|
Post by CtraK on Oct 5, 2010 8:30:46 GMT -5
The poll is in reference to thiswhich details a variation in direct democracy that has, apparently, already been carried out in a few places around the world.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 5, 2010 14:29:06 GMT -5
Direct democracy = mob rule. Decisions should be made by informed individuals. Most people do not have time to study every issue in depth and make a rational, informed decision.
I believe in a political structure that is the exact opposite: people would only be able to vote for their governor, representative in their unicameral state legislature (all state legislatures would be unicameral), and representative in the House of Representatives. Electors for President and Vice President would be appointed by the state legislature as would Senators.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Oct 5, 2010 14:47:05 GMT -5
I always liked the idea of Direct Democracy. Politicians are generally liars with their own hidden agendas. The bailouts for example would NEVER have happened with DD, speed traps would be outlawed and weed would most likely be legalized in most places. The war probably also wouldn't have happened. Various results of DD would be absolutely devastating for special interests, slimy lobbyists, law enforcement, PMCs and the banking industry which I would characterize as a good thing. On the other hand, I can see the problem with it. For one thing, everything ranging from homosexuality to insufficient church attendance, would probably be punishable by death in most parts of the South if the populace there ever completely got their way.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Oct 5, 2010 14:51:20 GMT -5
Direct democracy = mob rule. Decisions should be made by informed individuals. Most people do not have time to study every issue in depth and make a rational, informed decision. I believe in a political structure that is the exact opposite: people would only be able to vote for their governor, representative in their unicameral state legislature (all state legislatures would be unicameral), and representative in the House of Representatives. Electors for President and Vice President would be appointed by the state legislature as would Senators. Is that really democracy though? The whole point of democracy is not to be ruled, but to allow even the most uneducated moron to have his say in how shit went down. I've never felt voting for a leader could legitimately be called democracy.
|
|
|
Post by brendanjd on Oct 5, 2010 14:56:20 GMT -5
Keep in mind that Canada and the USA are not true democracies in any sense. In our nation AA, we've come to the general consensus that 'Federalism, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism' works. Indeed, it put us eleventh on the Democracy Index with a 9.07/10.
That being said, I would much prefer unicameralism.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Oct 5, 2010 15:11:40 GMT -5
I agree, but most people believe they are though for some reason. Where is this list btw, is Switzerland #1?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Oct 5, 2010 15:33:21 GMT -5
Most people believe the countries are democracies because they are - colloquially (and at least in the US there are some true democratic elements, mostly through universal adult suffrage and election of the president; I don't know how Canada stacks up there). While the word refers to a specific mechanism by which every person votes on every issue, it also refers to any sort of government based more or less on representation and popular sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by brendanjd on Oct 5, 2010 15:39:41 GMT -5
I found the list on wiki under 'Democracy Index'
Also, Switzerland is #8, Sweden is #1.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Oct 5, 2010 16:07:48 GMT -5
It seems to necessitate the major parties in industrialised nations losing a large chunk of power. Whatever the merits of the idea, I can't see that happening-ever!
Another possible side affect is that it could encourage representatives to tell even more outrageous lies than they currently do to get the voting public to push through an issue. Of course it would still be plagued by the same problem that many democracies are still plagued with that being voter apathy.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Oct 5, 2010 16:31:46 GMT -5
Considering the sheer volume of things that Congress votes on each week...this plan would be a logistical nightmare. Also, voter fraud would have to be policed on a constant basis, and what about all the votes that are so close they demand a recount?
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Oct 5, 2010 16:38:01 GMT -5
I know I'd be a lot less apathetic if I could vote for issues instead of another suit-wearing tool.
|
|
|
Post by brendanjd on Oct 5, 2010 16:45:47 GMT -5
Speaking of which, who did you vote for last election AA?
/turns on Canadian-ness.
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Oct 5, 2010 16:50:51 GMT -5
I know I'd be a lot less apathetic if I could vote for issues instead of another suit-wearing tool. Then get off your ass and BECOME one of those suit-wearing tools so you can affect things, instead of sitting around whining about them.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Oct 5, 2010 17:35:14 GMT -5
Speaking of which, who did you vote for last election AA? /turns on Canadian-ness. I'm one of the like 10 people in Canada who actually votes Libertarian but I've also toyed with the idea of voting for the CAP. I'd only consider voting Liberal or Conservative if the other party did something to massively piss me off, but even then it's rare one party will piss me off more than the other. I might have considered voting Con because of the LGR, but their support of Bill C-51 and C-15 lost my vote.
|
|
|
Post by aboveathletics on Oct 5, 2010 17:37:23 GMT -5
I know I'd be a lot less apathetic if I could vote for issues instead of another suit-wearing tool. Then get off your ass and BECOME one of those suit-wearing tools so you can affect things, instead of sitting around whining about them. Someone with my views is unelectable in Canada. Besides, being a leader is every bit as distasteful to me as being a follower.
|
|