Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ Direct Democracy - Good idea or not?
Posted by: vidcapper 5th October 2017, 07:02 AM
Firstly, several URL's to peruse on the subject...
https://navajocodetalkers.org/8-remarkable-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-direct-democracy/
https://thenextgalaxy.com/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-direct-democracy/
https://getrevising.co.uk/grids/direct_democracy
I am generally in favour of it - the main reason is that it reduces the power of corrupt, self-serving politicians. 
Naturally there would need to be some preconditions - some policy areas would have to be reserved, and there would need to be thresholds to stop measures being passed on very low turnouts, and there might well need to be margin thresholds too, to ensure changes had sufficient support.
Posted by: vidcapper 6th October 2017, 09:09 AM
Vary unusual for this forum to have no opinions on such matters... 
Posted by: popchartfreak 6th October 2017, 12:29 PM
I think we have expectations it will just turn into another anti-EU-by-stealth topic.
There has been no political system ever invented that doesn't attract self-serving personalities, it's pretty much part of the Job Description that you think you know better than anyone else or you wouldn't go in for it. Same reason most people become "managers" rather than "do-ers", quite apart from being better paid for that.
Left to themselves, people become chaotic and confontational.
Posted by: vidcapper 6th October 2017, 01:41 PM
I thought *I* had the monopoly on cynicism round here.
Posted by: PeaceMob 6th October 2017, 01:43 PM
It works for Switzerland also they're not in the EU and we all know how much the EU loves referendums and the opportunity for the people to have their say.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th October 2017, 03:33 PM
HOUSE!
Posted by: vidcapper 6th October 2017, 04:14 PM
But at least it wasn't *me* who turned it into an EU thread, this time,
Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 6th October 2017, 05:41 PM
I have no desire to post in thrse endless EU debates. You nevrr listen and just post thr same old crap.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 6th October 2017, 05:51 PM
You have a very funny way of showing it.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 6th October 2017, 05:54 PM
As for direct democracy, I can see the logic in it, but it is not something I think could lead to a stable country. We need politicians in place to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions that may not be favoured by the majority of people, which could lead the country into anarchy if it was kept in place indefinitely.
Posted by: vidcapper 7th October 2017, 05:47 AM
Are you replying to me, or Peacemob?
The main problem I have with politicians deciding, is that they can have their arms twisted by the party whips.
There's always this 3-way conflict between what voters want, what the MP personally wants, and what the party wants - very rarely do all three match.
The question is, whose decision should prevail?
Posted by: Soy Adrián 7th October 2017, 11:47 AM
Direct democracy doesn't just take power away from MPs, though.
As an example, a potential use for direct democracy would be for major planning decisions - which would swiftly lead to no houses being built anywhere.
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th October 2017, 01:23 PM
One problem with direct democracy is that people are capable of holing two contradictory views at the same time. For example, polls have often suggested that people think the parties "are all the same" and that they don't like that. However, they also suggest that a majority want politicians to do what "the people" want. Of course, if all parties based their policies on what "the people" want, they would indeed all be the same 
In addition to that, many social changes have been made despite widespread opposition from the public. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of male homosexual acts. If all countries had waited for public opinion to back such a change, we would probably still be waiting. There are times when politicians have to lead, not follow, public opinion.
Posted by: vidcapper 7th October 2017, 01:27 PM
In addition to that, many social changes have been made despite widespread opposition from the public. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of male homosexual acts. If all countries had waited for public opinion to back such a change, we would probably still be waiting. There are times when politicians have to lead, not follow, public opinion.
I suppose the abolition of capital punishment falls into the same category?
Posted by: HissingSparkler 7th October 2017, 01:48 PM
I certainly agree with direct democracy, in fact I do think it is the most democratic and socialist form of democracy to involve all the people in all the decisions bypassing the politicians and political parties which would not need to exist. Proposals could also be suggested and voted upon whether they should be referred to online referendum too if direct democracy were to take place. There are concerns however with tyranny of the majority of course though so some form of safeguarding against this would have to take place. The idea is a bit radical now but definitely there should be some proposals being referred to online referendums in the future I think.
Posted by: Poked Pumpkin🎃 7th October 2017, 01:53 PM
Or, them being contradictory, saying politicians and parties were all the sae, yet going along with the Sun etc and vomplaining about Corbyn for being different! 
Posted by: Brett-Butler 7th October 2017, 02:36 PM
Interestingly, it was only in 2015 that the majority of people in the UK were opposed to the death penalty for the first time since the British Social Attitudes surveys began, which is more than a generation after it was effectively abolished. It is the sort of topic where support could rise again though, but I doubt there's a massive movement within the UK to bring it back.
Posted by: vidcapper 7th October 2017, 02:56 PM
Abolition was opposed at the time because the public believed it would lead to more murders...
https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rate-doubled-hanging-was-abolished/
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th October 2017, 03:24 PM
My understanding is that there was general support for the abolition of capital punishment at the time because of some high profile cases. Those high profile cases also led to juries being less likely to convict in capital cases.
The Full Fact page doesn't really give the full facts. In order to test the hypothesis that abolition led to an increase in the murder rate, you need to look at what was happening before 1964. Again, my understanding is that the murder rate was going up and that the trend just continued after abolition.
Posted by: popchartfreak 7th October 2017, 06:52 PM
Did the murder rate include or exclude the murders from the "troubles"?
Most people are fed up with voting on anything more than even once every 2 years. To suggest that anything more than a minority of activists would vote online on an ongoing wide variety of issues - and with all the risk of hacking that goes with it - is fantastical and unrealistic I'm afraid.
Posted by: vidcapper 8th October 2017, 05:42 AM
The Full Fact page doesn't really give the full facts. In order to test the hypothesis that abolition led to an increase in the murder rate, you need to look at what was happening before 1964. Again, my understanding is that the murder rate was going up and that the trend just continued after abolition.
But the unanswerable question is - would that trend have continued if capital punishment had still been in force? The infamous Moors Murders happened soon after abolition, for example.
Most people are fed up with voting on anything more than even once every 2 years. To suggest that anything more than a minority of activists would vote online on an ongoing wide variety of issues - and with all the risk of hacking that goes with it - is fantastical and unrealistic I'm afraid.
I assume the stats would have included those from NI.
You're right about most people not wanting to have to vote often, in elections or referenda, especially on the same issue.
OTOH, at least activists are at least more likely to be aware of the issues involved - but by far the hardest obstacle to overcome would be the resistance of politicians!
Posted by: vidsanta 17th December 2017, 07:38 AM
How about a variation of DD...
Some way our votes on given issues could be polled at a constituency level online, with the MP having the power of veto - but the number if times he overrode his electorate being carefully logged, so that he can be challenged on it at election time?
It might apply to the local council level too.
Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th December 2017, 10:55 AM
Some way our votes on given issues could be polled at a constituency level online, with the MP having the power of veto - but the number if times he overrode his electorate being carefully logged, so that he can be challenged on it at election time?
It might apply to the local council level too.
Most people cant be arsed to fill in a customer survey form or put an x in box on how they are governed locally. Its lovely that you think you have the power to change human nature enough for them to take a detailed interest in a wide number of issues and then put mps at a constant risk of being fired with constant bi elections and a revolving cabinet sounds like a guaranteed way to get nothing done ever.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services