Direct or representative democracy?

[United Technocrats]

In the age of the Information Technologies, the people can be included into decision making without their elected representatives, in a form of direct democracy involving the use of the Internet to vote on all critical issues of the importance for the State. Even those without their own internet access can use public access points. Is it then still necessary to keep the system of representative democracy, or should we slowly move towards the direct involvement of the people in the decision making process? If not, why?

[New Kereptica]

It's a lot more difficult than you think to get 300 million people to correctly use a computer.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Meh...direct won't ever work. To 'vague'.

[Natapoc]

Yes because representative democracy does not work well. They promise one thing and then vote for another once they get into office. There must simply be safeguards to prevent tyranny of the majority and mass hysteria hyped by media type situations.

[North Suran]

Direct Democracy is completely unworkable in any nation.

There's already enough bureacracy and ineptness in the political system; can you imagine what it would be like if every decision had to be ratified and voted on by the entire population?

The fact is: the public are, were and always will be a gathering of moronic sheep with the political ability of a quadroplegic shrew.

It's why we have a Government in the first place.

[Fartsniffage]

Yes because representative democracy does not work well. They promise one thing and then vote for another once they get into office. There must simply be safeguards to prevent tyranny of the majority and mass hysteria hyped by media type situations.

What kind of safeguards? These situations happen when only the representatives need to be controlled, how do you control a whole nation?

[United Technocrats]

Direct Democracy is completely unworkable in any nation.

There's already enough bureacracy and ineptness in the political system; can you imagine what it would be like if every decision had to be ratified and voted on by the entire population?

The fact is: the public are, were and always will be a gathering of moronic sheep with the political ability of a quadroplegic shrew.

It's why we have a Government in the first place.

They wouldn't have to get involved if they didn't want to. And the decisions would, at first, only concern the most important issues, such as exact text of legal acts (laws, etc.). By that, I mean intelligence services etc. would still remain autonomous, but certain judicial decisions, certain laws, certain executive decisions could be left to the people, no? Why should any single ruler (or governing body) take all the responsibility?

[Farnhamia]

Much of California's current problems come from the institution of "direct democracy" as regards budget issues and amendments to the state constitution.

[Angleter]

Direct Democracy would be subject to mob rule and populism. Also, due to increasing apathy, it would be easier for extremists to hijack votes (as often happens in union ballots).

[South Lorenya]

For lawmaking, the current process is good (although maybe filibusters should be weakened).

For elections, direct elections (as opposed to the electoral collage) is better.

[Newsan]

Representative, but make it proportional. The first past the post system where I live sucks.

[Classical Liberal]

Democracy is an utter failure as a system, and is unworkable in any nation, I prefer a Republic.

[United Technocrats]

Direct Democracy would be subject to mob rule and populism. Also, due to increasing apathy, it would be easier for extremists to hijack votes (as often happens in union ballots).

I often ask myself, why is representative democracy called "democracy" at all... Apart from the Greek word sounding nice, it is not what it stands for. Perhaps the word "Republic" should be used exclusively...

[Dododecapod]

Direct Democracy is better described by it's other name: Mob Rule.

The general populace is neither sufficiently well informed, nor has either the time or the resources to make an informed decision about much of anything. They tend to do a poor to abysmal job of choosing their representatives, being swayed in large part by demagoguery and rhetoric rather than logic and argument. Given this is the case, why would we want to give such people more power to make worse decisions? Representative systems, for all their faults, at least put people in place that want to be there, to make those decisions, and who are smart enough to fight their way through the election process. This at least puts them head and shoulders above the average voter - and far beyond the fools who do not vote.

[Dododecapod]

Representative, but make it proportional. The first past the post system where I live sucks.

But proportional voting tends to fail to make decisions.

[Allbeama]

It should happen, but it won't. Just like all citizens should be educated and intelligent enough to live without a government of representatives, but it's not that way in reality. Speaking in terms of ideals, yes. But in realistic terms, it's not likely to work.

[Tech-gnosis]

Democracy is an utter failure as a system, and is unworkable in any nation, I prefer a Republic.

What's the difference between a representative liberal democracy and a republic?

[Tech-gnosis]

But proportional voting tends to fail to make decisions.

Eh?

[Marcuslandia]

Direct democracy is essentially "legislation by referendum". For EVERYTHING. You think it takes forever to get things done now?

On the other hand, if we stay with representative democracy, we stay stuck with the current mess. Bleah.

I think we need a serious overhaul. I'd like to see EVERY politician subjected to weekly (maybe even daily) lie detector examination where they have to answer questions like, "Have you deliberately chosen to NOT do something that was best for _all_ of your constituents? Have you accepted any bribes? Have you been approached with a bribe?" Just something to keep them honest.

I would also like to see election reform in one particular: political donations may only come from INDIVIDUALS, with a cap attached that any citizen could conceivably match. If a corporation wants to contribute to a politician, pay out a dividend and suggest to the stockholders that _they_ make the contributions. And no more PACs. The combination makes it REAL hard to "buy" a politician.

[Dododecapod]

Democracy is an utter failure as a system, and is unworkable in any nation, I prefer a Republic.

What's the difference between a representative liberal democracy and a republic?

Loads. Democracy implies that rulers are not merely selected by the people, but are also subject to them via some form of recall, such as reelections. Republics don't have any such implication (as in the Roman Republic, where Senators served for life).

[Dododecapod]

But proportional voting tends to fail to make decisions.

Eh?

Consider the Italian Parliament. Because every party gets it's proportion, nobody ever gets a majority, no one can rule in their own right, and anytime a coaliton partner dislikes something, the government collapses.

The same messy, ugly system is used in the Australian Federal Senate (though not the lower house, the House of Representatives), and causes the same inability to get things done.

[Tech-gnosis]

Democracy is an utter failure as a system, and is unworkable in any nation, I prefer a Republic.

What's the difference between a representative liberal democracy and a republic?

Loads. Democracy implies that rulers are not merely selected by the people, but are also subject to them via some form of recall, such as reelections. Republics don't have any such implication (as in the Roman Republic, where Senators served for life).

Democracy merely means rule by the people. Aristotle thought elections were a sign of an aristocracy, rule by the best. Democracy, to him, meant officials were chosen by lot. Of course definitions have changed since aristotle's day and the day of the roman republic.

[United Technocrats]

Direct Democracy is better described by it's other name: Mob Rule.

The general populace is neither sufficiently well informed, nor has either the time or the resources to make an informed decision about much of anything. They tend to do a poor to abysmal job of choosing their representatives, being swayed in large part by demagoguery and rhetoric rather than logic and argument. Given this is the case, why would we want to give such people more power to make worse decisions? Representative systems, for all their faults, at least put people in place that want to be there, to make those decisions, and who are smart enough to fight their way through the election process. This at least puts them head and shoulders above the average voter - and far beyond the fools who do not vote.

Well, since even a mob can have a leader, isn't this an argument against all types of democracy? How are the voters, in a representative system, better informed when voting? The "being swayed in large part by demagoguery and rhetoric" looks like an argument pro direct democracy, rather than against? Without an individual, running for office, why would there be much demagoguery and rhetoric?

Also, what about the situation in which neither of the options, offered under a representative system, appeals to the majority of the people? What if they want something else? How could they articulate it?

Perhaps a system, which would mix these two, would be the best solution? Certain decisions would always be left to the people, while others, esp. the operational ones, could be left to the technocracy (the experts)?

[Dododecapod]

Democracy is an utter failure as a system, and is unworkable in any nation, I prefer a Republic.

What's the difference between a representative liberal democracy and a republic?

Loads. Democracy implies that rulers are not merely selected by the people, but are also subject to them via some form of recall, such as reelections. Republics don't have any such implication (as in the Roman Republic, where Senators served for life).

Democracy merely means rule by the people. Aristotle thought elections were a sign of an aristocracy, rule by the best. Democracy, to him, meant officials were chosen by lot. Of course definitions have changed since aristotle's day and the day of the roman republic.

True. I guess my point is that "Republic" can be slapped on any government that doesn't have an inherited Monarchy, where in a Democracy the will of the people has some input. An Oligarchy could be a Republic, but isn't a Democracy.

[United Technocrats]

I think we need a serious overhaul. I'd like to see EVERY politician subjected to weekly (maybe even daily) lie detector examination where they have to answer questions like, "Have you deliberately chosen to NOT do something that was best for _all_ of your constituents? Have you accepted any bribes? Have you been approached with a bribe?" Just something to keep them honest.

Agreed.