Direct Democracy

[Kobrag]

I can't remember that happening in ancient Greece, or any massacres and serious violations against minorities.

Greece allowed people to vote people out to be eaten by wolves, and there is evidence that many votes were rigged by forgieries.
As well as many Greek states practiced slavery.
Woooo
Greeks were awesome!

 

[Duke Daniel Milutin]

Do I need to give examples of events which happened in countries with representative democracies? Colonialism, imperialism, slavery, genocide, election of Hitler...

 

[pentagathus]

And what sort of government hasn't had those sort of events happen?

Don't think this would be a good idea at all, most people don't have time for running their country.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Do I need to give examples of events which happened in countries with representative democracies? Colonialism, imperialism, slavery, genocide, election of Hitler...

Would direct democracies make things better in those situations? There's no magic mechanism that stops a population that is imperialistic, pro-slavery, and who would really like to see a bunch of those ethnic people disappear, from not doing any of those things. Direct democracy, and representative democracy can only represent the will, with varying degrees, of the biggest voting bloc. If it is customary to own people as property in a certain population, you should bet that the political scene will reflect this.

These systems aren't supposed to stop people from legislating slavery, the exclusion of women from political offices, or to make the population show restraint when they conquer a small nation that defied them. Most of all that bad stuff happened because the people alive at the time wanted that stuff to happen or didn't really care if it happened or not, or were willing to turn a blind eye and not inquire too deeply about what the political agendas of their friends or family. The issue isn't some hidden political mechanism that representative or direct democracies harbor, the issue is the people who lived in those times.

Aside from an outright totalitarian rule where enforcers are in such numbers that they are comparable to the rest of the population, all that bad stuff is going to take place in varying degrees whatever the political system you have in place, and this is assuming the people in power in that totalitarian state aren't going to do all that bad stuff anyway.

 

[CJ1145]

Direct democracy is a load of horse**** that doesn't work beyond small communities, where everyone knows everyone and legitimate discourse can be made in a setting where everyone has the same context to view an issue from. On a larger scale it just gives them power to vote about things they don't understand, which leads to all sorts of fun. And by fun I mean oppression of smaller groups of people. Above all else, my political views are moved by the idea that every person should be treated as a person with the right to a happy life. If we cannot provide that with the current system, we need to alter it or throw it out entirely. Direct Democracy is one of the worst systems for the benefit of it all people, because it inherently gives all the power to the group majority. If you're being cynical, the majority being happy might seem good enough, but simply looking into the past (or present) tells us what giving power to the majority does.

Millions are still enslaved. Millions are still slaughtered. The majority still manage to **** up and give themselves plagues and economic hardship. It's not worth it.

The ideal government will always be a benevolent dictatorship, with a ruler that cares about the well-being of every person and has the power to look after them. And if we're talking about a pipe dream as big as direct democracy on a scale bigger than Backwater, USA, then shut up I can talk about my crazy dreams all I want!

 

[kurczak]

What protects minorities is not representative voting, but constitutional rights that either can't be voted on (directly or indirectly, doesn't matter) or require a qualified majority. As Swadius said, if (large enough) majority wills oppression (strongly enough), then opression will occur in any system. It's not like the question "is it possible for a representative democracy to institute slavery or apartheid" is a hypothetical one...

The idea that the uneducated unwashed masses aren't capable of voting on stuff directly, but somehow, magically will only elect wise and prudent representatives who will then vote on their behalf is just as humorous as the idea that direct democracy will instantly transform any country to a happy fun sunshine land. Sure, the unwashed ignorant voter will watch the news and think to himself: "Jesus, I ****ing hate those niggers/Jews/******s/gooks/kulaks, but hey if my representative says they're cool, then I'm cool with them too. After all what do I know? I'm just a barely literate redneck. *sips from a can of beer* Wow, phew, it was close. I would almost vote on gasing them all if I could, but that's not gonna happen now.  Damn, it feels good to live in a representative democracy. Lucky me to be represented by somebody who votes contrary to my convictions."

Churchill is often quoted saying that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter. True that, but what he forgot to add is that equally as strong an argument is a five minute conversation with an elected representative.

Have you ever talked to or even listened to a random representative/senator/whatever? They have almost literally no idea what they vote on and if they do, they don't care. What happens with about any bill is this: the government comes up with some idea, doesn't matter what is, then for 6 to 12 months it's being worked on by an army of government lawyers who will produce a relatively sane bill. You may or may not like the ideology behind it, but at least it's consistent and coherent, then it goes to the Parliament, where what is charmingly referred to as "folk art" kicks in. Every numbnut who happens to get his sorry coke habit having ass elected to the just as sorry institution is entitled to suggest changes or amendments. They range from well meant but horribly worded (very small minority) through just insane (modest minority) to outright evil (decisive majority) These morons are hopelessly stuck in a web of patrons, "lobbyists", sponsors who pay and or blackmail them to be used as a vehicle for passing stuff those people want.

Of course, these helpless morons happens to posses a vote each, not to mention that through the virtue of being a representative they have some power/influence in the party, so they can't be entirely disregarded, especially if the gov majority is very weak and fragile. So they manage to get their changes approved. Let's call it a compromise and celebrate it as the pinnacle of parliamentary democracy. Yaay! Plurality, **** yeah! What you really have, though, is not a compromise, it's a legal abomination that barely reflects the original intent of the act.

Source: 16 years of law practice

Nah, giving legislative power directly to the citizens can't possibly make things any worse.

 

[Swordmaster]

Give local authorities more power/freedom and let the youth have a say in the politics.

 

[Mage246]

I'd say your average representative is slightly less insane than your average voter, so the system works. Proof? They're able to keep convincing those idiots to vote for them.

 

[RalliX]

I see. So the opinion about direct democracy here, is that it is very bad because things could turn out ****ed up?
So many people here feel that even a dictatorship of some sort is better, if it benevolent.

They fear that the majority will be ignorant, selfish, hatred-filled overlords.
They fear that the minorities will be repressed, their rights and lives stripped away.

And I say to that, yes. It is possible. And if you don't see that happening in any other government system in the world, you're either looking at a country where the majority is not ignorant, selfish, and hatred-filled, or you're blind to the horrors which take place every day in the third world.

A direct democracy is not a legislative system which should be set up in a country where it is likely to be used to commit political genocide.
And if it were, well, might will be right. Might will be right just like it is in every country where people let it, regardless of political institution.

Might has always been right. This is the first rule of politics. Realpolitik. Whether you want it or not.
"Oh those poor minorities. They're weaker than the majority."
You want to help the minority? Good for you, you just made them an ounce stronger. Maybe they won't be the minority anymore.

OR MAYBE. JUST MAYBE, the majority is not an ignorant, selfish, hatred-filled overlord. Maybe the minority does not know what is best for the nation, but they are tolerated, because they are people too.
Well then, you just got yourself a smoothly working political system.

Feel me?

What protects minorities is not representative voting, but constitutional rights that either can't be voted on (directly or indirectly, doesn't matter) or require a qualified majority. As Swadius said, if (large enough) majority wills oppression (strongly enough), then opression will occur in any system. It's not like the question "is it possible for a representative democracy to institute slavery or apartheid" is a hypothetical one...

The idea that the uneducated unwashed masses aren't capable of voting on stuff directly, but somehow, magically will only elect wise and prudent representatives who will then vote on their behalf is just as humorous as the idea that direct democracy will instantly transform any country to a happy fun sunshine land. Sure, the unwashed ignorant voter will watch the news and think to himself: "Jesus, I ****ing hate those niggers/Jews/******s/gooks/kulaks, but hey if my representative says they're cool, then I'm cool with them too. After all what do I know? I'm just a barely literate redneck. *sips from a can of beer* Wow, phew, it was close. I would almost vote on gasing them all if I could, but that's not gonna happen now.  Damn, it feels good to live in a representative democracy. Lucky me to be represented by somebody who votes contrary to my convictions."

Churchill is often quoted saying that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter. True that, but what he forgot to add is that equally as strong an argument is a five minute conversation with an elected representative.

Nah, giving legislative power directly to the citizens can't possibly make things any worse.

He feels me.

Give local authorities more power/freedom and let the youth have a say in the politics.

Local governments being usable? I like it.
Suffrage at age 15? Eh, why not.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

What people don't understand is that although the system we have now is not the best, it's still a massive improvement over what we used to have. That said however, being ever-whiny is exactly how improvements are even conceived in the first place, so whine more.

OR MAYBE. JUST MAYBE, the majority is not an ignorant, selfish, hatred-filled overlord. Maybe the minority does not know what is best for the nation, but they are tolerated, because they are people too.
Well then, you just got yourself a smoothly working political system.

Judging by how willing the general public can be of accepting scientific evidence in explaining natural phenomenons, as well as how willing they are at the same to blindly trust 'scientific' evidence in explaining natural phenomenons, I beg to differ. I'll say that both the majority and the minority have no idea what is best for the nation. However putting a minority in power has the benefit of the majority still being able to overturn the decisions of the minority in instances when the minority starts borking the nation.

Edit : Stole this from critical miss, but behold, the mentality of the average voter in examining potential candidate agendas, plans and promises etc. You get the idea.

 

[Mad Vader]

@Rallix: I have a feeling every time you mention "minority" you mean "not me, but some wetbacks or ******s"

 

[Duke Daniel Milutin]

Maybe it's just something you could wish he ment so you could've just pushed on and trolled harder and said more useless stupid things in your usual style.

 

[Cookie Eating Huskarl]

The solution for all these is basically to install a space cannon that instantly vaporizes anyone who's practicing slavery, genocide, and any other bad thing you can think of. And the space cannon will be represented by an AI programmed to be baby jesus, who will hold conferences with world leaders to see if all is alright, while still letting democratic countries run democratically etc. An absolute iron fist that exists beyond the fallibility of men, a man-made divine entity.

All hail Baby Jesus 2.0!

 

[Mad Vader]

Maybe it's just something you could wish he ment so you could've just pushed on and trolled harder and said more useless stupid things in your usual style.

No, I wish he has the wisdom to recognize that even if you are part of the privileged majority in some ways, you may be a part of another underprivileged minority too that fully deserves the protection in our modern societies (not in backwaters like Russia).
Now kindly shut up, little homophobe.

 

[Duke Daniel Milutin]

When for some reason your nerves are weakening, don't start with false accusations. I still don't get why your so fearful of letting a 'civilized, modern society' the right to decide what should and shouldn't be going on in their society which they live in.

 

[RalliX]

@Rallix: I have a feeling every time you mention "minority" you mean "not me, but some wetbacks or ******s"

I will clearly define minority to you.
"A political group which is not the majority."
Now I will define the majority.
"The political group which is strongest in numbers."

Maybe it's just something you could wish he ment so you could've just pushed on and trolled harder and said more useless stupid things in your usual style.

No, I wish he has the wisdom to recognize that even if you are part of the privileged majority in some ways, you may be a part of another underprivileged minority too that fully deserves the protection in our modern societies (not in backwaters like Russia).
Now kindly shut up, little homophobe.

If I were a minority, I suppose I would make it my plan to receive the support of the majority, making them effectively, part of my political minority, and thus gain a political majority.
Then, it's just a question of whether I am successful. Just like now, in modern societies.

 

[Duke Daniel Milutin]

I will clearly define minority to you.
"A political group which is not the majority."
Now I will define the majority.
"The political group which is strongest in numbers."

That could simply be called "political minority".

 

[Mage246]

The solution for all these is basically to install a space cannon that instantly vaporizes anyone who's practicing slavery, genocide, and any other bad thing you can think of. And the space cannon will be represented by an AI programmed to be baby jesus, who will hold conferences with world leaders to see if all is alright, while still letting democratic countries run democratically etc. An absolute iron fist that exists beyond the fallibility of men, a man-made divine entity.

All hail Baby Jesus 2.0!

And then Baby Jesus 2.0 converts to Islam and imposes sharia law.

 

[Wheem]

...
Nah, giving legislative power directly to the citizens can't possibly make things any worse.

...
He feels me.

I'm pretty sure his line there was sarcastic.

If I were a minority, I suppose I would make it my plan to receive the support of the majority, making them effectively, part of my political minority, and thus gain a political majority.
Then, it's just a question of whether I am successful. Just like now, in modern societies.

You can plan all you want, but if the majority happens to be sufficiently swayed - and it often only takes a few rabble-rousers - good luck in any system that lets them put the boot to your neck with the backing and legitimacy of law.

And it doesn't have to be a second holocaust or the return of slavery in order to royally screw up a country. Most people are economically illiterate, and far too many have a highly developed sense of entitlement; what's to stop the bottom 51% (or 75%, 90%, or whatever) from taxing the bejeezus out of everyone that makes more money than them, and voting said funds into their own pockets? (and not necessarily just for bleeding-heart causes, either)

Then there's all the potential for issues with the criminal justice system...Plenty of people would love to see both George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony executed, because they just "know" that both of them are guilty of their respective charges - it doesn't matter what a jury determined after actually sitting in a courtroom and hearing arguments + reviewing evidence. Murder trials aren't American Idol material, nor should we allow a system where they could become one.

'Course, other people want extremely low standards of evidence required for conviction for certain crimes; ie, rape, child molestation, domestic violence (particularly against women or children), terrorism, or so-called "hate crimes." Again, criminal justice isn't - and shouldn't be - about appeals to emotion, and just because someone is charged with a crime doesn't mean that they're guilty.

Then you have the PC crowd that wants to criminalize "offensive" speech, the moralist "PROTECT OUR CHILDREN!!!" crusaders who want to ban (or at least heavily censor) every form of media, and various types of "zero-tolerance" loving idiots that'd see kids expelled from school for chewing a pop-tart into the shape of a gun, execute someone for selling pot, etc...

Of course these things may happen in any form of government - after all, every government consists of imperfect human being(s) with various goals of their own - but lacking any check on power, beyond a majority vote, is only going to make it more likely. Courts do way too much rubber-stamping already (and I'm pretty sure that that issue isn't limited to just the United States), but they certainly shouldn't be swept aside so that the majority can vote in (or out) whatever it happens to like (or dislike) at that particular moment in time.

 

[Bromden]

Give local authorities more power/freedom and let the youth have a say in the politics.

Bad idea; the youth are the easiest to mislead with political agendas disguised as ideologies. They usually aren't able to see the big picture, their focus can be easily distracted from serious problems towards noisy but unimportant matters, and if their side is under constant attacks by other public and political groups they tend to shift towards fanaticism to defend their own standings.

In my opinion the only factor that should be necessary to get involved in politics is common sense, which is sadly way underrepresented in the parliaments of the world.