Can Direct Democracy Work Today?

[Praxius]

I didn't spend much time looking but the only modern example of direct democracy I found is Switzerland and it is a very small country.

But still shows that the system can work, and with a decent amount of modification and time, it could be adapted for larger populations.

I am in favor of direct of democracy, but it should be known all human organizations need leaders. The Greeks would say, these were people chosen by the gods, and not everyone chosen by the gods answers the call, as most humans rather be as content cattle.

Direct Democracy states:

"comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein sovereignty is lodged in the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate."

For those who don't want to participate, they really have no say, very much like representational. This method of democracy allows for an enticement to make people want to get involved.

Therefore those who wish to remain as cattle can, while those who want direct input can.

And in Democracy, I don't feel leaders are required.... leaders are required for communism and dictatorships, all that is needed in democracy is someone to organize the system and do what everybody wants them to do..... they can speak for the people of a nation when talking to other nations, but the decisions don't need to be made by this same person..... in a sense, this person could be a leader, but the power remains directly in the hands of the people. This person can inform the public of the pros and cons.... be used as a teacher/educator of each situation (So long as they remain unbiased) and then the people can make informed decisions.

I keep proding you about your political activity, because if you want to participate more in governing decisions you can. I think you choose not to be involved and get some pleasure out of attacking an imaginary beast. Nothing is keeping you, or anyone else, from being more involved. People just choose not to be involved.

Another example if you like, would be when I actually held some interest in one paticular politician and felt he could actually make a difference. His name was Mike Turner and had quite the big mouth and lots of opinions against the major parties. He cause a lot of stirring about in the Conservative party and voiced his displeasure in some of the things the party was doing. I emailed him and his site, talked to other members on his site, replied to his blogs, shared my views, etc..... he also brought up the concept of Digital Democracy to help improve the current system.

^ He eventually got booted out of the party and became an independant. After boasting about how great it is to be an independant and how he could represent people better outside of a party and after bashing both the Liberals and Conservatives...... he then joined the Liberals and completely switched his tone in an about face...... and of course those who expressed their dislike about him doing this and joining the Liberals..... they, including myself, got ignored and eventually banned from his site.

Not because we got offensive or threatened him..... it was because he didn't want to answer the questions brought to him..... just like every other goon in the government today..... they'll be your frind only when you agree with their point of view.

I have also sent plenty of feedback to other members and parties here where I live, and I have at least tried to get involved in this corrupt system for the last 8 years.

It doesn't take even 5 years to realize how corrupt this system is. The party I voted for sends me letters and polls to fill out and give feedback on, but when it comes right down to crunch time.... they usually either crumble to what the other parties want, or they just "Didn't have time to bring it up."

In a city of several thousand people, when our legislators come to speak to us, those who care enough to communicate with them, can all fit in a relative small room. Out of this small group of people, may 4 or 5 really want more to do than attend these hearings. And city counsel meetings are often boring as hell, as they involve many little decisions, most of us don't care about. The truth is, most of us are glad to leave the governing up to a handful of people. I think it is those who make no effort at all to participate in the governing and policy making process, who are most apt to argue for direct democracy, because they do not know the reality of the decision making process. It is not as easy as pushing a bottom on your cell phone.

I know all of this and it would be nice if you stopped assuming everything about me and my experience.

And just because you may feel fine being cattle or sheep, doesn't mean all of us do.... and most of us don't see the logic in getting involved into a system that is setup to work only for one or two parties, not the people.

And when you use examples such as the above in regards to how few goto these meetings, you sound like you are trying to use examples of Representational government to explain away Direct, which makes no sense.

The reason why very few attend these meetings is the same reason why so few turn out to vote..... because the system isn't trusted, the system is flawed and the system is setup so that the people don't make any important decisions and are illusioned into thinking they have any real serious input.

[SoylentGreen]

None of the above can achieve democracy. What is the problem here? Seriously, you list different economic systems, and these do not manifest a democracy. Democracy is an ideology of relationships, and

only through education

can an ideology be manifest.

Correct, now describe the type of education that best manifest the ideology.
Can we achieve that type of education through a socialist system of well funded public schools or should it be through private education with only people who can individually afford to educate their children.

[minorwork]

Correct, now describe the type of education that best manifest the ideology.
Can we achieve that type of education through a socialist system of well funded public schools or should it be through private education with only people who can individually afford to educate their children.

Who are to be the educators? The teachers fresh out of college that because of their youthfullness and general lack of experience teach idealism without the aid of a life of practical, pragmatic applications of their subject? Or, the older teachers who have, hopefully, been out in the field working at jobs for 30 years or so and know of the challenges that await the poor naive youth in their classrooms?

Socialized or privatized the teachers are at the focus of examination.

[Praxius]

Who are to be the educators? The teachers fresh out of college that because of their youthfullness and general lack of experience teach idealism without the aid of a life of practical, pragmatic applications of their subject? Or, the older teachers who have, hopefully, been out in the field working at jobs for 30 years or so and know of the challenges that await the poor naive youth in their classrooms?

Socialized or privatized the teachers are at the focus of examination.

Why can't it be both? All teachers are also all citizens with equal say..... a collaberation of the two could bring about a better approach, rather then thinking one is better then the other.

[minorwork]

Why can't it be both? All teachers are also all citizens with equal say..... a collaberation of the two could bring about a better approach, rather then thinking one is better then the other.

You've something there. I did have a class, philosphy of language, where there were two teachers. We asked why. They said because they didn't trust the other to teach the course properly. Go figure.

[Praxius]

You've something there. I did have a class, philosphy of language, where there were two teachers. We asked why. They said because they didn't trust the other to teach the course properly. Go figure.

lol... that's funny.... but it always helps to have some extra help and backup..... If your breaks fail in your car, at least you have the emergency break as backup.

With the teachers as an example, both the new teachers and old teachers won't know everything. The older may not know of new approaches or methods that can help improve things, while the younger may not know of older, more secure approaches that the older teachers learned through experience..... merging the two could help optimize the whole system.

[minorwork]

lol... that's funny.... but it always helps to have some extra help and backup..... If your breaks fail in your car, at least you have the emergency break as backup.

With the teachers as an example, both the new teachers and old teachers won't know everything. The older may not know of new approaches or methods that can help improve things, while the younger may not know of older, more secure approaches that the older teachers learned through experience..... merging the two could help optimize the whole system.

Sounds good, but when a new technique to teach math to 3rd graders is so foreign to even the teachers that they have a hard time with it, what is being gained? A parent was told by their third grader he was having trouble with his math. The parent was astonished that there was no textbook. Went to the teacher and there really was no text. Now the parents are out of the role of being able to explain the lessons. Is this trend where we are heading? One where the new ways of teaching have gotten somebody a masters or doctorate but have little application to real life? Nuts with this I'll just give my published letter to the editor. There were two articles the day of Sunday June 7, 2007. One told of the parent who realized she couldn't help her 3rd grader, I think it was, with her math and then found out the teacher was having a hard time too. The other article on the opposing page took a quarter page to solve a ridiculously easy problem if commutative laws were applied. It pissed me off so much I fired this off.

Referring to Sunday June 17, SJR articles on math. "Dumbing down" parents, by changing math vocabulary, cyclical coverage of topics, and removing textbooks is not progress in education. It is a social program working toward a "priestcraft" elite of educators. Technical jargon such as " two division sentences," "arrays," and "vertices" are a bit much for a lot of parents and teachers who learned math years ago. These seem more apt to produce a master's degree in education administration and/or remove the parent's role as instructor than equipping youths for jobs outside academia.

Gee whiz, 98 x 27 takes almost a quarter page? 2700 - 54 is the same and easily done in your head or on fingers. Teach that methodology. Give us a break. Math is a tool to apply to the real world. It is not the world.

[Praxius]

Well there are also plenty of new approaches I don't agree with.... and I guess the topic of teaching varries from country to country..... my father's a math teacher (along with science and phys-ed) and last I heard they still use text books and much of everything I was taught going to school.

You should hear some of the crap they're trying to do in the UK:

Should we simplify spelling?
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Should we simplify spelling?

Masha Bell, a member of the society and author of Understanding English Spelling, believes that reform of the spelling of the English language could help children learn to read and make life easier for some adults too......

Examples:
Addicted - adicted
Anyone - ennywun
Are - ar
Beautiful - butiful
Becoming - becumming
Benefit - bennefit
Couple - cupl
Difference - difrence
Have - hav
Health - helth
Learn - lern
Low - lo
Memory - memmory
Money - munny
More - mor
Most - moast
One - wun
Only - onely
People - peeple
Phonic - phonnic
Poor - por
Single - singl
Simple - simpl
Slow - slo
Still - stil
Therefore - therefor
To - tu
Very - verry
Were - wer
Worse - wors
You - u
Young - yung
Your - yor

^ Could you friggin imagine?

This wouldn't make anything easier.... we'd have to scrap all the old books, all our history, and re-write it all as described above, or else kids and adults would be really screwed up, because they wouldn't be taught how the way things used to be spelled and wouldn't get half of the existing text we all rely on today.

Not to mention the internet.

This isn't a way to make things easier, this is a way to be simply lazy without thinking it through...... sorry.... Thro

But this is getting off track.....

[Cruella]

That's not what they're "trying to do in the UK", it's a campaign from a pressure group, not a real issue affecting people. It got widespread coverage a while ago, and was roundly derided by the mass media over here (something the BBC won't be able to tell you). It pops up every now and again, usually in the "and now for something whimsical" sections - alongside waterskiing squirrels and the like - and people always rubbish it. The article's a couple of years old.

[minorwork]

Well there are also plenty of new approaches I don't agree with.... and I guess the topic of teaching varries from country to country..... my father's a math teacher (along with science and phys-ed) and last I heard they still use text books and much of everything I was taught going to school.

You should hear some of the crap they're trying to do in the UK:

Should we simplify spelling?
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Should we simplify spelling?



^ Could you friggin imagine?

This wouldn't make anything easier.... we'd have to scrap all the old books, all our history, and re-write it all as described above, or else kids and adults would be really screwed up, because they wouldn't be taught how the way things used to be spelled and wouldn't get half of the existing text we all rely on today.

Not to mention the internet.

This isn't a way to make things easier, this is a way to be simply lazy without thinking it through...... sorry.... Thro

But this is getting off track.....

Well don't try a spell checker on this one then: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/537767-post16.html

Off track eh? Well Athena seems to think there is a Utopia where all will be educated without instilling prejudices and without conditioning. She postulates (my interpretation anyhow) that direct democracy would succeed if all were the same. That is contrary to the facts. I fear the day when there is a movement to write a new constitution. Much improvement could be had by following what we have today, especially as far as the Constitution speaks to money issues. It is the Constitution that is supposed to reign in the tendency for government to offer all by taking control of all.

Direct democracy is rule by mobs that are led by politicians pandering to the mobs fears and demanding quick votes on bills that are so massive that a quick unread vote is the only reason for its passage. How many times have I gotten a call from college that my son needs a rent or book money RIGHT NOW.

Didn't intend to rant.

[Sonart]

.

The question I would like to see answered, is with all of our current technology like cell phones and the internet, it is possible as well as practical for Direct Democracy to work in today's society, in a manner that could possibly replace Representational Democracy?

Impossible... in a country of 300 million people, "the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate" would be dominated by those people with the free time needed to participate effectively; to draft, promote and push through legisation...

...meaning those already wealthy enough to have the time - and resources - or those who earn their living by politicking full time, on the dimes of special interests.

California experimented with direct democracy with our Initiative & Referendum system... Propositions put on the ballot to bypass the legislature. While it was a worthy and idealistic idea, it has become a ridiculous tool of the special interests who have the money and expertise to actually create and promote ballot initiatives. The sooner we Californians do away with the system, the better off we'll be.

.

[minorwork]

.

Impossible... in a country of 300 million people, "the assembly of all citizens who choose to participate" would be dominated by those people with the free time needed to participate effectively; to draft, promote and push through legisation...

...meaning those already wealthy enough to have the time - and resources - or those who earn their living by politicking full time, on the dimes of special interests.

California experimented with direct democracy with our Initiative & Referendum system... Propositions put on the ballot to bypass the legislature. While it was a worthy and idealistic idea, it has become a ridiculous tool of the special interests who have the money and expertise to actually create and promote ballot initiatives. The sooner we Californians do away with the system, the better off we'll be.

.

Just so, Sonart. That is the reason I referred to John Grisham's book The Appeal. Even doing away with ballot initiatives there is the influence of money and expertise that is used to skillfully pander to a populace who has been carefully studied and classified by those to whom the ends justify the means.

The hope is that the constitution would limit the power of government. Oh well.