ChatterBank3 mins ago
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
This is the name of a system where the people are empowered to call a referendum either to initiate, or to block, legislation. This operates in Switzerland and in some States of the USA. Since the 1850s there have been almost 500 national referendums in Switzerland. If a petition signed by 1% of the electorate is submitted calling for a referendum on an issue under consideration by government then a referendum must be held. The signatures of 2% of voters are enough to call a referendum on an issue not under government consideration.
Direct Democracy puts the steering wheel of government in the hands of the people, and it takes it out of the hands of an unresponsive elite with its own agenda.
The Tories for election purposes are flirting with an idea called Direct Democracy (British Conservative Party) - a watered down version of DD and probably empty election fodder. The Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand already exists in NZ but with no electoral success as yet.
Whilst I recognise we are long conditioned not to touch the likes of DD with a barge pole, and political partisans will pour scorn on such a system proper and that there may be practical difficulties, I would still love to see Direct Democracy incorporated into our political system .
Anyone agree ? Anyone up for real change in the wake of the expenses abuse ?
Benefits of DD posted below……
This is the name of a system where the people are empowered to call a referendum either to initiate, or to block, legislation. This operates in Switzerland and in some States of the USA. Since the 1850s there have been almost 500 national referendums in Switzerland. If a petition signed by 1% of the electorate is submitted calling for a referendum on an issue under consideration by government then a referendum must be held. The signatures of 2% of voters are enough to call a referendum on an issue not under government consideration.
Direct Democracy puts the steering wheel of government in the hands of the people, and it takes it out of the hands of an unresponsive elite with its own agenda.
The Tories for election purposes are flirting with an idea called Direct Democracy (British Conservative Party) - a watered down version of DD and probably empty election fodder. The Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand already exists in NZ but with no electoral success as yet.
Whilst I recognise we are long conditioned not to touch the likes of DD with a barge pole, and political partisans will pour scorn on such a system proper and that there may be practical difficulties, I would still love to see Direct Democracy incorporated into our political system .
Anyone agree ? Anyone up for real change in the wake of the expenses abuse ?
Benefits of DD posted below……
Answers
1 to 11 of 11
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by olddutch. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
………DD gives us a tool to initiate a referendum on things like EU membership War and Immigration at the time of our choosing, and not when the Government decides. It ensures that an organised and mobilised British public would decide when to call a referendum, and not an elite behind the scenes of government. We're not asking, we're telling!
It re-invigorates our democracy and enlivens our political debate. It counters cynicism and apathy.
It raises issues the elites want to suppress.
It restores authority to we the people. It makes the people responsible for policy, not the Parties. It means government is people-driven, not elite-driven.
It removes power from the hands of elites and affirms that power lies with the people.
It allows the politicians to represent the will of the electorate, not the will of the Party.
............
It re-invigorates our democracy and enlivens our political debate. It counters cynicism and apathy.
It raises issues the elites want to suppress.
It restores authority to we the people. It makes the people responsible for policy, not the Parties. It means government is people-driven, not elite-driven.
It removes power from the hands of elites and affirms that power lies with the people.
It allows the politicians to represent the will of the electorate, not the will of the Party.
............
........It is a curb on the imbalanced use of power. It makes the politicians responsible to the people, not to the two party system, big business, pressure groups and power groups. It returns them to their proper role as servants of the people.
It generates community involvement.
It provides a way to repeal bad legislation and makes for better legislation. It gives us a mechanism to say Stop, and Try This.
Politicians are forced to act on petitions received, instead of throwing them away. No more wasted time collecting signatures.
It allows us to regain control over Parliament and the direction of this country. It allows us to determine our own destiny. It allows the people to decide what kind of country we are to become, rather than the spin-doctors and the media.
It contributes to a sense of national ethos.
It restores representative parliamentary government, where the members re-present the policies of the people.
It restores accountability to the politicians. We call the tune. Politicians are more inclined to be responsive to the demands of the people.
It generates community involvement.
It provides a way to repeal bad legislation and makes for better legislation. It gives us a mechanism to say Stop, and Try This.
Politicians are forced to act on petitions received, instead of throwing them away. No more wasted time collecting signatures.
It allows us to regain control over Parliament and the direction of this country. It allows us to determine our own destiny. It allows the people to decide what kind of country we are to become, rather than the spin-doctors and the media.
It contributes to a sense of national ethos.
It restores representative parliamentary government, where the members re-present the policies of the people.
It restores accountability to the politicians. We call the tune. Politicians are more inclined to be responsive to the demands of the people.
Direct democracy is why California is, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt. Their politicians know that taxes need to go up (unless there are to be cuts of 50% or more in public services) but every time they try to increase them the proposal has to be put to a referendum, and (unsurprisingly) gets blocked.
Democracy (in any form) is a failed system. (Any system that allows 'Sun' readers to vote is clearly organised madness). It should be abolished and replaced with a meritocracy where, perhaps, one person in ten might be capable of earning the right to vote.
Chris
Democracy (in any form) is a failed system. (Any system that allows 'Sun' readers to vote is clearly organised madness). It should be abolished and replaced with a meritocracy where, perhaps, one person in ten might be capable of earning the right to vote.
Chris
... based on, say, number of correct answers given on a Q&A website.
It was a referendum system that brought chaos to California, as Chris says; it was a referendum system that finally gave all Swiss women the vote in, um, 1990. I'm not sure these point to fairer or more efficient government than what we've got at the moment.
It was a referendum system that brought chaos to California, as Chris says; it was a referendum system that finally gave all Swiss women the vote in, um, 1990. I'm not sure these point to fairer or more efficient government than what we've got at the moment.
No, we dont want a system where the elected government has to put everything to the people , before it can be enacted .
We elect a party based on their manifesto , and leave it to them to govern based upon the policies contained therein .
Of course there will be instances when it is proper to put major issues to the electorate ( whether new or outlined in a party manifesto )
We elect a party based on their manifesto , and leave it to them to govern based upon the policies contained therein .
Of course there will be instances when it is proper to put major issues to the electorate ( whether new or outlined in a party manifesto )
Thanks Buenchico /Chris
Yes, California has certainly got its economic problems but there again so has virtually the whole World - No system is perfect and from my reading of it I wouldn’t particularly blame DD for Californias economic woes (there seem to be numerous accumulated factors, not least the Californian politicians) or blame DD for the Global Financial Crisis. It should be open to us to genuinely influence sound, transparent, voter-responsive politicians to choose responsibly the policies that will most benefit us all - even when choices are painful.
I still think incorporating DD into our system would largely deliver the benefits listed above and even when mistakes are made at least we would have had our chance to have some say in matters .
Bertie
We could still elect a party based on its manifesto but adjust a policy here or there along the line according to majority public opinion. Only a very small minority of policies would ever go to referendum - not least because where DD operated politicians would be more sensitive to public opinion in their manifestos - for example they would all now be offering and delivering a vote on membership of the EU - and if they weren’t we would be in a position to make them deliver that vote.
Yes, California has certainly got its economic problems but there again so has virtually the whole World - No system is perfect and from my reading of it I wouldn’t particularly blame DD for Californias economic woes (there seem to be numerous accumulated factors, not least the Californian politicians) or blame DD for the Global Financial Crisis. It should be open to us to genuinely influence sound, transparent, voter-responsive politicians to choose responsibly the policies that will most benefit us all - even when choices are painful.
I still think incorporating DD into our system would largely deliver the benefits listed above and even when mistakes are made at least we would have had our chance to have some say in matters .
Bertie
We could still elect a party based on its manifesto but adjust a policy here or there along the line according to majority public opinion. Only a very small minority of policies would ever go to referendum - not least because where DD operated politicians would be more sensitive to public opinion in their manifestos - for example they would all now be offering and delivering a vote on membership of the EU - and if they weren’t we would be in a position to make them deliver that vote.
The distribution of intelligence throughout the population is in the form of a bell curve. Given that people with an IQ of less than 120 are not really the sort you would expect to find running a business or a country, we are already in the position of having more dumb voters than intelligent ones - which is why most politicians are liars: they have to convince stupid people to make sensible decisions. If you give the dumbos even more say in the way the country is run, things can only get worse.
The electorate should not be given a vote unless they pass a) an inteligence test , b) can demonstrate basic knowledge of British politics and c) are contributing (or have paid in suffienct in the case of the retired) into the system.
Afterall why should my well thought out vote be cancelled by some thick scumbag that doesnt really know what he is voting for.
In addition those who pay more into the system should have a weighted vote. He who pays the piper .....
Afterall why should my well thought out vote be cancelled by some thick scumbag that doesnt really know what he is voting for.
In addition those who pay more into the system should have a weighted vote. He who pays the piper .....
thanks for posts - interesting ideas
Re DD- maybe too much change to swallow if reaction here is anything to go by - seems odd though that Tory Party thinkers thought DD merited inclusion in their 2010 manifesto....."We want to see decisions taken at the lowest possible level, and where possible, by those directly affected. So we will encourage greater use of Direct Democracy".
Very many people want real political change of some sort - but at the same time are seemingly afraid of it and unsure in which direction to move .
Re DD- maybe too much change to swallow if reaction here is anything to go by - seems odd though that Tory Party thinkers thought DD merited inclusion in their 2010 manifesto....."We want to see decisions taken at the lowest possible level, and where possible, by those directly affected. So we will encourage greater use of Direct Democracy".
Very many people want real political change of some sort - but at the same time are seemingly afraid of it and unsure in which direction to move .
1 to 11 of 11
