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.