities that their vote was needed.
So, in the US say, the religous right could easily prevent gay marriages, BUT they'd lose a sizable minority, possibly several minorities, on the pro-life vote.
Can you see the implications of that?
MÅ¥HÅRM
flexmore provided a link to an excellent web-site that presents and gives a detailed analysis of a model that I believe to be the best way forward ...
"Statistical Direct Assemblies" would resolve concerns regarding elected representatives (politicians) and resolve concerns regarding referendums (asking all the people).
It is well worth reading ...
http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/Civic_Participation/Direct_Democracy/
Now all we need is someone to start a political party called "Power To The People" based on a policy of introducing Statistical Direct Assemblies !!!
Alternatively, we could call for just one referendum to have these introduced !!!