Direct or representative democracy?

[Marcuslandia]

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.

What the passage doesn't take into account is that what is required of that small group of of knowledgeable people is that they ALL need to be altruistic.

When people are placed in a position that allows them to enrich _themselves_ -- even at the expense of those they have been charged to serve -- some/many/most WILL eventually do so. It is why EVERY government, democratic or otherwise, has a substantial amount of graft built into it. And it's been that way throughout history.

[Marcuslandia]

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.

I actually condemn both.

It's also interesting to note: If all the money spent to get the various referendums passed/blocked -- that is all the PR money that was flying around -- was instead placed in the State Treasury, there would be NO deficit.

Of course, the same could be said about all the money spent on political campaigns and the National Debt.

[Pevisopolis]

Direct democracy via. Electronic or PC Voting, with a certain level of representation to level it out.

[Samatolian City-States]

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?

Give everyone guns.

[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.

What the passage doesn't take into account is that what is required of that small group of of knowledgeable people is that they ALL need to be altruistic.

When people are placed in a position that allows them to enrich _themselves_ -- even at the expense of those they have been charged to serve -- some/many/most WILL eventually do so. It is why EVERY government, democratic or otherwise, has a substantial amount of graft built into it. And it's been that way throughout history.

Go back and read it again.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

[New Acardia]

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

I agree.

[Tech-gnosis]

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

I agree.

So what is the difference between a republic and a liberal representative democracy?

[Maurepas]

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

I agree.

So what is the difference between a republic and a liberal representative democracy?

One can incorporate a Monarch, the other, by definition cannot,

[Sorgan]

Direct takes a long time to get everything done... But on the other hand it is the people's voice not a small groups voice... Very hard decision.

[Tech-gnosis]

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

I agree.

So what is the difference between a republic and a liberal representative democracy?

One can incorporate a Monarch, the other, by definition cannot,

So insert a monarch with no substantive power and only ceremonial duties and the system becomes unworkable?

[Maurepas]

Direct takes a long time to get everything done... But on the other hand it is the people's voice not a small groups voice... Very hard decision.

I suggest a fusion of both, with elected representatives being elected by direct popular vote...a good way to work towards that being to do away with the Electoral College system...

[Maurepas]

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

I agree.

So what is the difference between a republic and a liberal representative democracy?

One can incorporate a Monarch, the other, by definition cannot,

So insert a monarch with no substantive power and only ceremonial duties and the system becomes unworkable?

No, just no longer a Republic, by definition,

[Sorgan]

Direct takes a long time to get everything done... But on the other hand it is the people's voice not a small groups voice... Very hard decision.

I suggest a fusion of both, with elected representatives being elected by direct popular vote...a good way to work towards that being to do away with the Electoral College system...

Agreed.

[Chrobalta]

The vast majority of the people are too stupid to make the correct decisions. They will vote to get as many perks as they can from their government, but will never be willing to pay for it.

[Pevisopolis]

Direct takes a long time to get everything done... But on the other hand it is the people's voice not a small groups voice... Very hard decision.

I suggest a fusion of both, with elected representatives being elected by direct popular vote...a good way to work towards that being to do away with the Electoral College system...

How about my suggestion, with Direct democracy, but also a parliamentary body?

[Dododecapod]

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 (?)

Unlikely. We'd just get "Sound Bite" opinions on the subject, unlikely to have depth, or consideration, or even accuracy. "Vote Yes to keep Child KIllers off the Streets!" when the bill actually revokes the public defender's office.

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.

Or those who think it matters to them, because their favourite actor (or hairdresser, or Pastor, or best friend) has given them a skewed version of how the bill actually works, and they believe it. Big blocs of people can be swayed into voting for stupid things by charismatic leaders - and directly voting for laws has a much greater chance of inflicting damage than voting for Representatives.

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?

Sure, it's expensive. But if you start small, go for local positions, build up a grass-roots support network, it's both viable and remarkable how fast you can wind up on the big guys' radar.

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.

Fair enough.

[Marcuslandia]

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

The bolded point is where the argument falls apart. Here we are at 300 million plus Americans, the majority of which have suffrage. Yet, our political landscape is dominated by just TWO major political parties. The Presidency, the Vice-Presidency, and the next several levels of succession, plus well over 90% of all of the political seats of Congress are controlled by just those two parties.

And to change the political landscape absolutely, positively, unequivocally requires the complicity of BOTH of those two parties.

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally ain't gonna happen.

[Risottia]

Direct democracy is theorically better than representative, but the difficulties in implementing it grow exponentially with the growth of the number of citizens.
Also, the "age of information" is bollocks. There are plenty of citizens who either 1) can't use a computer, 2) can't afford a computer or an internet connection, 3) don't have time to follow the proceedings of a legislative assembly.
Moreover, on Internet there are no people. There are only personae, which is quite a different thing. So, NO informatics-direct democracy, AT ALL.

[United Technocrats]

Also, the "age of information" is bollocks. There are plenty of citizens who either 1) can't use a computer, 2) can't afford a computer or an internet connection, 3) don't have time to follow the proceedings of a legislative assembly.

(2) I left open the possibility of public access points for those who have no access to the internet.
(1) They don't have to be very knowledgeable, only to possess the very basic computer literacy, which they should obtain in school. If they don't, I believe some forms of crash courses for adults should be mandatory, regardless of the type of government. Complete computer illiteracy in 2009. is like inability to read and write: a complete failure of the education system.
(3) We already discussed this one; not everybody would have to vote all the time, but passing a new law would require votes from the citizens (who want a say in it) instead of votes of their representatives whom they cannot control, once they're elected. Or, a mixed model, as proposed by others here, could also be viable...

Moreover, on Internet there are no people. There are only personae, which is quite a different thing. So, NO informatics-direct democracy, AT ALL.

There are ways to personalize accounts and encrypt access and data exchange, like when You access Your bank account. It would actually be far more difficult to rig the elections or make counting mistakes. The data could be kept encrypted until the very moment of counting votes, when it would be decrypted and processed immediately, under the supervision from all representatives of the social strata.

[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).

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...

Constitutional Monarchy. Representative democracy is called democracy as the people elect their leaders, and so (albeit indirectly) run the country.

[Dzvasdvsdv]

I pick hidden option three: shut the fuck up and let me run the country.

[Anticommunist States]

Direct or Representative Democracy. Hmmmm. How 'bout......NEITHER!!!

Republic is better. Democracy allows the ignorant myrmidons a voice in a system they only care about when they are getting something out of it. Fuck democracy. The pursuit of Democracy is a waste of time. You want Paris Hilton to have a say in what our government does? And you may say, "so what? she's just one person." Yeah, but what about all the little girls who wanna grow up to be in a sex tape scandal who say, " Paris Hilton says candidate B is, like, totally awesome!". See where this goes? People who have no business in politics, end up having business in politics. Bad news. America's system is fine for the most part, just needs some tweaks.

[Anticommunist States]

I pick hidden option three: shut the fuck up and let me run the country.

I would vote for anyone on NationStates as opposed to ANYONE involved in government today.

[Dzvasdvsdv]

I would vote for anyone on NationStates as opposed to ANYONE involved in government today.

Even RoI?

[RoI2]

I would vote for anyone on NationStates as opposed to ANYONE involved in government today.

Even RoI?

I would Be a great PM