NATION

PASSWORD

Active Democracy vs Representative Democracy

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

What type of Democracy you prefer?

Direct or Active Democracy
5
17%
Representative Democracy
13
45%
Democracy stinks
5
17%
I like trains
6
21%
 
Total votes : 29

User avatar
Agritum
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22142
Founded: May 09, 2011
Anarchy

Active Democracy vs Representative Democracy

Postby Agritum » Thu May 19, 2011 7:51 am

personally,I think active dem is better because it really gives peoples complete voting power over reforms or other decisions,but i would like to know the opinions of other users here.

ps: if somrone doesn't know,active is the voting directly by the population trough referendums and representative is the voting done by representants elected by the population Aka Parliament
Last edited by Agritum on Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
Neoliberal Globalist Ukraine Supporter
Friedmanite Libertarian ALDE Eurofederalist



User avatar
Cosmopoles
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5541
Founded: Sep 24, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Cosmopoles » Thu May 19, 2011 7:57 am

I prefer representative democracy. The will of the people is often contradictory due to the extremely short term way that voters tend to analyse policy decisions. Ask a voter if they want to pay less taxes and receive more government services and most of the time they will say yes. Ask them if they want their country to plunge into a sovereign debt crisis or hyperinflation and they'll always say no.

User avatar
Vellosia
Senator
 
Posts: 4278
Founded: May 04, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Vellosia » Thu May 19, 2011 7:59 am

Whilst direct democracy is perhaps the ideal version fo democracy, in reality it is unworkable in a population of millions on a regular basis. I think representative democracy is the better, more logical form, to be honest.
Back after a long break.

User avatar
Agritum
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22142
Founded: May 09, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Agritum » Thu May 19, 2011 8:02 am

well,a type of semi-active democracy exists in Switzerland,but we have to remind that it isn't a big country in terms of population
Neoliberal Globalist Ukraine Supporter
Friedmanite Libertarian ALDE Eurofederalist



User avatar
Monada
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: May 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Monada » Thu May 19, 2011 8:04 am

I believe more in representative democracy. Trying to do the other kind just doesn't work. It makes more since to elect people who will actually study the issues and policies.

User avatar
Angleter
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12350
Founded: Apr 27, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Angleter » Thu May 19, 2011 8:33 am

Agritum wrote:well,a type of semi-active democracy exists in Switzerland,but we have to remind that it isn't a big country in terms of population


And they didn't give women the vote until 1971.
"I gotta tell you, this is just crazy, huh! This is just nuts, OK! Jeezo man."

I am: British, English, Catholic, Unionist, Conservative, Pro-Market, Civil Libertarian, Cultural Nationalist, Constitutional Monarchist, Brexiteer, Localist/British Federalist, Anti-Technocracy, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Parliament, Pro-Zionism.

Defend Parliamentary Sovereignty - Elections Are Advisory - Luttrell for Middlesex 1769 - Bring Back Zac

User avatar
Volnotova
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8214
Founded: Nov 08, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Volnotova » Thu May 19, 2011 8:34 am

Representative democracy is a lie. 1 person cannot be the representative of the feelings, thoughts and lives of thousands let alone millions of people.

Active "democracy" is just a fancy name for mobocracy.
A very exclusive and exceptional ice crystal.

A surrealistic alien entity stretched thin across the many membranes of the multiverse.
The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace wrote:You are the most lawful neutral person I have ever witnessed.


Polruan wrote:It's like Humphrey Applebee wrote a chapter of the Talmud in here.

User avatar
Moral Libertarians
Minister
 
Posts: 3207
Founded: Apr 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Moral Libertarians » Thu May 19, 2011 8:37 am

While active democracy would seem the best way, in practice it leads to contradictory, populist decisions (look at California). Representative democracy, while not perfect, is the 'least bad' option.
Free market is best market.
Political Compass
I support Anarcho-Capitalism
Terra Agora wrote:A state, no matter how small, is not liberty. Taxes are not liberty, government courts are not liberty, government police are not liberty. Anarchy is liberty and anarchy is order.
Occupied Deutschland: [Government] is arbitrary. It draws a line in the sand wherever it wants, and if one crosses it, one gets punished. The only difference is where the line is.
Staenwald: meh tax evasion is understandable in some cases. I don't want some filthy politician grabbing my money for something I don't use.
Volnotova: Corporations... cannot exist without a state.
The moment statism is wiped off the face of this planet it is impossible for any corporation to continue its existance.

User avatar
Margolias
Attaché
 
Posts: 76
Founded: Apr 18, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Margolias » Thu May 19, 2011 8:40 am

I know that democracy has dictated very stupid ideas, particularly during times of stress like war or depression, but I have the feeling that allowing people more direct democracy would make it easier to repeal such stupid ideas when times of stress end. Assuming repeal is made easier than passing laws. Perhaps through judicial review along with a declaration of basic rights that can't be infringed upon. One that is difficult to amend or replace.

Of course, this would also mean that people who have more time on their hands (Such as due to wealth or retirement) might become more influential for simply voting more, but that is also true with a representative form as such people can run for office disproportionately.

Just because there is more direct democracy doesn't mean you can't establish committees to study issues and policies more in depth. This would be a similar function as politicians in committees in a representative form, but possibly much larger.

Using a decentralized system like Switzerland's would probably be necessary to avoid a majority's oppression. I would consider moving to Switzerland just for its political organization if wasn't so difficult to get naturalized and such.

User avatar
Georgism
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9940
Founded: Mar 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Georgism » Thu May 19, 2011 8:49 am

Representative democracy with referenda for major constitutional changes.
Georgism Factbook (including questions and answers)
¯\(°_o)/¯
Horsefish wrote:I agree with George

User avatar
Opaloka
Envoy
 
Posts: 341
Founded: May 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Opaloka » Thu May 19, 2011 8:50 am

Volnotova wrote:Representative democracy is a lie. 1 person cannot be the representative of the feelings, thoughts and lives of thousands let alone millions of people.

Active "democracy" is just a fancy name for mobocracy.


Off the top of my head can't think of a single RL state where a rep' is for millions not even India. Active or participant democracy is clearly an ideal & technologically possible but there would have to be a massive rise in political culture via education for it to work. The swiss are a long way ahead in this. Most brits by contrast are 'don't know what does Rupert Murdoch say?'. I get the impression that Homer Simpson or the jerry springer audience are far too typical of the US to even contemplate such a move there.
'Truth is the greatest of all national possessions. A state, a people, a system which suppresses the truth or fears to publish it, deserves to collapse!' Kurt Eisner

Judge for yourself international socialists democratic practice, socialist values & a comprehensive Start! Guide. Join IS!

A Captain of The Red Fleet.

Political compass: Econ' L/R -9.25 Social Lib/Auth' -7.18

User avatar
Hypparchia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1704
Founded: Dec 11, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Hypparchia » Thu May 19, 2011 8:55 am

Authoritarian dictatorship.

User avatar
Strykyh
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Apr 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Strykyh » Thu May 19, 2011 9:43 am

An active democracy sounds great in theory, but in reality it just won't work because of the population and you would be voting like everyday. So a representative democracy is the way to go.

User avatar
Augarundus
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7004
Founded: Dec 22, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Augarundus » Thu May 19, 2011 9:44 am

I reject the will of the mob (or anyone) over the self. I defy you to think of a reason why "democracy" is preferable to autocracy.
Libertarian Purity Test Score: 160
Capitalism is always the answer. Whenever there's a problem in capitalism, you just need some more capitalism. If the solution isn't capitalism, then it's not really a problem. If your capitalism gets damaged, you just need to throw some capitalism on it and get on with your life.

User avatar
Serrland
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11968
Founded: Sep 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Serrland » Thu May 19, 2011 9:54 am

Agritum wrote:personally,I think active dem is better because it really gives peoples complete voting power over reforms or other decisions,but i would like to know the opinions of other users here.

ps: if somrone doesn't know,active is the voting directly by the population trough referendums and representative is the voting done by representants elected by the population Aka Parliament


Active Democracy would also be hugely expensive and wasteful in a nation of any considerable size - it costs quite a bit to hold elections, and referendums on every little thing would be a huge drain on the government's assets.

User avatar
Horsefish
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7402
Founded: Jun 06, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Horsefish » Thu May 19, 2011 9:57 am

Georgism wrote:Representative democracy with referenda for major constitutional changes.


I agree with George, but I'd say for any major decision like war for example as well.
Areopagitican wrote:I'm not an expert in the field of moron, but what I think he's saying is that if you have to have sex with Shakira (or another dirty ethnic), at the very least, it must be part of a threesome with a white woman. It's a sacrifice, but someone has to make it.

Geniasis wrote:Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go bludgeon some whales to death with my 12-ft dick.

Georgism wrote:
Geniasis wrote:Maybe if you showered every now and then...

That's what the Nazis said, we're not falling for that one again.

The Western Reaches wrote:I learned that YOU are the reason I embarrassed myself by saying "Horsefish" instead of "Seahorse" this one time in school.

What's wrong with a little destruction?

User avatar
Moral Libertarians
Minister
 
Posts: 3207
Founded: Apr 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Moral Libertarians » Thu May 19, 2011 10:20 am

Horsefish wrote:
Georgism wrote:Representative democracy with referenda for major constitutional changes.


I agree with George, but I'd say for any major decision like war for example as well.


Don't you think it would be... dangerous... to have populations able to declare war on other countries or handle other such decisions? In times of emergency, the people may be angry and acting as a mob rather than thinking rationally about issues.
Free market is best market.
Political Compass
I support Anarcho-Capitalism
Terra Agora wrote:A state, no matter how small, is not liberty. Taxes are not liberty, government courts are not liberty, government police are not liberty. Anarchy is liberty and anarchy is order.
Occupied Deutschland: [Government] is arbitrary. It draws a line in the sand wherever it wants, and if one crosses it, one gets punished. The only difference is where the line is.
Staenwald: meh tax evasion is understandable in some cases. I don't want some filthy politician grabbing my money for something I don't use.
Volnotova: Corporations... cannot exist without a state.
The moment statism is wiped off the face of this planet it is impossible for any corporation to continue its existance.

User avatar
Georgism
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9940
Founded: Mar 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Georgism » Thu May 19, 2011 10:23 am

Moral Libertarians wrote:Don't you think it would be... dangerous... to have populations able to declare war on other countries or handle other such decisions? In times of emergency, the people may be angry and acting as a mob rather than thinking rationally about issues.

I think it would be more like:

Government wants to declare war on X country
Government must hold referendum before it can do this

Although governments in the UK don't actually have to abide by the results of a referendum, IIRC.
Georgism Factbook (including questions and answers)
¯\(°_o)/¯
Horsefish wrote:I agree with George

User avatar
Georgism
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9940
Founded: Mar 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Georgism » Thu May 19, 2011 10:24 am

Horsefish wrote:I agree with George

Also, sigged.
Georgism Factbook (including questions and answers)
¯\(°_o)/¯
Horsefish wrote:I agree with George

User avatar
Moral Libertarians
Minister
 
Posts: 3207
Founded: Apr 22, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Moral Libertarians » Thu May 19, 2011 10:30 am

Georgism wrote:
Moral Libertarians wrote:Don't you think it would be... dangerous... to have populations able to declare war on other countries or handle other such decisions? In times of emergency, the people may be angry and acting as a mob rather than thinking rationally about issues.

I think it would be more like:

Government wants to declare war on X country
Government must hold referendum before it can do this


Oh, yeah. That's a fair point.

Although governments in the UK don't actually have to abide by the results of a referendum, IIRC.


I'd put that as either: the government abides by a referendum as long as the result agrees with its policy, or the government simply ignores the people's calls for a referendum and makes the decision itself ;)
Free market is best market.
Political Compass
I support Anarcho-Capitalism
Terra Agora wrote:A state, no matter how small, is not liberty. Taxes are not liberty, government courts are not liberty, government police are not liberty. Anarchy is liberty and anarchy is order.
Occupied Deutschland: [Government] is arbitrary. It draws a line in the sand wherever it wants, and if one crosses it, one gets punished. The only difference is where the line is.
Staenwald: meh tax evasion is understandable in some cases. I don't want some filthy politician grabbing my money for something I don't use.
Volnotova: Corporations... cannot exist without a state.
The moment statism is wiped off the face of this planet it is impossible for any corporation to continue its existance.

User avatar
Manango
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 180
Founded: Sep 19, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Manango » Thu May 19, 2011 11:04 am

Agritum wrote:personally,I think active dem is better because it really gives peoples complete voting power over reforms or other decisions


An active democracy requires the voters to be fully informed about the thing they are voting for, otherwise (unless voting is compulsory) you might just end up with a system where only people who feel particularly strongly about a certain act will vote yes (or no) and everyone else will abstain because it is a pain in the arse to have have to vote every other day. This is perhaps the worst thing that can happen because it will mean everyone will vote selfishly and that is not quite how a society works.

Best thing to do is only have a vote when something involves morality. Going to war? vote on it. Giving aid to perpetually war torn country? vote for it. Deciding the best way to allocate sparse resources to health, education, defence and general infrastructure and at the same time avoiding a double-dip recession? well that requires a level of involvement that the average Joe won't have, and a certain degree of intelligence that perhaps is slightly above average, which by definition the average Joe won't have.
I blog to keep your forum clean!

User avatar
Horsefish
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7402
Founded: Jun 06, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Horsefish » Thu May 19, 2011 11:14 am

Georgism wrote:
Horsefish wrote:I agree with George

Also, sigged.


And I've finally reached my ultimate goal in life ;)
Areopagitican wrote:I'm not an expert in the field of moron, but what I think he's saying is that if you have to have sex with Shakira (or another dirty ethnic), at the very least, it must be part of a threesome with a white woman. It's a sacrifice, but someone has to make it.

Geniasis wrote:Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go bludgeon some whales to death with my 12-ft dick.

Georgism wrote:
Geniasis wrote:Maybe if you showered every now and then...

That's what the Nazis said, we're not falling for that one again.

The Western Reaches wrote:I learned that YOU are the reason I embarrassed myself by saying "Horsefish" instead of "Seahorse" this one time in school.

What's wrong with a little destruction?

User avatar
Georgism
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9940
Founded: Mar 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Georgism » Thu May 19, 2011 11:16 am

Horsefish wrote:
Georgism wrote:Also, sigged.


And I've finally reached my ultimate goal in life ;)

I'm tempted to sig you again for the sake of it. It'd be like losing your virginity to twins
Georgism Factbook (including questions and answers)
¯\(°_o)/¯
Horsefish wrote:I agree with George

User avatar
Horsefish
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7402
Founded: Jun 06, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Horsefish » Thu May 19, 2011 11:18 am

Georgism wrote:
Horsefish wrote:
And I've finally reached my ultimate goal in life ;)

I'm tempted to sig you again for the sake of it. It'd be like losing your virginity to twins


I doubt theres another quote of mine which is that entertaining or intresting.
Areopagitican wrote:I'm not an expert in the field of moron, but what I think he's saying is that if you have to have sex with Shakira (or another dirty ethnic), at the very least, it must be part of a threesome with a white woman. It's a sacrifice, but someone has to make it.

Geniasis wrote:Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go bludgeon some whales to death with my 12-ft dick.

Georgism wrote:
Geniasis wrote:Maybe if you showered every now and then...

That's what the Nazis said, we're not falling for that one again.

The Western Reaches wrote:I learned that YOU are the reason I embarrassed myself by saying "Horsefish" instead of "Seahorse" this one time in school.

What's wrong with a little destruction?

User avatar
Georgism
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9940
Founded: Mar 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Georgism » Thu May 19, 2011 11:19 am

Horsefish wrote:
Georgism wrote:I'm tempted to sig you again for the sake of it. It'd be like losing your virginity to twins


I doubt theres another quote of mine which is that entertaining or intresting.

That's what I thought but I've been sigged a few times now. I guess the trick is to spam the shit out of everything and hope for the best
Georgism Factbook (including questions and answers)
¯\(°_o)/¯
Horsefish wrote:I agree with George

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: -Ocelot-, Chernoslavia, Dooom35796821595, Dresderstan, Duhon, Ethel mermania, Fahran, Fartsniffage, Hediacrana, Loben The 2nd, Lost Memories, Miami Shores, Partybus, Proctopeo, Salus Maior, Tabor Horeb, The Huskar Social Union, The New California Republic, Turealia, Vassenor, Xuloqoia

Advertisement

Remove ads