democratic reforms: direct election

[Az]

They'll beg for polling, after I'll spam them with annoying " Proposition 24325AB/8854: neutering the llamas in Amiens Zoo" messages.

[vomitus]

Originally posted by Odin


And when you vote for the party, you know that the MPs of the party you voted for will follow the platform of the party you voted for, unlike in the US where we have to trust individual politicians that can change thier mind as a result of poor party dicipline.

Why would political parties in other countries be immune to this?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Az
They'll beg for polling, after I'll spam them with annoying " Proposition 24325AB/8854: neutering the llamas in Amiens Zoo" messages.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az
because "governance" isn't some sort of service you buy, you silly american *****. Otherwise, Best choice would be to incorporate government all together, and hold competitive tenders on governance,people who won't stand the terms of their tender, will be sued, or something.

"Incorporating" government would simply mean having an oligarchy.

And there is 0 wisdom in "the people".

Representative democracy is a far better thing than direct democracy- you keep the good parts of dmeocracy while blocking the bad parts, like a tendancy towards demagoguery .

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by vomitus
Why would political parties in other countries be immune to this?

When you vote for parties, the politician in power owes his position to the party. As a result, he tends to be loyal to the party, for he knows that he has no future if the party decides to replace him.

[Az]

"Incorporating" government would simply mean having an oligarchy.

You say it like it's a bad thing - after all, the people who "know best" run the show.

Leave it to the pros, I say.

Representative democracy is a far better thing than direct democracy- you keep the good parts of dmeocracy while blocking the bad parts, like a tendancy towards demagoguery .

demagoguery isn't actual a tendency of direct democracy, but a tendency of oligarchy to win over support with the people by making false arguments. It's this system of citizenry absolved of daily decision making that makes them susceptible to this, come election day.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az

"Incorporating" government would simply mean having an oligarchy.

You say it like it's a bad thing - after all, the people who "know best" run the show.

Leave it to the pros, I say.

That would be a technocrati oligarchy-incorporating things would simply make it an oligarchy of the wealthy, and the only thing that separates the weallthy from the masses is a slightly higher level of ambition.

demagoguery isn't actual a tendency of direct democracy, but a tendency of oligarchy to win over support with the people by making false arguments. It's this system of citizenry absolved of daily decision making that makes them susceptible to this, come election day.

Demogoguery is a tool to use on any masses, whether its done by an individual, a group of oligarchs, or a mass movement. The problem is the masses will eat it up.

Oh, and its cute that you are naive enough to equate demogogery with lies. Newsflash, they are not the same. Many times related, but not the same.

And the simple point is that the citizentry will always be detached from the facts of governing, as their days are busy enough.

[Az]

That would be a technocrati oligarchy-incorporating things would simply make it an oligarchy of the wealthy, and the only thing that separates the weallthy from the masses is a slightly higher level of ambition.

I never knew you were such a Republican, GePap. so now the only thing that separates the wealthy from the masses is a slightly higher level of ambition?

Anyhow, how's that different from what's currently going on? untalented and unprofessional hacks are being appointed all the time in goverment, and corporate enviroments. It's the nature of human interaction where the manipulation factor often far supercedes the competence factor. It's basically the old elitist, at times, monarchist argument - those peasants shouldn't interfere with government, only we, the can.

Demogoguery is a tool to use on any masses, whether its done by an individual, a group of oligarchs, or a mass movement. The problem is the masses will eat it up.

That's true if we have differening opinions on course of action - this is less and less the case in most countries. In any case, this is one of those things that forge a strong free society, and cast it in steel, much like freedom of speech, and freedom of thought.

Oh, and its cute that you are naive enough to equate demogogery with lies. Newsflash, they are not the same. Many times related, but not the same.

I haven't said lies, I've said "false arguments". Those can come in the form of half-truths, out-of-context quoting, and others.

And the simple point is that the citizentry will always be detached from the facts of governing, as their days are busy enough.

This is hardly true enough to be a genuine point. The amount of involvment of citizens in government varied enormously over the course of history.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az
I never knew you were such a Republican, GePap. so now the only thing that separates the wealthy from the masses is a slightly higher level of ambition?

Its obvious that if a group of people has worked the system better, they obviously have more ambition. One does not need to be a republican to realize simple things like that.

Anyhow, how's that different from what's currently going on? untalented and unprofessional hacks are being appointed all the time in goverment, and corporate enviroments. It's the nature of human interaction where the manipulation factor often far supercedes the competence factor. It's basically the old elitist, at times, monarchist argument - those peasants shouldn't interfere with government, only we, the can.

First, most people at the top aren't untalented, nor are they stupid. Its a fine charicature, but its much easier for an idiot with charisma to get elected than an incompetent fool to make it high enough to get appointed to head a department. That is not to say only good people make it to the top, but its very fair to say those on top do know better and are more intelligent as a whole than the masses.

The worth of democracy is that it brings the masses into governance. That is not to say the masses should be handed direct governance. Making the people stakeholders is good. Making them in charge is NOT.

That's true if we have differening opinions on course of action - this is less and less the case in most countries. In any case, this is one of those things that forge a strong free society, and cast it in steel, much like freedom of speech, and freedom of thought.

What the **** is a "free society"? If by that you mean a liberal democracy, then the only reason liberal democracies exists is that laws keep the majorities from destroying them, and if the masses are given direct control of those laws, then freedom for those at the bottom would end.

The more complex and powerful the state becomes, the more worried one has to be about who leads it. Representative democracy is a good mix of democracy, oligarchy and technocracy.

I haven't said lies, I've said "false arguments". Those can come in the form of half-truths, out-of-context quoting, and others.

MOst demagoguery is based around emotions, which are inherently irrational, and hence outside the realm of true or false. People listen to demagoguery because it makes them feel better. Thinking is not involved. That is why it is so powerful.

This is hardly true enough to be a genuine point. The amount of involvment of citizens in government varied enormously over the course of history.

For most of history only a minority were ever considered citizens, if the term existed at all. The idea of universal participation in political sphere is only about 300 years old. So I don't know what exactly you refer to as "history".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Political parties, for all their flaws, have the benefit of simplifying the political game enough that politics become accessible to the masses. In a direct democracy such as the one you suggest, there would actually be less people who would seize their opportunity to decide policy, and policy would be decided by a class of more educated people, who have more time and do a less exhausting job, thus making them more prone to be involved in politics.

Bingo. If the people think they have to constantly be up on everything in order to decide on who to vote, they'll simply give up doing so.

[Atahualpa]

I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to have voters inform themselves about what's going on, but I see the problem that voters will probably not inform themselves but be informed by the media, who'd gain in power as political instrument.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap
If by that you mean a liberal democracy, then the only reason liberal democracies exists is that laws keep the majorities from destroying them, and if the masses are given direct control of those laws, then freedom for those at the bottom would end.

Don't buy that. Every society needs some form of consensus between its members (at least between the majority of them) or it would break down sooner or later. The law/constitution is the expression of that basic consensus. You cannot have effective law when nobody agrees about it - then you rather get civil war or tyranny.

[Az]

I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea to have voters inform themselves about what's going on, but I see the problem that voters will probably not inform themselves but be informed by the media, who'd gain in power as political instrument.

Media is already a crucial political instrument. If it is manipulation you're talking about, this will actually have positive effect, as well, because you can't spin lies all the time. It has to be done in measured quantities.

[Atahualpa]

Nah, forget it, direct election of the cabinet is a bad idea.

[Az]

I don't believe in direct elections to cabinet so much, either, it's the legislative role for the public is what I seek.