Can Direct Democracy Work Today?

[Athena]

How much time a day will I have to devote to it? I've got dishes and toilets to clean or I get beat. How many lashes will this direct democracy cost me?

I don't think it would be too much if the government weren't into banking, car making, health care, etc. Those are real time consumers.

And what am I to be paid for my service? Would it depend on how many hours I put into it a year?

What if the internet and the power grid were disabled for half the country or more for over a year by a really big Coronal Mass Ejection event from the good old sun? I'm guessing voting would be done on line. Very secure format and certainly no hackers would try to affect outcomes. I think I'd offer a service to vote for other people so they wouldn't have to find some spare time. I don't know. Maybe something like this. YouTube - Government Officials Voting Fraudulently: Lawmakers Breaking the Law - Texas Legislature

Good point. and what you are asking is kind of like a Christian asking how much time he would have to devote to being a Christian, and how much would he get paid for it.

[minorwork]

Good point. and what you are asking is kind of like a Christian asking how much time he would have to devote to being a Christian, and how much would he get paid for it.

Especially the lashes part.

Perhaps if there were a fee not to participate, would provide incentive to participate. For example: A vote on a liquor license grant would get the voter a coupon, good for a pint at the local pub. Or a vote on agriculture would get the voter an extra $10 of food stamps.

Pretty good idea, it was, selling dispensations. If you couldn't be a good Christian in action you could always buy your way in with cash.

Somehow there should be an advantage to the participant of direct democracy, but I can't see how. Gee whiz, my household has two people in it and there are conflicts.

[Athena]

Especially the lashes part.

Perhaps if there were a fee not to participate, would provide incentive to participate. For example: A vote on a liquor license grant would get the voter a coupon, good for a pint at the local pub. Or a vote on agriculture would get the voter an extra $10 of food stamps.

Pretty good idea, it was, selling dispensations. If you couldn't be a good Christian in action you could always buy your way in with cash.

Somehow there should be an advantage to the participant of direct democracy, but I can't see how. Gee whiz, my household has two people in it and there are conflicts.

I am coming from a disagreement with my boss that could either seriously hurt me or increase my status within the organization. That disagreement with my organizational superior, has devoloped my present point of view, that people are being awfully materialistic and carnal, and therefore, they are manifesting the lowest form of human social organization. .

The benefit of democracy has a much more spiritual nature than this debate implies. It is the best way to lift humanity above the level of animals and improve every aspect of our lives. That is why democracy is so important, and for no other reason is it important. We can not manifest it as long as we lack the greater understanding of it.

[Athena]

It is no more imporant to the discussion then any other democracy out there in the world today.

Newsflash:

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States founders shared a determination to root the American experiment in the principle of natural freedom and equality for white male landowners. The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties. In the colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, free black people and women were not extended the franchise."

and:

DEMOCRACY 250--New Book Celebrates Nova Scotia as One of the Most Successful Democracies in History
Democracy 250 | News and Announcements

"A new book commemorating the 250th anniversary of representative government in Nova Scotia and the birth of parliamentary democracy in Canada was launched at Province House."

^ We've been using Democracy since 1758.... so if you want to use the "We had it first" attitude to justify your own democracy as being the rule to follow, you're greatly mistaken.



^ Sorry, but what does this have to do with anything, and who gives a rats arse what you label us as?

Are we somehow not as qualified to speak about democracy compared to the US because we sometimes do things you don't approve of?

I don't think so..... and guess what? You guys do plenty the rest of the world doesn't like.... life goes on.



Without applying any effort in trying to fix the concerns, you maybe right, but what is available that can be done to prevent this in a direct democracy?

You can still have a government in place that only maintains the equal order of things and makes sure things are not unbalanced, while still allowing the people to have more input.



Well for one thing, you're ranting on about things I have already covered in a previous link to the system I propose. Secondly, in the link I provided with the system I propose, you can't just simply hand out promises like what's exactly going on today (You're fooling yourself to think it isn't by the way) ~ They must explain in detail how they plan on making these things happen. If they can't, then they don't get support and the people won't buy it.

A perfect example of this occuring would be from our last election with the Liberals trying to sell their Green Shift plan. They didn't explain it well, it looks like a system that would fail and it looks like a system that not only was flawed, but came at the wrong time (screwed economy)

The people of Canada gave the Liberals their worst support they've ever had since the party was created back in 1867 and the fool, Dion, had to step down because of his dismal failure.

Although the people were voting in a party for our democracy, they also saw the election as a message to send about the Green Shift that the Liberals were proposing, which was the foundation of their plans in office.

Now if this type of process was done more often and more people got involved in such a way, things would probably get done a lot faster and closer to the right way for once.

With the current system, we only get to have a say in a couple of things every four years.... the rest is in the politicians hands.



With the system I provided, decisions would be based as regional, where rather then one final decision isn't forced on everybody, the decisions and views given per each location (like how each US State can adjust their laws, etc) would affect that location.

You keep complaining about majority rule or Mob rule, where those in the minority don't have a say, and yet that's exactly what's happening in both of our countries today, so I don't know what you're going on about.

What about all those people who voted for McCain?

Too bad for them I guess.

What about myself who voted NDP in the last two elections and they only got 3rd place? My vote means squat in the current system.... which is why many others don't bother to get involved in the first place, since the two major parties that most of them don't like and are fed up with always get into power anyways.



And exactly how is that any different then what we currently have?

Don't forget Obama and Harper are our leaders..... and not everybody voted for them..... those who didn't, well, they don't matter anymore do they?

You're arguing about Direct Democracy with examples that are already existing in our current Representational Democracy..... kinda hypocritical.

These issues will always exist in any democracy anybody follows, however I believe that with a modified and updated form of Direct, we can at the very least, reduce some of these problems and allow for a greater voice for the individual.

You use quotes about sheep and wolves..... well we already have a giant continent full of sheep with enough rich wolves sticking it to us already.

Excuse me, but the democracy of the US is the most important in the modern world, because it is the only democracy, that evolved out of the effort of human beings with no government above them. Having a west to explore and subdue, was a unique opportunity in modern times. All other democracies followed this example of this democracy, after the possibility of a functional democracy was firmly established.

We would not have the democracy we have today, if it had not been for Thomas Jefferson, and the spirit of immigrants coming to this land of opportunity, before every piece of it was owned by someone. These people opposed the federalist, and thank God they did, but we still have a problem with our banking system, that we might want to address, and a centralized education system, producing products for industry, is the worst enemy of democracy in the whole world.

Democracy is nothing as all like two sheep and wolve, when it is understood from its origin out of Greek philosophy, and only when it is defended in the classroom, is it defended. The problem is we lack an understanding of the philosophical reasoning of democracy and the higher purpose it serves.

Cut off from the gods, humans are very brutish, and it is as Zeus feared it would be. Since a god gave humans the technology of fire, they have discovered all other technologis and now rival the gods. They have the smarts of a fox but not the wisdom of the gods, and they are destroying everything, like feral pigs running wild and destroying the environment in which they live, until at last, they have nothing to eat but each other.

[minorwork]

Direct Democracy would hinge on the web's computers. Any issue, like Intelligent Design, should have on the same page some kind of opposition position. Same with gun-control and abortion. In that light here is an article with news from such a plug-in called "Think Link." Outside Intel, Mad Scientists are Hard at Work - Lab Notes by ExtremeTech

[SoylentGreen]

Direct Democracy would hinge on the web's computers. Any issue, like Intelligent Design, should have on the same page some kind of opposition position. Same with gun-control and abortion. In that light here is an article with news from such a plug-in called "Think Link." Outside Intel, Mad Scientists are Hard at Work - Lab Notes by ExtremeTech

The net is to impersonal and can easily be mired down with too much worthless information.
Direct democracy hinges on population and geography. The bigger the population, spread over a greater area and issues become impersonal. Who cares if the people on the east coast need water restrictions when it's raining on the west coast.

Even the population of the large cities would be to many for anything but a limited form of direct democracy, voting for example.

To get a workable form of direct democracy in dense urban areas then the amount of political representatives voted into a parliament would have to increase to get fair representation. Smaller electorates means more politicians.

[Sonart]

.

Smaller electorates means more politicians.

Which means more lobbyists and more special interests trying to influence them and/or the direct democracy process.

.

[SoylentGreen]

.

Which means more lobbyists and more special interests trying to influence them and/or the direct democracy process.

.

On one hand the more politicians the less easily for a lobby group to get control, but on the other hand it is expensive and more difficult for a large group of politicians to reach consensus.

IMO direct democracy is limited to population size. The bigger the population the less direct is democracy.

[Sonart]

.

IMO direct democracy is limited to population size. The bigger the population the less direct is democracy.

Bingo. The last time real direct democracy was tried was in classical Athens. And there only because it was limited the very select few who could legally qualify as 'Citizens'... a very limited population indeed.

.

[grandpa]

.
The last time real direct democracy was tried was in
classical Athens.

False. As I often do, I would direct you to the anarchist collectives in 1930s Spain. The poorest there arguably did much more than the poorest men of Athens, given the immense opposition they were faced with. I'm not an expert on either period in history, but the logic behind my argument is rather obvious.

Grandpa h.

[Athena]

On one hand the more politicians the less easily for a lobby group to get control, but on the other hand it is expensive and more difficult for a large group of politicians to reach consensus.

IMO direct democracy is limited to population size. The bigger the population the less direct is democracy.

How about this, a federation is a group of smaller organizations, such as tribes or states, in which each suborindinates its power to that of central authority. Now to maximize democracy, it is necessary to restrict the powers of the central authority. For example, making it constitutionally clear that the federal government does not directly control public schools at the local level. When the central authority is not restricted, the result is a despot, not a democracy. My point is, the matter is not just the size of the population, but also limits put on governing authority and if the over all organization has a good system of checks and balances or not.

United States that have a federal government, should counterbalance the central authority. But this is not possible when the citizens do not understand democracy and organization issues, so we are back to education for democracy is essential to manifesting democracy, and until this is done a direct democracy is not possible for large populations.

[Sonart]

.

False. As I often do, I would direct you to the anarchist collectives in 1930s Spain.

Please, Grandpa, not this sillyness again. The anarchist movement in Spain lasted all of 3 violent years before it failed.

.