Direct or representative democracy?

[Dzvasdvsdv]

I would Be a great PM

Well I suppose you're more intelligent than some of our previous PMs, and at least you have some fire to you.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would be interested to see the results of a society run on direct democracy, within certain limits. I would want a strong Constitution to garuntee basic rights, and their would need to be some sort of elected executive to carry out the day to day administrative functions of government and to make emergency decisions where their was no time to hold a popular vote. One would also want a way to make voting much more efficient and less susceptible to fraud. Finally, one would need a way in which to determine which proposed pieces of legislation would be taken seriously, or their would be far to many to vote on. Perhaps a submissions process in which legislation would have to garner a certain degree of signators (maybe five percent of the voting population) before it would be submitted to nation-wide referendum.

This would essentially replace the Congress with the public as a whole, eliminating representation in favor of a "citizen legislature." Also, this of course refers to direct democracy on the scale of a major nation, as opposed to direct democracy in a small community, which would be much more feasible.

[RoI2]

I would Be a great PM

Well I suppose you're more intelligent than some of our previous PMs, and at least you have some fire to you.

True. If you are who I think you are you'd make a good Pm... but, maybe not for me.

[Buccaneers FC]

Benevolent socialist dictatorships kick ass.

[Dododecapod]

Benevolent socialist dictatorships kick ass.

Maybe. None have ever actually existed, so...

[Tech-gnosis]

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.

WTF is a Republic and how is it different from a liberal representative democracy? Not one person who has said that a republic is better than either direct or representative democracy has answered this so far. I'm beginning to think they don't understand the definitions of democracy and republic.

Here's a link to what a liberal democracy is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Here's a link to what a representative democracy is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

[Risottia]

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.

I wouldn't describe Switzerland exactly like that. Yet they are probabily the closest as a small-sized country can get to a direct democracy.

[Risottia]

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.

Eh?

Excuse me?

It's about 20 years that the Italian Parliament is elected with a different system: 1993 through 2001, a first-past-the-post over local constituencies, and 2006 and 2008 with a 5% threshold + 54% of the seats assigned to the winning coalition.

So, quite NON-proportional. Yet cabinets have become even more unstable than they were with the pure proportional.

[Dododecapod]

Ahem (from Wikipedia):
"Electoral System

The present electoral system, approved on December 14, 2005, is based on proportional representation (PR) with a series of thresholds to encourage parties to form coalitions. It replaced an Additional Member electoral system which had been introduced in the 1990s.

The proportional system is district-based, rather than nationwide as in some smaller countries. Italy is divided into a certain number of districts for the Chamber of Deputies, and a certain number of districts for the Senate. Each district is assigned a number of seats proportionate to its total of the population of Italy. Within each district, voters choose between lists of candidates which parties or coalitions have registered in advance, and each list is awarded seats based on its percentage of the vote in the district. Candidates on the lists are ranked in order of priority, so if a party wins for example ten seats, the first ten candidates on its list receive seats in parliament.

The law officially recognizes coalitions of parties: to be part of a coalition, a party must sign its official program and indicate its support for the coalition's candidate to the prime-ministership."

[Northern Delmarva]

Representative democracy, thank you.

I don't exactly need the "51% vote to kill the other 49%" to become a reality.

[Tech-gnosis]

Representative democracy, thank you.

I don't exactly need the "51% vote to kill the other 49%" to become a reality.

Technically what stops that from happening in a representative democracy?

[Natapoc]

Representative democracy, thank you.

I don't exactly need the "51% vote to kill the other 49%" to become a reality.

Technically what stops that from happening in a representative democracy?

The same thing that would stop it in a direct democracy: Guaranteed rights. There are some things you are not permitted to vote on by some foundational document enforced by an independent system.

So basically the argument is a fallacy.

[Neu California]

The problem with Direct Democracy and the downfall of California's budget (though I think someone already said this) is that everyone wants stuff, but no one wants to pay for it. It might work if there was an amendment that said "all spending approved by the voters must have a funding source attached, or make use of a government surplus. No spending approved by voters may go through without a source for the necessary funding"

[The Romulan Republic]

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.

I wouldn't describe Switzerland exactly like that. Yet they are probabily the closest as a small-sized country can get to a direct democracy.

I wonder where all these references to "mob rule" come from. Frankly, they sound to me more like fear-mongering than a thought out objection.

A mob is distinguished by its violent/threatening/disorderly conduct, not by its numbers. Frankly, I find it unjustifiably cynical and insulting to equate rule by the majority inherently to rule by a "mob," as to do so to me suggest an attitude that any sufficiently large group of people will invariably behave in a vicious, unruly, or thuggish manner.

[Greed and Death]

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.

I wouldn't describe Switzerland exactly like that. Yet they are probabily the closest as a small-sized country can get to a direct democracy.

I wonder where all these references to "mob rule" come from. Frankly, they sound to me more like fear-mongering than a thought out objection.

A mob is distinguished by its violent/threatening/disorderly conduct, not by its numbers. Frankly, I find it unjustifiably cynical and insulting to equate rule by the majority inherently to rule by a "mob," as to do so to me suggest an attitude that any sufficiently large group of people will invariably behave in a vicious, unruly, or thuggish manner.

I believe the term "mob rule" originated with Plato.

[The Romulan Republic]

I believe the term "mob rule" originated with Plato.

You're evading the point, I believe.

[Greed and Death]

I believe the term "mob rule" originated with Plato.

You're evading the point, I believe.

The problem with Civil Mob or majority rule, is the majority doesn't always realize when it is behaving in a thug like manner.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem with Civil Mob or majority rule, is the majority doesn't always realize when it is behaving in a thug like manner.

The majority might not always be aware of it, but it does not follow that Direct Democracy would inherently be mob rule, or thuggish. Nor does it follow that this is better than representative democracy, where in theory the will of the majority still rules but where in practice politicians can easily screw their constituents, sometimes with little accountability.

That said, I would only be likely to support adopting Direct Democratic rule within very specific constraints, which I have already outlined.

[Greed and Death]

The problem with Civil Mob or majority rule, is the majority doesn't always realize when it is behaving in a thug like manner.

The majority might not always be aware of it, but it does not follow that Direct Democracy would inherently be mob rule, or thuggish. Nor does it follow that this is better than representative democracy, where in theory the will of the majority still rules but where in practice politicians can easily screw their constituents, sometimes with little accountability.

That said, I would only be likely to support adopting Direct Democratic rule within very specific constraints, which I have already outlined.

Pure direct democracy is always mob rule. Get a attack on an island and they will vote to lock up an entire ethnic group.
Same with Representative democracy, though in theory the electors should be more educated and show more restraint in such decisions.

[The Romulan Republic]

Pure direct democracy is always mob rule. Get a attack on an island and they will vote to lock up an entire ethnic group.

Prove it.

Same with Representative democracy, though in theory the electors should be more educated and show more restraint in such decisions.

In theory.

[Gleinster]

Look at California.

700,000 signatures on a proposal guarantees you a referendum on that proposal.

This led to the abolition of property tax.

Now only Income tax props up Arnie's exchequer, which is fine during boom times, but creates chaos when things are going badly.

I put it to you that not right-thinking representative government would have passed such a short-sighted bill.

[Greed and Death]

Pure direct democracy is always mob rule. Get a attack on an island and they will vote to lock up an entire ethnic group.

Prove it.

Same with Representative democracy, though in theory the electors should be more educated and show more restraint in such decisions.

In theory.

Prove it ? Sure, Athens 399 BC.

Even you wish to have restrictions on your direct democracy model.
Who will put this restrictions in place ? Are these restrictions little more then rules passed by the majority in times before?
Who will determine exactly where the line of majority rule and minority right stand? Judges ? are they elected ? who determines the educational requirements to be a judge ?

[Californian Mod Haters]

Direct Democracy only for amendments, anything else and:

metaphorical of corse

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

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.

On the contrary, I would say it works exactly as it should, making the Senate a house of review which limits the power of the Parliament. The only improvement I would make would be to abolish representation by states -- Senate should be just like it is now, but as though all Australians lived in the same state.

Government for everybody not just the majority is advanced by precisely the kind of compromises and tradeoffs which occur in the Senate. Minorities get a small share of their demands met, in exchange for supporting the bulk (but not all) of the plurality's demands.

The only kind of politics which isn't messy is autocratic rule. Politicians have to argue, and do deals and sometimes go back on what they promised to do. They're negotiating on behalf of those who elected them, and negotiation is never tidy.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

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.

I would argue that where proportional representation is NOT used, the party system tends to simulate it with factions. Blue and red dogs there, National party or the well known factionalism of the Labor Party here.

It is far preferable to have representatives of minority opinions speak for them, than to have those minority opinions negotiate behind the closed and undemocratic doors of major parties.

And the US Congress deserves a much stronger label than "unrepresentative swill."