Direct or representative democracy?

[Tech-gnosis]

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.

The first-past the post system with weak parties creates an inability to make decisions. Look at the US Congress for example.

Also, there are functioning PR systems with a better history than Italy's. Look at Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, ect.

[Tech-gnosis]

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.

True. I was really more interest in Classical Liberal's definition.

[Melkor Unchained]

The problem I have with (are you ready for this?) Democracy in general is that when politicians get elected, they assume the public has given them their mandate to act how they see fit, as opposed to actually representing their interests.

[Tech-gnosis]

The problem I have with (are you ready for this?) Democracy in general is that when politicians get elected, they assume the public has given them their mandate to act how they see fit, as opposed to actually representing their interests.

Define" actually representing their interests?" Are representatives supposed to vote for what most of their constituents want? Do they use their best judgement even though that may conflict with the views of the majority of their constituents? Is voting for all the pork barrel money for one's district representing their interests?

[Marcuslandia]

The first-past the post system with weak parties creates an inability to make decisions. Look at the US Congress for example.

Also, there are functioning PR systems with a better history than Italy's. Look at Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, ect.

I think one of the things that slowly reveals itself is that the larger the electorate becomes, the more bogged down the system gets. Can you imagine how well the Swiss government form works -- which is "okay" for a nation the size of Switzerland -- for a country the size of the US? You can see how screwed up California is (and I live there); slap that referendum system on the whole damn country and what you get is "quagmire" times 50.

[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.

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)?

Just because you don't have someone running for office, doesn't mean you don't have people with a vested interest in a particular result of a vote. In a Direct Democracy, the demagoguery and rhetoric would simply be changed from praising an individual (and demonizing his opponents) to popularizing and promoting the "yes" or "no" votes of the next vote.

And while representative democracy does sometimes jump to startling knee-jerk reactions (the Spanish-American War comes to mind), the system tends to slow such decisions' pace, permitting at least a certain level of reflection and consideration. The average voter has neither the time nor the inclination for such consideration, and would simply vote in their standard, knee-jerk fashion.

As to people wanting another choice - let them run. Form your own party. Make your own mark. It is the ability to do this, not voting, that is truly unique to the Democratic process.

Finally: Do you really want to have election week propaganda thrown at you every day of every year?

[United Technocrats]

The problem I have with (are you ready for this?) Democracy in general is that when politicians get elected, they assume the public has given them their mandate to act how they see fit, as opposed to actually representing their interests.

My thinking exactly. I would add, that there should at least be a mechanism to, after a given time period in office, directly quantify how many of what they have promised, they actually did. And to have them replaced if most of their promises were broken.

[Marcuslandia]

The problem I have with (are you ready for this?) Democracy in general is that when politicians get elected, they assume the public has given them their mandate to act how they see fit, as opposed to actually representing their interests.

Just as bad (if not worse) is when the politician in question takes the stance that he is obligated to only represent the people that actually got him into office. That is, 1) the people that voted for him, 2) the Party that endorsed him, 3) the people that put money into his campaign coffers. [Guess which one of those three gets the most consideration from the politician.]

[German Nightmare]

I wonder what the population limit would be for Consensus Democracy to work.

[Dododecapod]

I wonder what the population limit would be for Consensus Democracy to work.

Considering it ultimately failed in Ancient Athens, pretty damn small.

[United Technocrats]

In a Direct Democracy, the demagoguery and rhetoric would simply be changed from praising an individual (and demonizing his opponents) to popularizing and promoting the "yes" or "no" votes of the next vote.

True. But, isn't that better? The actual essence of the issue would be promoted, instead of the empty looks of a representative (?)

The average voter has neither the time nor the inclination for such consideration, and would simply vote in their standard, knee-jerk fashion.

True again, but people could choose in which questions to involve themselves. Most of the time, they'd stay out of them, leaving it to two kinds of people: those like us here, who spend our time thinking and debating on issues, and those for whom the issue actually matters.

As to people wanting another choice - let them run. Form your own party. Make your own mark. It is the ability to do this, not voting, that is truly unique to the Democratic process.

That would be great, if it were possible. Do You know how much money and active support one needs to run for office effectively in any democratic country?

Finally: Do you really want to have election week propaganda thrown at you every day of every year?

No, but I see every TV commercial as just that. And I'd better like to be able to ban some annoying stuff from happening in my society, than to watch quasi-scientific explanations about why the toothpaste A is better than B.

[Melkor Unchained]

Define" actually representing their interests?" Are representatives supposed to vote for what most of their constituents want? Do they use their best judgement even though that may conflict with the views of the majority of their constituents? Is voting for all the pork barrel money for one's district representing their interests?

I would define "representing their interests" to mean voting for legislation that would help their constituents, and against legislation that hinders or marginalizes them. I know that it's not always that cut-and-dry, and that some discretion will certainly be required in politics. I just tend to think that they get a little carried away with it. I don't think they should elevate their own district/state/whatever over the needs of the rest of the electorate, but in many cases they could do a better job of standing up for them.

Case in point: agriculture is a very powerful force in Congress, and its status/entrenchment has led to the perpetuation of subsidies that we don't particularly need anymore. They control a shocking minority of House districts, but have clout wildly disproportionate to their actual, physical control over Congress.

[Buffett and Colbert]

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

This, and the fact that this would turn into a California times ten. Most of the common people, are not intelligent enough, do not show enough interest or exhibit basic human qualities to adequately vote on legislation. Imagine it! The regular American voting on health care! The horror...

[Tech-gnosis]

I would define "representing their interests" to mean voting for legislation that would help their constituents, and against legislation that hinders or marginalizes them. I know that it's not always that cut-and-dry, and that some discretion will certainly be required in politics. I just tend to think that they get a little carried away with it. I don't think they should elevate their own district/state/whatever over the needs of the rest of the electorate, but in many cases they could do a better job of standing up for them.

Case in point: agriculture is a very powerful force in Congress, and its status/entrenchment has led to the perpetuation of subsidies that we don't particularly need anymore. They control a shocking minority of House districts, but have clout wildly disproportionate to their actual, physical control over Congress.

Their district/state is their electorate. Given how important agriculture is to some states/districts wouldn't voting for agriculture subsidies help their constituents and voting to end them or say redistrict to lessen the disproportionate influence rural voters have vs. urban voters marginalize them?

[Melkor Unchained]

I would define "representing their interests" to mean voting for legislation that would help their constituents, and against legislation that hinders or marginalizes them. I know that it's not always that cut-and-dry, and that some discretion will certainly be required in politics. I just tend to think that they get a little carried away with it. I don't think they should elevate their own district/state/whatever over the needs of the rest of the electorate, but in many cases they could do a better job of standing up for them.

Case in point: agriculture is a very powerful force in Congress, and its status/entrenchment has led to the perpetuation of subsidies that we don't particularly need anymore. They control a shocking minority of House districts, but have clout wildly disproportionate to their actual, physical control over Congress.

Their district/state is their electorate. Given how important agriculture is to some states/districts wouldn't voting for agriculture subsidies help their constituents and voting to end them or say redistrict to lessen the disproportionate influence rural voters have vs. urban voters marginalize them?

Oh, I don't expect Congressional leaders from farm districts to vote against an agriculture subsidy; but at the same time (like I said) I don't think they should elevate their district/state/what-have-you over the rest of the American electorate. Now I'm not saying that lifting farm subsidies would release $AMERICAN_CITIZEN from some tremendous burden, I'm just using it as an example, because I can see how a congressman from another district/state could see it both ways. Farm subsidies haven't ever been what I would call a hot-button topic, so it's pretty low on the priority list for most incoming Congressmen, I would guess. But there have (historically) been people elected all over this country (Whether NSG likes it or not ) who have promised to 'cut spending,' but they'd never go after farm subsidies because they'd get their balls cut off for no better reason than it's the status quo, and no one is really inclined to do anything about it until huge amounts of people get pissed, which could be a while.

I'm also disinclined to be a big fan of gerrymandering, since it's almost always done on political rather than practical/moral grounds.

[Marcuslandia]

Define" actually representing their interests?" Are representatives supposed to vote for what most of their constituents want? Do they use their best judgement even though that may conflict with the views of the majority of their constituents? Is voting for all the pork barrel money for one's district representing their interests?

I would define "representing their interests" to mean voting for legislation that would help their constituents, and against legislation that hinders or marginalizes them.

You realize that this definition would require the representatives of every other state than, say, Vermont to vote against any and all Federal appropriations to be allocated to Vermont? On the very basic reasoning that ANY money allocated to one state is _not_ available to be spent on their states.

A whole LOT of legislation is about building up areas that are weak by spending money taken from stronger areas. Like, current events, how does Federal money spent to help put out the forest fires in California in your wildest imagination help the people of Maine? How does money sent for emergency relief to some Third World nation do anything that helps any US citizens (not currently in that country)? How does stationing troops in South Korea benefit the US?

If you shackle politicians to a mandate that says, "You may only do that which _directly_ benefits your constituents" is a surefire way to let the Big Picture go all to hell. And when it comes down to it, just how many citizens do you imagine have a clear image of every detail of the Big Picture?

[Melkor Unchained]

Define" actually representing their interests?" Are representatives supposed to vote for what most of their constituents want? Do they use their best judgement even though that may conflict with the views of the majority of their constituents? Is voting for all the pork barrel money for one's district representing their interests?

I would define "representing their interests" to mean voting for legislation that would help their constituents, and against legislation that hinders or marginalizes them.

You realize that this definition would require the representatives of every other state than, say, Vermont to vote against any and all Federal appropriations to be allocated to Vermont? On the very basic reasoning that ANY money allocated to one state is _not_ available to be spent on their states.

A whole LOT of legislation is about building up areas that are weak by spending money taken from stronger areas. Like, current events, how does Federal money spent to help put out the forest fires in California in your wildest imagination help the people of Maine? How does money sent for emergency relief to some Third World nation do anything that helps any US citizens (not currently in that country)? How does stationing troops in South Korea benefit the US?

If you shackle politicians to a mandate that says, "You may only do that which _directly_ benefits your constituents" is a surefire way to let the Big Picture go all to hell. And when it comes down to it, just how many citizens do you imagine have a clear image of every detail of the Big Picture?

Should of kept reading I guess, because the next sentence is:

I know that it's not always that cut-and-dry, and that some discretion will certainly be required in politics. I just tend to think that they get a little carried away with it.

[Maurepas]

No, Ive heard what happened to California...

[Natapoc]

The problem I have with (are you ready for this?) Democracy in general is that when politicians get elected, they assume the public has given them their mandate to act how they see fit, as opposed to actually representing their interests.

Exactly. That is why the people should represent their own interests instead of assuming a politition will do it.

To the people saying that the general population is to ignorant compared to elected officials to take the time to understand the laws...

Please understand that our current elected officials admit to not even reading the laws they sign onto a disturbing portion of the time. I'm unsure how even the most ignorant of our citizens could be worse then this.

[Natapoc]

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

This, and the fact that this would turn into a California times ten. Most of the common people, are not intelligent enough, do not show enough interest or exhibit basic human qualities to adequately vote on legislation. Imagine it! The regular American voting on health care! The horror...

California times 10 huh? You think California passes laws in this way or balances their budget in this way? They don't. There are only a handful of minor laws that Californians get to vote on each year. It is the republicans and democrats in the state senate that refuse to pass or agree on a budget for political reasons that always put California over budget.

Oregon and Washington state also have referendum and they are both fine.

It is also very difficult to get an item on the ballot. Not very democratic at all.

[Tech-gnosis]

Oh, I don't expect Congressional leaders from farm districts to vote against an agriculture subsidy; but at the same time (like I said) I don't think they should elevate their district/state/what-have-you over the rest of the American electorate. Now I'm not saying that lifting farm subsidies would release $AMERICAN_CITIZEN from some tremendous burden, I'm just using it as an example, because I can see how a congressman from another district/state could see it both ways.

The problem is the rest of the American electorate doesn't vote for the representative. The politician has 0 incentive, via elections, to take them into consideration at all other than how that might be used to gain votes in their district.

Farm subsidies haven't ever been what I would call a hot-button topic, so it's pretty low on the priority list for most incoming Congressmen, I would guess. But there have (historically) been people elected all over this country (Whether NSG likes it or not ) who have promised to 'cut spending,' but they'd never go after farm subsidies because they'd get their balls cut off for no better reason than it's the status quo, and no one is really inclined to do anything about it until huge amounts of people get pissed, which could be a while.

Well the agriculture industry is powerful, sadly.

I'm also disinclined to be a big fan of gerrymandering, since it's almost always done on political rather than practical/moral grounds.

Well we could witch to a PR electoral system and get rid of districting altogether.

[Dezba]

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.

^This

[Marcuslandia]

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

This, and the fact that this would turn into a California times ten. Most of the common people, are not intelligent enough, do not show enough interest or exhibit basic human qualities to adequately vote on legislation. Imagine it! The regular American voting on health care! The horror...

California times 10 huh? You think California passes laws in this way or balances their budget in this way? They don't. There are only a handful of minor laws that Californians get to vote on each year. It is the republicans and democrats in the state senate that refuse to pass or agree on a budget for political reasons that always put California over budget.

Speaking as someone that lives in California....

It is because of some of the referendums that We The People passed that we have been having those Budget problems. This is so because
A) Some referendums created earmarked mandates for some programs that _must_ be funded, and may not have the numbers tweaked.
B) Some of the referendums created the situation where it takes an overwhelming majority of the State legislature to approve a Budget. This is what has made it possible for a relatively small number of politicians to dam up up the whole process. (And being politicians, what they are doing is, "If you want my vote, you'll put something that _I_ want into the Budget." Times 20 or 30.)

Had there not been those referendums, the State Budget would have been sorted out a lllloooonnnngggg time ago.

[Rolling squid]

Everyone needs to go read federalist 10, then come back and debate.

tl:dr: democracy is bad because factions can use emotions to shift public opinion in their favor long enough to get their agenda passed, regardless of its effect on the rights of man. A republic is a better choice because it allows a small group of people who are knowledgeable about the things needed to run a government run things in a manner best for the country, and not trample on the rights of man in the process, while at the same time allowing the public to mandate their position on items that can be understood by the common man.

[Natapoc]

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

This, and the fact that this would turn into a California times ten. Most of the common people, are not intelligent enough, do not show enough interest or exhibit basic human qualities to adequately vote on legislation. Imagine it! The regular American voting on health care! The horror...

California times 10 huh? You think California passes laws in this way or balances their budget in this way? They don't. There are only a handful of minor laws that Californians get to vote on each year. It is the republicans and democrats in the state senate that refuse to pass or agree on a budget for political reasons that always put California over budget.

Speaking as someone that lives in California....

It is because of some of the referendums that We The People passed that we have been having those Budget problems. This is so because
A) Some referendums created earmarked mandates for some programs that _must_ be funded, and may not have the numbers tweaked.
B) Some of the referendums created the situation where it takes an overwhelming majority of the State legislature to approve a Budget. This is what has made it possible for a relatively small number of politicians to dam up up the whole process. (And being politicians, what they are doing is, "If you want my vote, you'll put something that _I_ want into the Budget." Times 20 or 30.)

Had there not been those referendums, the State Budget would have been sorted out a lllloooonnnngggg time ago.

Okay then. Don't blame the people of California (despite how tempting I admit it is ) Blame the politicians who have totally misused the laws the people passed. Your argument is more of one against politicians then it is against referendums.