143 replies to this topic

[dre]

Direct democracy not required. Instead, have government departments engage with the public as institutions should do. We can still elect parties to design policy...

Well... no democracy at all is "required". But a little more might be a really good thing. Especially with the trend we have seen towards large unfunded ideological mandates. These are causing a lot of damanage in the west. Parties dont get elected so they just competently manage the countries affairs... legislation isnt even usually required for that. When they get in there, they want to go large and score a big victory in the culture war, because it cost them a shitload of money to get in, and they know that once its the "other guys" turn, theyre gonna do the same.

So we spend billions on a gun registry, which is promptly shut down when the government changes, and replaced with an internet registry, and new prisons to house potheads for free, which will be closed down next time theres a left of center majority.

We need to make these people less powerfull and us more powerfull. That should be pretty much clear to everyone.

And really... youre calling for big changes yourself... you talk about wanting a transparent government, and educated interested voters with access to all the information. Thats just as radical of a sea change as anything Iv proposed. And people that hate your freedom just flat out ARENT gonna set things up that way. Furthermore whats the point of educating the public about the issues if youre just going to ignore them until the next election anyways? Let em weigh in on the big items in a referendum.


All Im trying to do is bring big ticket items up for referendums. Something that is possible and legal even in todays constitutional framework and in todays political process. YOU wanna change the way 30 million people and politicions approach politics and somehow turn a group of people that hates freedom and transparency into people that embrace it.

Edited by dre, 24 February 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Smallc]

We need to make these people less powerfull and us more powerfull. That should be pretty much clear to everyone.

I would expect far less consistent and far more nonsensical decisions if the mob was allowed to vote on every big ticket item.

[Battletoads]

It's funny I never heard much about this when Chretien won three majorities with around 40% of the popular vote. What a useless thread.

"But the Liberals did it"

The new conservative rallying call.

Who am I kidding when I say "new", more like their rallying call for the last six years.

Edited by Battletoads, 24 February 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[dre]

I would expect far less consistent and far more nonsensical decisions if the mob was allowed to vote on every big ticket item.

I would expect exactly the same thing. Some good outcomes and some bad outcomes. The people at least are obsessed with their own self interest, where as politicians represent various different special interest lobbies and are tied to so many different interest you can never even tell who they really serve.

Especially given the fact that none of these people even read the legislation they table.

I admit conventional wisdom is on your side... this whole platonian idea about how the people are not fit to know the truth or make decisions, and should just be kept in a perpetual stupor, and spoonfed the right information so that theyll support what the government wants to do.

But I think that argument is losing ground, what with gigantic powerfull borrow and spend governments driving the western world into the ground.

[Smallc]

I admit conventional wisdom is on your side... this whole platonian idea about how the people are not fit to know the truth or make decisions, and should just be kept in a perpetual stupor, and spoonfed the right information so that theyll support what the government wants to do.

But that's just it. Most people keep themselves in a perpetual stupor.

[g_bambino]

I admit conventional wisdom is on your side... this whole platonian idea about how the people are not fit to know the truth or make decisions, and should just be kept in a perpetual stupor, and spoonfed the right information so that theyll support what the government wants to do.

Spare us the condescending sarcasm. The fact is, most people simply don't have the time to understand every facet of government, or, in some cases, even just one. Take foreign affairs, for example: who has the ability to collect and study diplomatic papers and reports on ever-changing conditions from ambassadors, attaches, and military officials of Canada and a multitude of other states, learn about the cultures and workings of other countries and their governments, observe economic trends and gather enough information to make predictions, and on and on and on? I sure don't. We can garner the basics from what's discussed in parliament and reported in the media; but, otherwise, we rely on other people to really take care of these matters for us. Hence, we, like most Western democracies, are a representative one, not a direct one.

[Argus]

I would expect exactly the same thing. Some good outcomes and some bad outcomes. The people at least are obsessed with their own self interest, where as politicians represent various different special interest lobbies and are tied to so many different interest you can never even tell who they really serve.

I've seen no evidence prop rep provides better government, nor even more representative. No government really represents the will of the people all the time. Even if a government gets more than 50% of the vote that doesn't really imply 50% support any given decision. Nor does the reverse hold true. The Tories might have gotten 40% of the vote but any number of policy movements had more than 50% public support.

[dre]

Spare us the condescending sarcasm. The fact is, most people simply don't have the time to understand every facet of government, or, in some cases, even just one. Take foreign affairs, for example: who has the ability to collect and study diplomatic papers and reports on ever-changing conditions from ambassadors, attaches, and military officials of Canada and a multitude

I dunno who youre replying to at this point. I mentioned the idea of doing referendums on some of the big ticket items and big changes of the course of our society. Each person doesnt have to collect and study every diplomatic paper on earth. The government can study all that stuff, come up with a summary of the facts and issues involved and propose a course of action. Would could vote to accept it, or reject it in which case they would have to modify it and re-table it.


The fact of the matter is these governments dont even read most of the legislation anyways.

[dre]

I moved my reply to Cap over here as well... Sorry about derailing the other thread.

Since parties normally run election campaigns backed by a policy platform, yes Canadians can vote on whether they want what a party is selling.

No they can vote on packages of policy and campaign promises the usually dont come to pass. That is NOT voting on policy. And thats why people get grouped into these stupid left vs right parties.

If I could vote on the individual policies, I would pick some conservative policies and some liberal policies, some centrist policies, and even some libertarian policies. Because all of those groups have some smart people in them with some good ideas. Instead of buying a bag of groceries with an arbitrary selection of products in it, and could vote for which products I think would make a nice bag of groceries.

Maybe I want to buy some new military hardware without paying to throw small time pot offenders in jail! Why shouldnt I be able to do that? Maybe I want to stay out of the war in Iraq, but I dont want a long gun registry?

Its like cable TV packages... You want the discovery channel then youre forced to pay for Fox and CNN too.

Corporations and special interests in this case would have to switch from lobbying the government behind closed doors to lobbying the public out in the open, because campaign donations could no longer be directly traded for government policy.

Theres clearly some cases that wouldnt work... it probably wouldnt be constitional to have a referendum on something like civil rights, but most things would work just fine. It would also force the government to explain stuff way better to us, and give us a reason to be interested.

Edited by dre, 24 February 2012 - 03:18 PM.

[cybercoma]

Another problem with populism or direct-democracy is that people think personally or locally, while MPs' decisions need to made nationally. Not all people do this. Some understand that the federal government needs to make decisions about the nation as a whole, but I would venture a guest that most people can't understand this. Sometimes it means making personal or local sacrifices for the greater good.

[g_bambino]

I mentioned the idea of doing referendums on some of the big ticket items and big changes of the course of our society. Each person doesnt have to collect and study every diplomatic paper on earth. The government can study all that stuff, come up with a summary of the facts and issues involved and propose a course of action.

And what constitutes a "big ticket item" and a "big change"? And who decides? And, if it is something like entering into a military conflict, well, yes, one would have to have all the material and knowledge I mentioned in order to cast a sound vote. I don't see how you could rely on the government to provide you with a summary of the facts and issues when your call for more direct democracy was predicated upon your complaint that the government controls too much, was it not?

[dre]

And what constitutes a "big ticket item" and a "big change"? And who decides? And, if it is something like entering into a military conflict, well, yes, one would have to have all the material and knowledge I mentioned in order to cast a sound vote. I don't see how you could rely on the government to provide you with a summary of the facts and issues when your call for more direct democracy was predicated upon your complaint that the government controls too much, was it not?

You seem to think that our politicians study all these things but dont. You think a politician voting on whether or not to take the country to war or not does thousands of hours of studying? Over and over again its been illustrated that the majority of them do not even read the legislation they vote on. Hell why read them when youre whipped into voting along party lines anyways?

As for war that absolutely IS something that should be put to a referendum.

Edited by dre, 24 February 2012 - 03:53 PM.

[Bryan]

"But the Liberals did it"

The new conservative rallying call.

Who am I kidding when I say "new", more like their rallying call for the last six years.

If the hypocrisy didn't keep on coming, there'd be no need to point it out.

[g_bambino]

You seem to think that our politicians study all these things but dont. You think a politician voting on whether or not to take the country to war or not does thousands of hours of studying?

They have access to a hell of a lot more information than you or I, especially the minister into who's portfolio the matter falls.

As for war that absolutely IS something that should be put to a referendum.

Moronic idea. We'd be a full fledged colony of our invaders by the time we even decided on the referendum question.

[dre]

They have access to a hell of a lot more information than you or I, especially the minister into who's portfolio the matter falls.


Moronic idea. We'd be a full fledged colony of our invaders by the time we even decided on the referendum question.

Clearly youre not going to have a referendum on a defending our soil from a foreign invasion. Thats obvious. But that only accounts for a tiny tiny tiny percentage of our military activities.

They have access to a hell of a lot more information than you or I

I know. Its because they think were too stupid to see it for the most part. And the fact we let them do it, actually is evidence that they are right.


Anyhow... you raise lots of valid points, and I used to agree with all of them. Iv argued against direct democracy a lot of different times. Theres huge flaws in it, but theres huge flaws in our system as well.

Edited by dre, 24 February 2012 - 04:51 PM.