Firstly, several URL's to peruse on the subject...

 

https://navajocodetalkers.org/8-remarkable-...rect-democracy/

https://thenextgalaxy.com/the-advantages-an...rect-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.

 

 

Vary unusual for this forum to have no opinions on such matters... ;)

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.

I think we have expectations it will just turn into another anti-EU-by-stealth topic.

 

I thought *I* had the monopoly on cynicism round here. ;)

 

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.

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.

HOUSE!

HOUSE!

 

But at least it wasn't *me* who turned it into an EU thread, this time, :teresa:

I have no desire to post in thrse endless EU debates. You nevrr listen and just post thr same old crap.

I have no desire to post in thrse (sic) endless EU debates.

 

You have a very funny way of showing it.

 

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.

 

I have no desire to post in thrse endless EU debates. You nevrr listen and just post thr same old crap.

 

Are you replying to me, or Peacemob? ;)

 

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.

 

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?

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.

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 :wacko:

 

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.

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 :wacko:

 

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?

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.

 

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! :lol:

I suppose the abolition of capital punishment falls into the same category?

 

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.

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.

 

Abolition was opposed at the time because the public believed it would lead to more murders...

 

https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rate-d...-was-abolished/

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.

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.