NationStates Jolt Archive

Direct Democracy

What is Direct Democracy?

Direct democracy is different from parliamentary democracy in a number of important ways:


1. Direct democracy is about 'originating' ideas as much as it is about 'approving' them. In parliamentary democracy, people are never asked for their own ideas - they are only asked to 'approve' or 'disapprove' of ideas already prepared for them. Direct democracy is radically different in that way. Direct democracy is based on the realistic notion that 'people know best how to look after their own situation'. We don't need specialists to tell us how to run our places of work or our communities. Anarchists argue that we are quite capable of doing this ourselves. All we need are the resources and the right to do this. Direct democracy is the method.


2. Direct democracy is based on delegation not representation. The crucial difference between delegation and representation is that delegates are only elected to implement specific decisions. Delegates do not have the right to change a decision previously made by an assembly of people. Delegates (unlike representatives) can be immediately recalled and dismissed from their mandate if they don't carry out the specific function allotted to them.


3. Direct democracy is as much about the workplace as it is about the community. In parliamentary democracy, the workplace is 'immune' to democracy (save what rights workers have won through their unions). In direct democracy, the operation of a factory or a plant or an office will be via a general assembly of all workers. This body will decide on conditions of work, will elect re-callable managers, and will organize how work is done. It will also elect people (as delegates) who will coordinate with the other places of work and with the broader community. Regional organization will be managed through a federation of workplaces using a delegate structure.

i am myself a partisan of direct democracy,it has a lot of advantages:
people are directly involve in decision making, and therefore are concious of this they are more interested in solving problems and get responsible
and the re-callable deleguate and managers is a MUST to avoid abuse,i will somewhat be please to add a sort of "shifting management and delegate
for the same reason written above
and nonetheless it opposes the illusion of democracy we experience right now

and you?

you are talking about how things would be done under anarchy?

how about a nice concrete example based on this situation

one group wants a plot of land by a river to make a factory to use the river to make some necessary item, one group wants that same plot of land for a housing development, leaving the river free to the recreational pleasure of residents.


how would this be worked out under direct democracy. be as specific as possible even though the example is kinda vague.

I do not like direct democracy because there always one charismatic person, or “alpha male” that everyone is going to follow even If his decision is not the best. Which he most likely made for his own selfish gain in the first place. Therefore, I would rather stick with our current form of democracy.

Direct democracy roxx. ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM NOW!!! :cool:

you are talking about how things would be done under anarchy?

how about a nice concrete example based on this situation

one group wants a plot of land by a river to make a factory to use the river to make some necessary item, one group wants that same plot of land for a housing development, leaving the river free to the recreational pleasure of residents.


how would this be worked out under direct democracy. be as specific as possible even though the example is kinda vague.
are you talking about apes?
well i'm not

I do not like direct democracy because there always one charismatic person, or “alpha male” that everyone is going to follow even If his decision is not the best. Which he most likely made for his own selfish gain in the first place. Therefore, I would rather stick with our current form of democracy.
are you talking about wolves,well i'm not

Direct democracy roxx. ANARCHO-SYNDICALISM NOW!!! :cool:
Welcome

are you talking about apes?
well i'm not
huh? where did that come from?

i am asking about how direct democracy would deal with a common sort of conflict of interest issue where only one use can be made of a location. i know how its done in the US today, how would it be done under direct democracy?

Direct democracy is tyranny by majority.

Direct democracy is tyranny by majority.

representative democracy is tyrrany by oligarchy :p

huh? where did that come from?

i am asking about how direct democracy would deal with a common sort of conflict of interest issue where only one use can be made of a location. i know how its done in the US today, how would it be done under direct democracy?
how is it done in the US today?you mean irak?how? without represantative propaganda?or you never had to REALLY say what you think ,away from guns and bombs?

check out how the UDCP would do it - direct democracy (in an anarcho-communist manner) is part of our manifesto http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610 :)

Direct democracy is tyranny by majority.
he,absurd?it is sure not a faschist/dictatorial one,go back to the street or to school

how is it done in the US today?you mean irak?how? without represantative propaganda?or you never had to REALLY say what you think ,away from guns and bombs?

hmmm so you didnt write the original post, just copied and pasted it. you dont even know what its talking about. and you have no idea how it would actually work in the workplace and community (point #3)

so why did you post it?

hum ,i work,i fight, i organise myself,and i stay critic,what is your point(are you fishing too?)

check out how the UDCP would do it - direct democracy (in an anarcho-communist manner) is part of our manifesto http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610 :)
oh pure, humor an old lady and answer my scenario. i really dont understand how a truly conflicting situation would be worked out under a direct democracy situation. its post #2 right above us. feel free to embellish it as much as necessary as long as you dont remove the fundamental conflict.

how would it work?

oh pure, humor an old lady and answer my scenario. i really dont understand how a truly conflicting situation would be worked out under a direct democracy situation. its post #2 right above us. feel free to embellish it as much as necessary as long as you dont remove the fundamental conflict.

how would it work?

A vote would be taken and whomever has the majority wins. If there is a tie, however very unlikely, then neither would build, and there would likely be more votes until a tie is no longer occuring.

oh pure, humor an old lady and answer my scenario. i really dont understand how a truly conflicting situation would be worked out under a direct democracy situation. its post #2 right above us. feel free to embellish it as much as necessary as long as you dont remove the fundamental conflict.

how would it work?
what is THE scenario?did you ever had to fight to say what you want/think,behalve Internet?did you ever made decision for yourself and/or other behalve here?.....

Hey Allers, as much as I agree with you on direct democracy, I think that you are unreasonably hostile towards your critics. Tone it down man, you being percieved as a petulant child gives no merit to your point of view.

A vote would be taken and whomever has the majority wins. If there is a tie, however very unlikely, then neither would build, and there would likely be more votes until a tie is no longer occuring.
who would be allowed to vote? there are potentially way more residents than workers in a factory. (or it could be the other way around i guess). does the ecology play a factor? how about pre-existing claim... as in "if the factory would employ 1000 people can it toss the farmers family off their farm in order to build?"

is it really going to be "whoever can get out the most voters wins'?

what is THE scenario?did you ever had to fight to say what you want/think,behalve Internet?did you ever made decision for yourself and/or other behalve here?.....
are we not communicating because you have limited english skills?

I'd just like to point out that this is not the base form of direct democracy, this is anarcho-communism.

Also:

Direct democracy is tyranny by majority.

So is any form of democracy, up to and including this non-functional oliogarchy we call a "Federal Republic". The differece? The fact that we are a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Direct Democracy would have the same protections installed for the minority.

I know I'll have to post this again in really large print but, oh well.

Hey Allers, as much as I agree with you on direct democracy, I think that you are unreasonably hostile towards your critics. Tone it down man, you being percieved as a petulant child gives no merit to your point of view.
i know i'm french(just for fun,and not nationalist),so come on ,bordel de merde :mp5:

ok i'll give it a shot

one group wants a plot of land by a river to make a factory to use the river to make some necessary item, one group wants that same plot of land for a housing development, leaving the river free to the recreational pleasure of residents.


how would this be worked out under direct democracy. be as specific as possible even though the example is kinda vague.


with the UDCP system we've come up, with government is divided into successively smaller & more local governmental areas/units. take a look at our 'governance' section of the manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610) (there's a diagram of government in there to help explain it)

the method of voting & discussion can be done by holding a meeting for those involved, at local level; but i suspect that for something like this, which involves the whole community, using the tech network would be best. the involved parties (the two opposing groups, local residents, etc) discuss & argue their points on, what is effectively, an internet forum (such as this), which is highly structured and moderated. once their points of view & arguements are coherent and are in the form of proposals (something that has to be today anyway, for planning regulations, don't forget - this isn't bringing in unnecessary layers of 'red tape') then the proposals can be presented for voting on a voting forum.
the citizens of the governmental locality will vote on the decision they wish to go ahead - again, similar to the decisions for NS nations;)

the loosing party must abide by the decision of the people. hence an agreement is reached.


most specifics of this system are not necessary to know just now as they can be worked out as the system is implimented.

ok i'll give it a shot




with the UDCP system we've come up, with government is divided into successively smaller & more local governmental areas/units. take a look at our 'governance' section of the manifesto (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418610) (there's a diagram of government in there to help explain it)

the method of voting & discussion can be done by holding a meeting for those involved, at local level; but i suspect that for something like this, which involves the whole community, using the tech network would be best. the involved parties (the two opposing groups, local residents, etc) discuss & argue their points on, what is effectively, an internet forum (such as this), which is highly structured and moderated. once their points of view & arguements are coherent and are in the form of proposals (something that has to be today anyway, for planning regulations, don't forget - this isn't bringing in unnecessary layers of 'red tape') then the proposals can be presented for voting on a voting forum.
the citizens of the governmental locality will vote on the decision they wish to go ahead - again, similar to the decisions for NS nations;)

the loosing party must abide by the decision of the people. hence an agreement is reached.


most specifics of this system are not necessary to know just now as they can be worked out as the system is implimented.
so the smallest applicable unit would "get together" look at all the angles and decide which is the best option "for the group"

ok that seems very reasonable

is there some kind of appeal process if, as the golden shoebox (above) fears, the winning side won because of the charisma of one man instead of it really being the best decision to make. so that the party who really should have prevailed can perhaps get it reviewed by a bigger, more disinterested group?

so the smallest applicable unit would "get together" look at all the angles and decide which is the best option "for the group"

ok that seems very reasonable

is there some kind of appeal process if, as the golden shoebox (above) fears, the winning side won because of the charisma of one man instead of it really being the best decision to make. so that the party who really should have prevailed can perhaps get it reviewed by a bigger, more disinterested group?

Again, I'd like to point out:



THIS IS NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY. THIS IS ANARCHO COMMUNISM. STOP TRYING TO STEAL THE TERM.

Sorry, I'd just very much like to not lose yet another set of words that describe my beliefs to a bunch of propoganda ministers trying to dress up their stances in my sheep's clothing.

Chaos:


give us YOUR definition on direct democracy then.

dinner's up. will answer later. good question tho


and this is direct democracy as the governmental basis, with anarcho-communism as the economic basis - a fusion of the two, as with any economic-political system

Chaos:


give us YOUR definition on direct democracy then.

yeah how is direct democracy different from this? and why does it upset you so much that someone would want to use direct democracy as the means of running an anarchy?

Chaos:


give us YOUR definition on direct democracy then.

The general idea is that everything is voted upon directly by the populace with no intermediaries. That is really all there is to it. It can be capitalist, it can be an agrarian jeffersonian society, it can be communist, it can be anything, it's just all laws and such are voted upon by the populace.



and this is direct democracy as the governmental basis, with anarcho-communism as the economic basis - a fusion of the two, as with any economic-political system

Not really. The governmental basis for anarcho-communism is just that: Anarchy. While some kind of council might be able to make decisions in the form of conflict resolution, passing any kind of laws would immediately defeat the purpose of anarchy to begin with.

Again, I'd like to point out:



THIS IS NOT A DIRECT DEMOCRACY. THIS IS ANARCHO COMMUNISM. STOP TRYING TO STEAL THE TERM.

Sorry, I'd just very much like to not lose yet another set of words that describe my beliefs to a bunch of propoganda ministers trying to dress up their stances in my sheep's clothing.
WHY IS IT NOT DIRECT DEMOCRATY?
BECAUSE ASHMORIA IS LAUGHTING?
OR BECAUSE HE /SHE IS NOT ANARCHOCOMMUNIST
....MOST OF YOU ARE BOURGEOIS,AND ARE MAKING IT RIDICULOUS,DEMOCRACY
IS BY ETYMOLOGY, POWER TO THE PEOPLE(NOT ILLUSION)

WHY IS IT NOT DIRECT DEMOCRATY?
BECAUSE ASHMORIA IS LAUGHTING?
OR BECAUSE HE /SHE IS NOT ANARCHOCOMMUNIST
....MOST OF YOU ARE BOURGEOIS,AND ARE MAKING IT RIDICULOUS,DEMOCRACY
IS BY ETYMOLOGY, POWER TO THE PEOPLE(NOT ILLUSION)
oh mr allers, who owns a computer with internet access, you are not BOURGEOIS?? are you the poor working lad who only uses the internet at the local library?

WHY IS IT NOT DIRECT DEMOCRATY?
BECAUSE ASHMORIA IS LAUGHTING?
OR BECAUSE HE /SHE IS NOT ANARCHOCOMMUNIST
....MOST OF YOU ARE BOURGEOIS,AND ARE MAKING IT RIDICULOUS,DEMOCRACY
IS BY ETYMOLOGY, POWER TO THE PEOPLE(NOT ILLUSION)

Which does not necessitate some communist dystopia. Capitalism is, in fact, the ideal system for use in a society small enough to effectivily make use of direct democracy because price regulation isn't under the control of national or multi-national corporations who must compensate for a myriad of different markets. Things would come to truely represent the control of Adam's invisible hand.

I have a question for this direct-democracy lovefest: is it truly feasible? If the idea worked, surely some nation would have adopted it by now. I think it just takes too much time, is too prone to disturbance (using the factory example, maybe people would be recalling their managers every few days), and will experience problems with voter apathy. Let's face it; many people just can't be bothered to vote, which tends to impact a direct-voting system far more than a representative one.

Also, what about institutions that absolutely must be hierarchical in nature, like the military? People have tried voting for their officers before, most notably during the French Revolution, and the system has usually broken down and been replaced within a couple of years.

How about the Catholic Church? Would people have to start voting in their priests and bishops? Considering how much training they've got to go through, that sounds like a terrible idea.

The general idea is that everything is voted upon directly by the populace with no intermediaries. That is really all there is to it. It can be capitalist, it can be an agrarian jeffersonian society, it can be communist, it can be anything, it's just all laws and such are voted upon by the populace.



Not really. The governmental basis for anarcho-communism is just that: Anarchy. While some kind of council might be able to make decisions in the form of conflict resolution, passing any kind of laws would immediately defeat the purpose of anarchy to begin with.
are you upset that an anarchist is misusing DD or that DD is screwing up the idea of anarchy?

Talk about tyranny of the majority!

Your post is very vague, using the vapid-sounding term "direct democracy" to advocate a series of measures. Apparently what you want is that a- citizens will be able to propose bills to parliament, b- members of parliament can be recalled by the citizens of their consistuency and (this has nothing to do with a political regime) c- corporations will be ran not by shareholders but by employees.

A- In order to write a bill, you need to have, at least, training in politics and law, on top of the area which your bill concerns. Which means that bills have to be written by someone whose job it is to write them, and have to be a collaborative effort. In a situation where citizens themselves propose bills and not their representatives, practically, it means that associations of citizens, i.e. political parties, will propose said bills. How is it so different from a representative parliament, except that as party members and not official representatives the writers of the bills would be less accountable?

B- Sure. It's the case in several countries already. Except that masses are fickle.

C- It doesn't work. Except in few cases which result from very specific market conditions, corporations which follow this model either fail or evolve away from it. Unlike what you seem to think, management people aren't all incapable, useless fools, and it's actually a real job to run a company, a job which requires skills that not everybody has. Putting corporate decisions to votes fails, and it's unfair to shareholders who actually invested money in, and took a chance on the company.

"Direct Democracy"

Fine on a relatively small scale, such as city-states, municipalities, etc. But on a national scale, the larger the nation, the more unwieldy it becomes.

It also lends itself to tyranny by majority rule.

are you upset that an anarchist is misusing DD or that DD is screwing up the idea of anarchy?

That a group of anarcho-communists are trying to steal the term.

Chaos Experiment.


You do have a point and I should have cought it earlier. It would have been nice if you had just cut to the chase and stated what direct democracy is, instead of shouting in the forum :)

But yes, direct democracy is purely the making of a decicion based on a vote by the populus (as they do on many issues in switzerland)

Switzerland gets about as close to direct democracy as it reasonably possible at the national level. There the citizens can force a referendum on a law if they can submit a petition of a certain number of the population I believe... I will try and find out whether I'm speaking rubbish or not and get back.

Are there any Swiss people about on here??!

oh mr allers, who owns a computer with internet access, you are not BOURGEOIS?? are you the poor working lad who only uses the internet at the local library?
OK! I DID LIVE 10 YEARS IN THE STREETS AND NEVER FORGET IT,MY ONLY LUXXURY IS TO TAKE DOWN IGNORANT LIKE YOU,AND WHEN IN SPEAK ABOUT DIRECT DEMOCRATY, I MEAN RESPONSABILITIES NO ABSURDITIES(COMMENTS),AS WELL AS REALITIES.....BUT I'M NOT BRAINWASH ;) SO GO ON AND BE THE LITTLE ONE ,WHO WILL VOTE ONCE FOR AN ELITE WHO WILL SPIT ON YOU

"Direct Democracy"

Fine on a relatively small scale, such as city-states, municipalities, etc. But on a national scale, the larger the nation, the more unwieldy it becomes.

It also lends itself to tyranny by majority rule.

Agreed, which is why my idea of utopia is some kind of world-wide confederacy where 99.999% of the local power is concentrated in a local level with increasingly weak levels of bueracracy above to facilitate things like trade and conflict dispute.

In fact, I have my own little system of world government dreamed up. It would take a while to explain it, but I'd be willing to make a new topic if anyone was willing to listen.

Agreed, which is why my idea of utopia is some kind of world-wide confederacy where 99.999% of the local power is concentrated in a local level with increasingly weak levels of bueracracy above to facilitate things like trade and conflict dispute.

In fact, I have my own little system of world government dreamed up. It would take a while to explain it, but I'd be willing to make a new topic if anyone was willing to listen.

Please do :)

Ok! What Is Democracy?

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


source: dictionary.com

Agreed, which is why my idea of utopia is some kind of world-wide confederacy where 99.999% of the local power is concentrated in a local level with increasingly weak levels of bueracracy above to facilitate things like trade and conflict dispute.What you're describing is classic anarchistic fare, and it's a nice dream, but profoundly irrealistic.

i grew up in small town maine. we had town meeting every year. my dad was selectman many times.

everything on the town warrant was voted on directly by whoever showed up to town meeting, majority rule. all you had to be was a registered voter in our town.

it worked very well for a town of somewhat under 1000 people, it was taken very seriously and nothing was done that did not have the agreement of the town. all ordinances, all expenditures, all officeholders, everything. even the school board and budget were decided at town meeting.

"Direct Democracy"

Fine on a relatively small scale, such as city-states, municipalities, etc. But on a national scale, the larger the nation, the more unwieldy it becomes.

It also lends itself to tyranny by majority rule.
AND REPRESENTATIVE ONE DOES NOT?

WELL THE DIRECT ONE IS NEVER TRIED, WHILE THE REPRESENTATIVE ONE IS PROOVING TO BE SECTARIAN,AGAIN....TO BE FOLLOWED

What you're describing is classic anarchistic fare, and it's a nice dream, but profoundly irrealistic.

Except I'm not an anarchist. I believe very much in the rule of law.

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


source: dictionary.com

NO FROM GREEK ILUSION/LANGUAGE IT WAS "POWER TO THE PEOPLE"

Venus MoundWhat you're describing is classic anarchistic fare, and it's a nice dream, but profoundly irrealistic]
WHAT IS REALISTIC?
WHAT HAS BEEN TRIED?AND HAVE BEEN SPOILED?
IF WAT HAS NOT BEEN TRY IS REALISTIC,THEN I'M FOR

NOBODY ANYMORE? JESUS.MOHAMED.JUCHE :mp5: ?HITLER.STALINE? :mp5: BUSH,CHIRAC ....ETC.... :p :mp5:

Except I'm not an anarchist. I believe very much in the rule of law.Traditional anarchists like Proudhon don't believe in mayhem, they believe in, as you said, a loose confederacy of tiny communities.

Traditional anarchists like Proudhon don't believe in mayhem, they believe in, as you said, a loose confederacy of tiny communities.

All governed by the rule of law, in my case. Basically, there would still be a system of law set in place by something functionally similar to the constitution of the United States. It's just that the people themselves would vote on what exactly is illegal and what is not.

THIS THREAD IS DEAD SINCE BATLLESTAR GALACTICA,LONG LIVE DEMOCRACY...IN SPACETIME :cool:
SO FOR ALL :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :fluffle: :p

All governed by the rule of law, in my case. Basically, there would still be a system of law set in place by something functionally similar to the constitution of the United States. It's just that the people themselves would vote on what exactly is illegal and what is not.In principle it's nice, but there are two hurdles:

1- Nations tends to have different cultures and thus different laws. You would either have to have one constitution per nation (and therefore one State, which seems to be the pleasant direction the world is headed in) or you would have to conquer and oppress every nation on the world (but one, I guess) to impose your constitution on them (the Napoleon way).

2- You say the people would directly interpret the law, which is the job of judges. In history and in my experience, whenever this has happened it quickly degenerated into mob justice.

In principle it's nice, but there are two hurdles:

1- Nations tends to have different cultures and thus different laws. You would either have to have one constitution per nation (and therefore one State, which seems to be the pleasant direction the world is headed in) or you would have to conquer and oppress every nation on the world (but one, I guess) to impose your constitution on them (the Napoleon way).

2- You say the people would directly interpret the law, which is the job of judges. In history and in my experience, whenever this has happened it quickly degenerated into mob justice.

Notice I specifically set forward the US Constitution as my example. It only sets out a bare bones structure that makes sure things like equality and fairness of law are preserved, it does not define legality itself. The laws themselves are created by the direct democracy which is free to do what it wants: elect judges, implement an absolute jury system, etc.

Also note that my ideas are certainly not ones for direct implementation into the world, this is my idea for a future utopia. It depends on the human race being slightly more aware and intelligent on a whole, something that can only be achieved through rigorous education.

What is [direct] democracy, but mob rule?
Plato

Notice I specifically set forward the US Constitution as my example. It only sets out a bare bones structure that makes sure things like equality and fairness of law are preserved, it does not define legality itself. The laws themselves are created by the direct democracy which is free to do what it wants: elect judges, implement an absolute jury system, etc.You're misled if you think the US constitution is disconnected from a specific culture.

Not every mindset can wrap itself around a system of checks and balances. Similarily, an idea like freedom of speech and religion is one which is very specific to a certain era and culture (the Enlightenment, the West), the 9th Amendment is typical to a common law system but wouldn't work in a civil law country, etc.