NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you like Direct Democracy?

Discuss why or why not.

Do you think it would be a better system in your home country?

It works for small groups, like the Greek polis of old. In America, it's simply impractical. You can't have every single voting citizen approve everything. Nothing would ever get done.

It works for small groups, like the Greek polis of old. In America, it's simply impractical. You can't have every single voting citizen approve everything. Nothing would ever get done.

I agree, however, I would also like to see what people from other countrys have to say on the matter.

Tyranny of the majority, anyone?

Depends. If it's by consensus, then no.

In principle, definitely; implementation would be difficult on the national level, but I would support solving significant local issues that way.

Depends. If it's by consensus, then no.
Ever tried getting a consensus with 10 peeps?

Now try it with 10 millions.

Now try it with 100 millions.

Now try it with 7 billion.

Nope, still doesn't work right :p

Yes, but how many people would vote to raise their own taxes. Or any number of other necessary but relatively unpleasant subjects. I don't think it'd really work, even if I like the idea.

Yes, but how many people would vote to raise their own taxes. Or any number of other necessary but relatively unpleasant subjects. I don't think it'd really work, even if I like the idea.

It worked for Greek city states who prospered years beyond their time.

Its working damn well for the Swiss right now.

Yes, but how many people would vote to raise their own taxes.

How many people are willing to buy things?

How many people are willing to buy things?
I think many to most people would like having a lot of government services without having to pay higher taxes. Silly people.:p

Trans-human']I think many to most people would like having a lot of government services without having to pay higher taxes. Silly people.:p

And I think most people would like lower prices for the things they buy at the store, too.

Tyranny of the majority, anyone?
You make my country sound so negative. :"[

Nothing would get done in a country of significant population. That's why we elect officials to think for us..

And I think most people would like lower prices for the things they buy at the store, too.
And just like people won't buy every thing they want at a store few people will vote for anything other than modest tax hikes(except for the rich) for increased services. In America any canidate who advocates a general tax increase is committing political suicide. I fail to see how this will change under direct democracy.;)

Nothing would get done in a country of significant population. That's why we elect officials to think for us..

i'm not sure i find the idea of 'nothing getting done' to be so bad considering the record of 'getting things done' we already have.

Tyranny of the majority, anyone?

as opposed to the tyranny of the minority that happens when you have an elite minority holding all the power?

Ever tried getting a consensus with 10 peeps?

Now try it with 10 millions.

Now try it with 100 millions.

Now try it with 7 billion.

Nope, still doesn't work right :pSo.. That there's a practical limited to an efficient society that doesn't rob it's parts of their rightful influence somehow invalidates the notion of having a society where the parts of it has any influence?

That.. I don't get. Infact, I think that's a pretty screwed world veiw. And just for reference, concensus decision making works fine for several hundreds of people. I fail to see how you can argue representative democracy works for ten million people, when there's absolutely no evidence throughout world history that such forms of government remain representative of the actual peoples when they reach just half that size.

as opposed to the tyranny of the minority that happens when you have an elite minority holding all the power?Pft! As if corporate interests & my interests didn't coincide... What do you mean they're ruining everything I care about?! Shut the fuck up! Pinko-commie-hippie-dog! Representative Democrazy is GOD! My prez sayz so! Nanananah!

I like direct democracy. I think direct democracy should be implemented wherever possible. I think it should happen in my country, but only if they chop it up into blocks of 100,000 people or so.

Ever tried getting a consensus with 10 peeps?
I dunno about marshmallow chicks that people get in their Easter baskets, but I've personally seen consensus work for 10 people.
I wouldn't encourage consensus, though, just simple direct democracy.

It works for small groups, like the Greek polis of old. In America, it's simply impractical. You can't have every single voting citizen approve everything. Nothing would ever get done.
i think with the advent of new technology like the internet, direct democracy on a large, modern nation-state scale is finally possible. good thing too.

but there would have to be a good degree of localisation of government


and people really ought to be better informed... and better educated... and just generally smarter... ah hell lets leave it a couple of hundered years.

I stick to my view of a representative democracy with an intellectual elite (monitored by an independent council) holding onto power. Capitalism with perfect competition would serve as an ideal economic system till self-replicating robots can take over the manufacturing sector.

To be prefectly honest I don't believe in democracy at all, the perfect arguement for that is a 5 minute conversation with an average voter. The masses will never replace the man.

To be prefectly honest I don't believe in democracy at all, the perfect arguement for that is a 5 minute conversation with an average voter. The masses will never replace the man.
Indeed. Which is why its best to have an intelligent, intellectual elite governing affairs. If people are happy, they won't really care about being involved in government, so long as their needs are tended to.

Indeed. Which is why its best to have an intelligent, intellectual elite governing affairs. If people are happy, they won't really care about being involved in government, so long as their needs are tended to.
people =/= cattle.

people =/= cattle.
I won't say I agree, but I will add that I don't think most people are capable of government. Politicians even less so. They are nothing but fools, mostly, which prostitute their pathetic packages of ideas for votes. I have little respect for most of them.

Oh, and its not the same thing to say that people are cattle when they are content. Most attempts at revolutions occured when people were dissatisfied with government, not simply because they were bored. In any case, with an elite governing, they would still have their say as this elite would have to keep up with their demands. So no, its not cattle. :rolleyes:

In theory the idea is nice, but it would only turn into a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare I suspect. PM has a point that with modern technologies, we may be returning to a time when it could work, but I think so many people in the modern age are politically apathetic. OK, so election turnouts and whatnot are not representative since many people feel all representative parties are shite and not worth voting for, but I think there is a sizeable proportion who simply are not interested regardless.

In theory the idea is nice, but it would only turn into a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare I suspect. PM has a point that with modern technologies, we may be returning to a time when it could work, but I think so many people in the modern age are politically apathetic. OK, so election turnouts and whatnot are not representative since many people feel all representative parties are shite and not worth voting for, but I think there is a sizeable proportion who simply are not interested regardless.
People basically want the power to govern themselves. If someone maintains the nation and the economy, so as to give people the power to be self-sufficient and have all their rights guaranteed, they would be content.

Direct Democracy brings up nasty concepts likke "tyranny of the majority", "mob rule", and "legislated bigotry".

Good modern day example is Switzerland. There's a town in Switzerland where the people decided by referendum that the people should be able to decide directly whether foreign nationals living in the town should be granted permanent residency. End result? NOBODY from eastern european countries ever gets granted permanent residency. If they're from Albania or Serbia or the Ukraine or another "undesirable" country, they don't get to become permanent residents of the town. So far the only exceptions have been a handful of good soccer players who became irreplacable additions to the local team.


And there's the whole problem of checks and balances. In a direct democracy, if a majority of the people think gay sex should be a capital offence, then it just takes one petition that leads to a referendum and shazaam, the police'll be stringing queers up from lamp posts. Nobody likes paying income tax, right? You can bet your ass that if tax was put to the vote, they'd make disasterous cuts that destroy the government's ability to do anything. Everyone hates jews? Start a vote to have them deported. Militant anarchy becomes popular one year? Deport the rich. Newspapers get the public riled up about the need to get tough on crime? Capital punishment for car theft! And so on and so forth.

Direct Democracy brings up nasty concepts likke "tyranny of the majority", "mob rule", and "legislated bigotry".

Good modern day example is Switzerland. There's a town in Switzerland where the people decided by referendum that the people should be able to decide directly whether foreign nationals living in the town should be granted permanent residency. End result? NOBODY from eastern european countries ever gets granted permanent residency. If they're from Albania or Serbia or the Ukraine or another "undesirable" country, they don't get to become permanent residents of the town. So far the only exceptions have been a handful of good soccer players who became irreplacable additions to the local team.


And there's the whole problem of checks and balances. In a direct democracy, if a majority of the people think gay sex should be a capital offence, then it just takes one petition that leads to a referendum and shazaam, the police'll be stringing queers up from lamp posts. Nobody likes paying income tax, right? You can bet your ass that if tax was put to the vote, they'd make disasterous cuts that destroy the government's ability to do anything. Everyone hates jews? Start a vote to have them deported. Militant anarchy becomes popular one year? Deport the rich. Newspapers get the public riled up about the need to get tough on crime? Capital punishment for car theft! And so on and so forth.
Another excellent point against such a form of government. Athens had, at a point, a direct democracy. It ended up exiling many of its honorary citizens as their enemies managed to band opposition against them, in effect ostracising them. It turns people into lynch mobs really. One might say that opposition in the community could counter-balance this. Not if the majority is of different opinion though. Quite a useless system indeed, even in small societies. Not that partisan politics is any better...:rolleyes:

Here in Denmark we have a multiparty-system, which pretty much eliminates the possibility of tyranny of the majority.

Well, i think that representative democracy is not real democracy.

Here in Denmark we have a multiparty-system, which pretty much eliminates the possibility of tyranny of the majority.
Yes, but Denmark is not a direct democracy :p

Well, i think that representative democracy is not real democracy.
Not in its present form. Politicians often completely ignore the views of the public and do nothing to meet its demands. Were a representative democracy to be sensitive to the needs of the populace and to heed its concerns, as well as be able to act intelligently to govern the nation, then it would be a democracy.

Direct Democracy brings up nasty concepts likke "tyranny of the majority", "mob rule", and "legislated bigotry".

Good modern day example is Switzerland. There's a town in Switzerland where the people decided by referendum that the people should be able to decide directly whether foreign nationals living in the town should be granted permanent residency. End result? NOBODY from eastern european countries ever gets granted permanent residency. If they're from Albania or Serbia or the Ukraine or another "undesirable" country, they don't get to become permanent residents of the town. So far the only exceptions have been a handful of good soccer players who became irreplacable additions to the local team.

So what, if they dont want Eastern Europeaners or Africans or whatever in their country, let them be. Its their desicion, its their country, I dont see anything wrong with that, people do not have the right to be a Swiss citizen, just because.The Swiss pick who they want for their own country, I see nothing wrong with that.


And there's the whole problem of checks and balances. In a direct democracy, if a majority of the people think gay sex should be a capital offence, then it just takes one petition that leads to a referendum and shazaam, the police'll be stringing queers up from lamp posts. Nobody likes paying income tax, right? You can bet your ass that if tax was put to the vote, they'd make disasterous cuts that destroy the government's ability to do anything. Everyone hates jews? Start a vote to have them deported. Militant anarchy becomes popular one year? Deport the rich. Newspapers get the public riled up about the need to get tough on crime? Capital punishment for car theft! And so on and so forth.

Some how I think you are being a tiny bit extreame....*Looks toward Switzerland to see if they are still a top country in the civilized world, that has a huge economy and an even higher standard of living* Yup, just a little.

I like the idea of direct democracy, and I'm not going to dismiss it with a flip of the hand and, "Oh, but it can't be done in a big country". Yes, yes it can. And it does NOT mean we go to the polls every couple of hours to vote on every little detail. Delegation is still important.

It needs to start at the local level. You can not just suddenly declare that from 'X'day, the country will be run directly by the people. People first have to feel that their decisions actually do have power (unlike voting, which in Canada, only gives you a slight say in which party is going to represent you...a party which can not take its constituents wishes over the party platform anyway), and they then have to be willing to put in the work that takes.

To me, direct democracy means that you can still have representatives, but they must be following the wishes of their constituents, rather than a party platform. This is somewhat how municipalities already work. Consider a town, which allocates its fund according to need. Often, townhall meetings are held in order to determine which areas need the funds the most. Right now, very few people bother to show up, or make their voices heard. Municipalities are already somewhat set up for a kind of direct-democracy, but people have little political will, believing these to be matters best left to professionals. Nonetheless, townhall meetings can be real eye-openers. Should we widen the main road, or spend the money on centennial celebrations? Should we invest in a pool, or add a new wing onto the library? These are immediate issues that actually impact people, and yet few people bother to do more than discuss it over coffee. If you can't get these people off their asses, you can't expect it on a wider level.

That's not to say it can't work. It absolutely can...and again, it's not a willy-nilly case of every single citizen having to vote every two seconds. But it does take a certain level of commitment to learning about the issues rather than entrusting others to figure it out for you...and people have for too long been raised to believe that politics are for politicians only.

Do you like Direct Democracy?

Discuss why or why not.

Do you think it would be a better system in your home country?

The biggest reason why a direct democracy is a dangerous thing is because majority can't always rule. Tyrrany of the majority is a dangerous thing.

The biggest reason why a direct democracy is a dangerous thing is because majority can't always rule. Tyrrany of the majority is a dangerous thing.
Seriously...what the heck are you people thinking? Direct democracy already exists, albeit in smaller amounts in many countries. The US has it every single time there is a ballot question on a state level. And a tyranny of the majority also bloody exists, even in representative democracies. The majority decides which party makes the decisions.

I don't like any form of democracy. Basically, you're allowing idiots to determine how your country is governed. I'd take a benevolent dictatorship (one that permits virtually unlimited social and economic liberties, but without elections) anyday.

I don't like any form of democracy. Basically, you're allowing idiots to determine how your country is governed. I'd take a benevolent dictatorship (one that permits virtually unlimited social and economic liberties, but without elections) anyday.

The problem is guranteeing a benevolent dictator, and guranteeing that they stay benevolent. I can't recall one benevolent dictator. I'll take democracy over dictatorship any day.

I live in a private lake community. If anyone ever wanted to do a paper on direct democracy and why it doesn't work they could use this place as a shining example.
The dam, spillway, water and sewer are taken care of because the state forces it to be done. Otherwise the population of this community would let the maintenance go until a few hundred people below us died in a dam collapse and their families sued.
Roads and existing structures are in poor shape because it takes a 2/3 majority to get anything done. You can't get 2/3 of people to agree on anything.
Wages and benefits paid to employees are at the rock-bottom minimum allowed by law. They'd get less if there were no minimum wage laws.
It's a right-wing capitalist paradise !

Trans-human']The problem is guranteeing a benevolent dictator, and guranteeing that they stay benevolent. I can't recall one benevolent dictator. I'll take democracy over dictatorship any day.

I'm sure there've been plenty of benevolent dictators...but I can't name any off the top of my head. :confused:

And a tyranny of the majority also bloody exists, even in representative democracies. The majority decides which party makes the decisions.

and then it's even worse - fewer people to buy off or turn out to be evil fucktards once you're down to a couple hundred representatives.

What about something based on the Swiss system (or what I understanmd the swiss system to be:) whereby billa are passed through Parliament/Congress normally, unless a predermined population petitions to go to referendum. To prevent voter fatigue several are voted on at once.

Personally, I don't see a problem with that.

In a perfect world you could even do away with the legislative branch and replace it with a tech system based on forums, but we're not quite there yet...

aside from the fact that it would be totally impractical, im against it because what the people want is not necessarily what is best. Look at every election, roughly half the people vote for the wrong guy.

As much as direct democracy appeals to me, people are still too idiotic to trust it. I'm sure if it was implemented here there'd be a return of public execution and corporal punishment, pedophiles would have their dicks cut off and people would demand lower taxes then wonder why they have shitty public services. People in general are morons.

As much as direct democracy appeals to me, people are still too idiotic to trust it. People in general are morons.

Exactly. That's why all forms of democracy are bad. Benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, IMO.

im against it because what the people want is not necessarily what is best. Look at every election, roughly half the people vote for the wrong guy.

but that is more of an argument against representative democracy than anything else. under a representative system you frequently wind up giving huge amounts of power to 'the wrong guy' - and when the people realize what a mistake they've made, they have almost no recourse but to wait a couple years and hope that some other part of the ruling elite will save them in the mean time.

representative democracy exponentially multpilies the failings and mistakes of democracy by concentrating power into a few hands and making those hands largely unaccountable.

Exactly. That's why all forms of democracy are bad. Benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, IMO.

but if the people are too stupid to rule themselves, how will we sort out who would be a good dictator? and how can we make sure that said dictator will remain benevolent? and how can we make sure that the next dictator will be good and will remain benevolent?

It works for small groups, like the Greek polis of old. In Germany, it's simply impractical. You can't have every single voting citizen approve everything. Nothing would ever get done. Not even in a city of 100,000. Or in my hometown of 40,000.
Maybe a very small village with around 500 people could to that. But usually they belong to some county which includes more people from around and it becomes impractical yet again.

It works for small groups, like the Greek polis of old. In Germany, it's simply impractical. You can't have every single voting citizen approve everything. Nothing would ever get done. Not even in a city of 100,000. Or in my hometown of 40,000.
Maybe a very small village with around 500 people could to that. But usually they belong to some county which includes more people from around and it becomes impractical yet again.

why would everyone have to vote on everything?

It works for small groups, like the Greek polis of old. In Germany, it's simply impractical. You can't have every single voting citizen approve everything. Nothing would ever get done. Not even in a city of 100,000. Or in my hometown of 40,000.
Maybe a very small village with around 500 people could to that. But usually they belong to some county which includes more people from around and it becomes impractical yet again.
Nor is this what direct democracy would require. I think people aren't actually looking much into what direct democracy entails...just making assumptions about it. So the idea you're dismissing, actually isn't the idea that's being discussed.

So the idea you're dismissing, actually isn't the idea that's being discussed.

and when has that ever mattered before?

Seriously...what the heck are you people thinking? Direct democracy already exists, albeit in smaller amounts in many countries. The US has it every single time there is a ballot question on a state level. And a tyranny of the majority also bloody exists, even in representative democracies. The majority decides which party makes the decisions.
Very true. This form of direct democracy is better IMO as it is feasible and can be kept at bay, without resulting in excesses.

Mob rule? No thanks.

Very true. This form of direct democracy is better IMO as it is feasible and can be kept at bay, without resulting in excesses.

Word Nazi gotcha! Democracies are direct while Republics are representative.

Either that or my teachers lied to me. Why am I not surprised?

Mob rule? No thanks.
Are you posting while drunk again??

Word Nazi gotcha! Democracies are direct while Republics are representative.

Either that or my teachers lied to me. Why am I not surprised?
Your point being?

Democracies are direct while Republics are representative.

nah. most republics these days are democratic (or at least claim to be), specifically working on the principle of representative democracy. but there are not so democratic republics out there. china, for example.