Active Democracy vs Representative Democracy

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The thing is, that's done IRL in England, sort of - there's a farm where they actually vote online on how to run it, down to what to have as crops and livestock.

Really? Link?

Also I'm guessing that the voting is mainly done by farm enthusiasts or something? Which would be okay if applied to IRL politics - political enthusiasts vote on politics, economics enthusiasts on economic matters, etc. That wouldn't really happen though

Wimpole Hole Farm, the scheme is run by 'subscription' via the National Trust.
Also, I feel that democracy is a failed concept, as proven by events in Germany today, and the general childishness with which particularly the British and American electoral campaigns are run.

I believe the best nation would be a one-party state that implements things that benefit the nation long term, not benefit the elected party's short term personal aims. Because political freedom isn't necessary, so long as you have plenty of civil freedoms. Democracy has no real benefit for the nation itself.

[Galla-]

Direct democracy is not workable with more than a few hundred people, if that.

[Naurobia]

Active democracy is ideal but in reality is will never work in a country as large as the united states with over 300 million people. Because of this I am in favor of a representative democracy.

[Genivaria]

This thread needs a poll.

[Zyvutti]

Representitive Democracy, even in ancient Athens they knew that the powerful individuals would be able to manipulate the uneducated individuals (not just uneducated in general but on the specific issue at hand). They knew how easy it was to put out misinformation and spread fear. They even knew that elections of representitives were too easy to manipulate, and chose representives by lottery.

We have incorperated that concept into our election system. We still have elections, but to get on the ballot you are chosen by lottery to attend a Caucus (think of a giant jury). The Caucuses choose who gets on the ballot (usually 5-10 candidates). This is used for both the electoral college which appoint the judicary, and the Senate.

We don't beleive in plurality rule. Most elections are for duel or triple seats. An instant runoff ballot is used with a sequential elimination counting system untill only two or three candidates remain standing.

In elections where only one seat is filled, a candidate gets elected by a 2/3 vote. This is acheived via Instant Runoff Ballot using cumulitive voting. (if no one gets 2/3 vote from round one the votes from round two are added...this is done for as many rounds as it takes for someone to get two thirds of the vote).

Our system prevents entrenched power and partisanship by using a lottery of average citizens to be put on the ballot. It preserves minority rights and prevents fring ideology by electing consensus candidates instead of the lesser of two evils.

[Georgism]

Wimpole Hole Farm, the scheme is run by 'subscription' via the National Trust.

That's pretty cool.

Also, I feel that democracy is a failed concept, as proven by events in Germany today, and the general childishness with which particularly the British and American electoral campaigns are run.

What's happening in Germany today? Also I don't really think that childishness is enough todismiss an entire system.

I believe the best nation would be a one-party state that implements things that benefit the nation long term, not benefit the elected party's short term personal aims. Because political freedom isn't necessary, so long as you have plenty of civil freedoms. Democracy has no real benefit for the nation itself.

Hasn't it been done?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Wimpole Hole Farm, the scheme is run by 'subscription' via the National Trust.

That's pretty cool.

Also, I feel that democracy is a failed concept, as proven by events in Germany today, and the general childishness with which particularly the British and American electoral campaigns are run.

What's happening in Germany today? Also I don't really think that childishness is enough todismiss an entire system.

I believe the best nation would be a one-party state that implements things that benefit the nation long term, not benefit the elected party's short term personal aims. Because political freedom isn't necessary, so long as you have plenty of civil freedoms. Democracy has no real benefit for the nation itself.

Hasn't it been done?

I was referring to Germany shutting down their nuclear plants by parliamentary vote.

Also, that Enlightened Absolutism sounds sort of what I had in mind. Make it more culturally relevant to today, and I reckon that would be bang on what I was getting it.
Parliamentarians should still be elected, but I disagree with the idea of party politics - it stifles political inspiration and changes that are necessary and locks the nation's progress to what the ruling party wants to see. If every candidate stood independently, that would mean that the changes made would be necessary changes that were relevant to each independent's constituency.

[Georgism]

Also, that Enlightened Absolutism sounds sort of what I had in mind. Make it more culturally relevant to today, and I reckon that would be bang on what I was getting it.
Parliamentarians should still be elected, but I disagree with the idea of party politics - it stifles political inspiration and changes that are necessary and locks the nation's progress to what the ruling party wants to see. If every candidate stood independently, that would mean that the changes made would be necessary changes that were relevant to each independent's constituency.

Isn't an elected parliament (or one with any power, anyway) sort of opposed to the entire idea of enlightened absolutism?

Also how will we select the Prime Minister and what is there to stop groups of politicians creating informal 'parties'?

[Moral Libertarians]

Also, that Enlightened Absolutism sounds sort of what I had in mind. Make it more culturally relevant to today, and I reckon that would be bang on what I was getting it.
Parliamentarians should still be elected, but I disagree with the idea of party politics - it stifles political inspiration and changes that are necessary and locks the nation's progress to what the ruling party wants to see. If every candidate stood independently, that would mean that the changes made would be necessary changes that were relevant to each independent's constituency.

Hmm, I don't really like the sound of that. I agree with what your saying about the lack of vision of party MPs - in British politics, MPs have basically no choice but to fall in with the party's line. But "changes that are relevant to each independent's constituency" says pork-barrel politics to me. It's inefficient, wateful and I fear that your parliament would spend it's time wrangling over which funds go to which constituency than doing anything meaningful.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I know, you can't win.

[Make up your own mind]

I'd like to experience this direct democracy sometime. Maybe I'll go live on a commune.

[Dungeyland]

Representative. Too many retards in the world to be trusted to vote sensibly.

[Siorafrica]

If we're going to have democracy it ought to be the more democratic sort.

[Make up your own mind]

If we're going to have democracy it ought to be the more democratic sort.

Why?

[The USOT]

Represenative democracy is great because it ignores the incredible ineficiancy of Direct Democracy, whilst providing the accountability of failure that dictatorships and other forms of government suffer.

in represenative democracy, if a leader screws up you get rid of him in a few years time, hopefully you get someone better.

In a dictatorship if a leader screws up, you either have to lump with his mistakes untill he dies OR hold a bloody revolution which is likely to screw your countries economy over and threaten the internal security of your nation.

[Seleucas]

I dislike democracy in general, and will not participate in it under any circumstances saving duress. Given that, I feel that representative democracy is marginally better.