NationStates

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Representative democracy with referenda for major constitutional changes.

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.

Authoritarian dictatorship.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Horsefish wrote:I agree with George

Also, sigged.

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

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.

Georgism wrote:

Horsefish wrote:I agree with George

Also, sigged.

And I've finally reached my ultimate goal in life

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 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.

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