NationStates Jolt Archive

could we comprise a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein all citizens can directly participate in the political decision-making process? instead of represenative.

could we comprise a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein all citizens can directly participate in the political decision-making process? instead of represenative.They tried in the city state of Athens and THAT led to trouble. Imagine what would happen if even larger populations got to vote.

Not really, no. The only people who will go out and vote on certain issues will [obviously] be the only ones who care enough about it to get off their ass, which prevents it from being a truly 'pure' democracy in any sense of the word [since not eveyone would vote on everything]. If you want people to go out and make a better life for themselves, someone else is going to have to handle the day-to-day running of our government. If we want them to waste their time reading appropriations bills and trying to figure out what they mean, we'll hand ballots to them every morning.

I'd prefer a perfect Republic to a perfect Democracy every time. Democracies, while well meaning, can easily allow for horrible injustices. Just imagine what would happen if the majority had unlimited power: god knows just what manner of insane bullshit the "Republican" party would force on the rest of us if they had the power to do so.

hahahahaha. No. Representative democracy barely is workable.

allowing everyone in a country to vote on every issue would not only lead to huge poltical problems but when would the citizens work? sorting through what moves to make to keep a country alive is time consuming and if everyone had to do it on a daily basis nothing would ever get done. The country would implode from lack of commerce.

But to be honest I don't think it ever really worked in Athens, Greece either. For one only citizens could vote. And a citizen was a male born in athens who was wealthy, owned land, had no family history of slavery for at least three generations and was married. Then there was the problem with everyone being buddy buddy and voting with their friends instead of trying to be well informed on the issues. Then if you voted against your neighbor for his new road he in turn voted against your idea for a wonderful new statue.

so no I really think no matter how hard we try there could never be a nation run by the people with each person having a say on every issue.

This was a wonderful little thread. Thank you

Brooke
Empress of Brandawen

[QUOTE=
Just imagine what would happen if the majority had unlimited power: god knows just what manner of insane bullshit the "Republican" party would force on the rest of us if they had the power to do so.[/QUOTE]

Ha Ha I sudder to think.... :eek:


We could stand to do better within our nation to fix things that happen here. But its hard to make people see that unless we are willing to make a huge deal out of things that matter to us nothing is going to change.

I think if we started telling our younger generation how important it is to vote and how much keeping track of what is going on in the coutry really does play into our daily lives we might see some light at the end of our tunnel. As it is now we try to catch kids when they hit 18 through rock the vote and the music industry... most of those people dont vote..... by 18 its too late and the kids have become self-centered and consumerist. Buying the latest video game or mp3 player is more important then where the money for Social Security will be in five, ten or even fifteen years. It scares me to see who will be running the coutry next and the generation after them.

oppps i might be starting a new thread here... ha ha ha....

Brooke
Empress of Brandawen

I don't want this form to go into any political issues, about replublican or democratic parties. I just want the answer if a true democracy will work. Nothing with politics please.

I don't want this form to go into any political issues, about replublican or democratic parties. I just want the answer if a true democracy will work. Nothing with politics please.
Dude, I was just using them as an example to illustrate the idiocy of the current majority in this country. I actually answered your question. This isn't likely to turn into a Republican vs Democrat argument anyway.

I don't want this form to go into any political issues, about replublican or democratic parties. I just want the answer if a true democracy will work. Nothing with politics please.The thing is, you don't want to be responsible for every little thing that comes before a parliament (in fact they don't either, some of the time). Ancient Greece had a pretty good example of why the public shouldn't be allowed to make every decision: The Athenian citizens wanted to make an example of an island that had rebelled agains their rule. They decided to have every man above a certain age (12 I think) killed and sent a ship there to carry out the decision. A day later, their tempers had cooled and they revoked their decision and sent another ship in hot pursuit of the first. Luckily, the second ship was faster and the islanders were spared a cruel fate.
This shows that foreign policy at least needs a certain degree of consistency, which public opinion lacks. The same goes for a lot of other issues.

Without some mass brainwashing no, I would think true democracy (democrazy) would never work. Good example of Athens!

Seeing that everyone is truely out for themselves we would end up with the same as we have now and on policies of "ideologies" we would get eveyone voting all "mushy", though i do believe that it would do away with race based funding and policy (yes previlant where i come from, you should try being white, young and male..... a very talanted combination and we are TAUGHT that we are bad bad people..... does this equal a new hitler? another thread perhaps?)

So........... no......... we have to have people to make us do things which we do not want to do because it is for the greater good.

Love and kisses

True democracy will not be any worse than representative democracy. Professional politicians almost invariably become corrupted over time and end up caring less about values than about pandering and campaign contributions. In a true democracy, small groups of priveledged, elitist individuals would not be in complete control of the government, as evidenced by their ability to raise their own pay (at least in the U.S.).

could we comprise a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein all citizens can directly participate in the political decision-making process? instead of represenative.

Could ? Probably. Want ? No. Besides the enormous overhead, there is also the problem of tyranny by majority. If 51% of the population wants to hold the other 49% as slaves and have their firstborns for lunch - too bad for the 49%.
In a representative system the votes of that 49% would at least be heard.

True, pure democracy could never work, IMO.

The majority is collectively too stupid and spiteful to have that sort of power.

Switzerland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland)

Politics of Switzerland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland)

Direct democracy is fine, provided that there is a Constitution that helps to prevent a dictatorship of the majority.

Somebody mentioned Rock the Vote.. rock the vote was the dumbest pile of crap I have ever seen in a long time. I'm 20, and it was directed towards my age group. There needs to be renewed interest, and brainwashing campaigns like that one just don't help that.

What we need is a representative democratic republic. Not a direct democracy. A direct democracy is somewhat accomplished in the town hall setting, but it will not function in a nation the size of this one. It was also established in Athens, but it was just one city state. That system also led to trouble. A true, direct democracy is impossible, and would lead to a system meltdown. It is not wise for a nation. Representative democracy is definitely the finest system out there. It is also the truest when it comes to representation of the people, when applied properly.

I think if we started telling our younger generation how important it is to vote and how much keeping track of what is going on in the coutry really does play into our daily lives we might see some light at the end of our tunnel. As it is now we try to catch kids when they hit 18 through rock the vote and the music industry... most of those people dont vote..... by 18 its too late and the kids have become self-centered and consumerist. Buying the latest video game or mp3 player is more important then where the money for Social Security will be in five, ten or even fifteen years. It scares me to see who will be running the coutry next and the generation after them.

oppps i might be starting a new thread here... ha ha ha....

Brooke
Empress of Brandawen

Funny people said the same thing in the 1960s and 1970s.... people grow up and mature. Don't think people stay immature there entire lives.. well at least most aren't.. some well.. lets not go there.

True democracy? Sounds inefficient.

Imagine needing to go to the polls for every single small decision micro and macro.

Should we spend to make new public toilets? Should we use public money to repaint old buildings? Should the roads be re-tarred every 10 years? Should there be a motorcycle lane? Should the motorcycle lane be divided into two for bycicles?

Only on a small scale. In a large country it would be disaster. In small towns, however, it's a great system.

Direct democracy? Sounds fine. Have a few elected "officials" write the bills and make sure they are enforced, then pass on the laws for vote by the masses. Government should really only be passing two or three laws a year anyway.

Of course, there's nothing to stop the masses from making hundreds of thousands of laws, much like exists now.

Could ? Probably. Want ? No. Besides the enormous overhead, there is also the problem of tyranny by majority. If 51% of the population wants to hold the other 49% as slaves and have their firstborns for lunch - too bad for the 49%.
In a representative system the votes of that 49% would at least be heard.

and how exactly does representative democracy prevent that? under a representative system, you actually need vastly fewer people to be in favor of some horrific policy for it to become law.

In a large country it would be disaster.

only if you tried to micromanage everything by holding votes across the whole country all the time on all sorts of random shit. but that would be silly.

I shudder to think how much freedom would be restricted.

I shudder to think how much freedom would be restricted.

which is necessarily related to direct democracy but not to representative democracy (and other, non-democratic systems) how exactly?

Of course, there's nothing to stop the masses from making hundreds of thousands of laws, much like exists now.

except the sheer boredom of sitting through endless meetings and all the work needed to convince the people at large of how good your proposed law is. currently, we pay people good money to do that, so it should come as no surprise that they keep coming up with new laws.

It would certainly deal with the problem of career politicians.

Of course, the logistics of it are enough to give the collective quartermaster population of the US Army a massive headache.

I suppose, breaking the whole thing down into preset districts and providing every citizen with some sort of remote voting device would be possible, but keeping the system secure would be damned hard work.

which is necessarily related to direct democracy but not to representative democracy (and other, non-democratic systems) how exactly?
Any form of government restricts freedom, but as the topic relates to direct democracy I wanted to keep it there.

Don't be so utterly ridiculous, the masses need direction, instruction, repression, not liberation and empowerment. True democracy contrived to reduce Athens, the pre-eminent post- Xerxian greek state, to a subservient, regressed and conquered state within fifty years, since indecision, eternal debate, apathy and discontent replaced any recognised form of leadership. By contrast, Sparta, a monarchic state wherin two potentates controlled the every facet of Spartan life, floursihed and expanded at the detriment of Athens, due to its capacity and inclination towards decisive, and generally erudite and illuminated, action. The signal implication of the above is that a potenate or group of potetates, empowered at the behest of their populace, is indubitably more decisive, and accordingly potent and succesful, than a pure democracy.

Could we technically have a true direct democracy? Yes, it could operate about the same way as NationStates. People could log in every day, read three arguements on an issue and vote.

But do we really want such a thing? Can you or anyone be informed enough on every issue to know how to vote? Can I become informed enough to know if we should spend anoher billion on schools or a battleship and still have time to be productive? Even the members of a democratic Republic or Parliment can't do it. That is why they specialize in certain areas. Then trust certain committee members to be an expert in an area. They end up voting based on the opinions of those committee members.