Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Direct Democracy, Why Not?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    speaking as if we were setting up a government from scratch of course...


  • Options
    #63
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    actually are you a lady? lol, i always thought marien was a pretty name :P ...it's just i'd spell it marian...


  • Options
    #64
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    i'm half worried you're some polish dude i just called mademoiselle :P


  • Options
    #65
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    As I've said more than once, when Irish people start thinking like Swiss people, maybe they can be trusted with direct democracy.



    Supposing for a minute that the Irish people are less fit for direct democracy than the Swiss, A notion which I think has nothing substantial to commend it by the way, why do you suppose this is the case?

    Were the Swiss always fit and the Irish not? Or did the Swiss become fit for it over time, and was this before or after they got it?

    And if, as you suggest, the Irish are unfit to have direct democracy(or a form of government that includes it as a component) how is this to be changed, assuming of course you actually want it to be changed.

    Did you ever consider that you have put the chicken before the egg? Perhaps the Swiss are 'fit' for direct democracy because they have it, perhaps having it here would result in the Irish being the same over time?


    Direct democracy requires a high level of civic responsibility to work, i'm sure you will agree, perhaps putting the Irish in a system that requires them to have Civic responsibility to succeed will result in that trait growing over time, just like how the current system in Ireland requiring someone to have a high level of cronyism and gombeenism to succeed in it, has resulted in high levels of cronyism and gombeenism among our political elite.


  • Options
    #66
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    deise go deo wrote: »
    Supposing for a minute that the Irish people are less fit for direct democracy than the Swiss, A notion which I think has nothing substantial to commend it by the way, why do you suppose this is the case?
    I've made the point earlier about the Swiss attitude to civic responsibility. I think we have a quaint post-colonial mistrust of authority that we need to get over. We're sort of an adolescent nation, and we could do with growing up.
    Direct democracy requires a high level of civic responsibility to work, i'm sure you will agree, perhaps putting the Irish in a system that requires them to have Civic responsibility to succeed will result in that trait growing over time, just like how the current system in Ireland requiring someone to have a high level of cronyism and gombeenism to succeed in it, has resulted in high levels of cronyism and gombeenism among our political elite.
    I judge the Irish electorate on the quality of the candidates they return. When Irish people start voting for quality candidates based on sound policies, and voting in referendums based on logic and reason rather than lies and soundbytes, maybe we can trust them with more control.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've made the point earlier about the Swiss attitude to civic responsibility. I think we have a quaint post-colonial mistrust of authority that we need to get over. We're sort of an adolescent nation, and we could do with growing up.

    ridiculous. we bloody should mistrust all authority! that'd be the whole driving force behind having your democracy as direct as possible... and there have been and are numerous who certainly deserved and deserve the mistrust...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I judge the Irish electorate on the quality of the candidates they return. When Irish people start voting for quality candidates based on sound policies, and voting in referendums based on logic and reason rather than lies and soundbytes, maybe we can trust them with more control

    ...so the mob appointing easily corrupted "representative" just pretty much dictators is a better idea? of policies you'd disagree with? i'm thinking you should nearly be out there trying to get people more in engaged... how better to do so than bring the democracy directly to them?


  • Options
    #68
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've made the point earlier about the Swiss attitude to civic responsibility. I think we have a quaint post-colonial mistrust of authority that we need to get over. We're sort of an adolescent nation, and we could do with growing up.

    I'm sorry, but that does not come even close to addressing the question I asked, all you have done is pass more glib remarks on the maturity of the Irish people.

    I have already said that I find this notion of the Irish as somehow immature or more unfit than any other people to have a form of direct democracy as having nothing to commend it, and you remarks here do nothing to persuade me otherwise.
    I judge the Irish electorate on the quality of the candidates they return. When Irish people start voting for quality candidates based on sound policies, and voting in referendums based on logic and reason rather than lies and soundbytes, maybe we can trust them with more control.


    I would question your putting the blame for lies and soundbytes on the Irish people, if the people are lied to, it is not their fault, but the fault of those who believe the people need to be sheparded for their own good into making the 'right' decision. Much like you seem to believe.


  • Options
    #69
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    sorry i jumped in buddy... it's just i can't get over this guy... you got it though!


  • Options
    #70
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    deise go deo wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but that does not come even close to addressing the question I asked, all you have done is pass more glib remarks on the maturity of the Irish people.

    I have already said that I find this notion of the Irish as somehow immature or more unfit than any other people to have a form of direct democracy as having nothing to commend it, and you remarks here do nothing to persuade me otherwise.




    I would question your putting the blame for lies and soundbytes on the Irish people, if the people are lied to, it is not their fault, but the fault of those who believe the people need to be sheparded for their own good into making the 'right' decision. Much like you seem to believe.

    Hello again Deise- long time no see. May I ask what you mean by direct democracy ? Switzerland is constantly used as an example but this is not, strictly speaking, correct- at least not at the national level.


  • Options
    #71
    deise go deo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭deise go deo


    marienbad wrote: »
    Hello again Deise- long time no see. May I ask what you mean by direct democracy ? Switzerland is constantly used as an example but this is not, strictly speaking, correct- at least not at the national level.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74750485&postcount=28

    That is what I mean when I say direct democracy, I know that it is not what direct democracy actually is strictly speaking , but saying direct democracy is easier than saying that every time.;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    deise go deo wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but that does not come even close to addressing the question I asked, all you have done is pass more glib remarks on the maturity of the Irish people.

    I have already said that I find this notion of the Irish as somehow immature or more unfit than any other people to have a form of direct democracy as having nothing to commend it, and you remarks here do nothing to persuade me otherwise.
    All I can do is reiterate the fact that we voted for three terms of Fianna Fáil because they promised that our property bubble would be the first one in the world to have a soft landing; that we could increase public spending and cut taxes indefinitely and it would all work out as long as we kept selling each other houses.

    We have an appalling track record of electing sleeveens and gob****es to rule us, and of listening to outright bare-faced lies in referendum campaigns. You believe that we will suddenly and magically become more thoughtful and informed voters if we're handed more responsibility. I believe we need to prove our responsibility in representative democracy first.

    If a teenager keeps crashing his moped while driving drunk, is handing him the keys of the Merc suddenly going to get him to cop on? Maybe - but it's not an experiment I'd be willing to try.
    I would question your putting the blame for lies and soundbytes on the Irish people, if the people are lied to, it is not their fault, but the fault of those who believe the people need to be sheparded for their own good into making the 'right' decision. Much like you seem to believe.
    We have a phenomenal tolerance for being lied to. We were lied to - repeatedly and loudly - by Fianna Fáil-led governments for the guts of a generation - but we kept re-electing them. We're suckers for believing what we want to hear. We let people put up posters about EU armies, abortion, higher taxes - during referendum campaigns - the same posters they put up in every previous election campaign, and were proved repeatedly to be liars - and we don't crucify those liars in the polling station.

    You have a great deal of faith in the average Irish voter to do the right thing. I don't have much faith in the average Irish voter to give a damn. I'm not trying to persuade you around to my point of view, but I'm a little surprised at your faith - and it seems to be an article of faith, rather than being in any way evidence-based.


  • Options
    #73
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    deise go deo wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74750485&postcount=28

    That is what I mean when I say direct democracy, I know that it is not what direct democracy actually is strictly speaking , but saying direct democracy is easier than saying that every time.;)

    But deise go deo , what you have outlined there is in no way direct democracy- it is simply a variation of representative democracy and in fact much closer to what we now have than to direct democracy.


  • Options
    #74
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    All I can do is reiterate the fact that we voted for three terms of Fianna Fáil because they promised that our property bubble would be the first one in the world to have a soft landing; that we could increase public spending and cut taxes indefinitely and it would all work out as long as we kept selling each other houses.

    We have an appalling track record of electing sleeveens and gob****es to rule us, and of listening to outright bare-faced lies in referendum campaigns. You believe that we will suddenly and magically become more thoughtful and informed voters if we're handed more responsibility. I believe we need to prove our responsibility in representative democracy first.

    If a teenager keeps crashing his moped while driving drunk, is handing him the keys of the Merc suddenly going to get him to cop on? Maybe - but it's not an experiment I'd be willing to try.

    you just keep spouting more and more nonsense...but as regards your analogy, the teenager would, you'd think, be the politician no? and the moped what we've given him to crash himself rather than something we've crashed...no? it's not the "representatives" fvcking it up for us at the end of the day? i propose public transport...or ammm public politics :P rather than giving him a more powerful mercedes...? lol

    i mean under a direct democracy you'd have more chance of righting the wrongs you think the majority are doing. your input would be more heard, by tradition, you'd have more opportunity, through not having to wait through term lengths, and you'd have more say. i dunno... i just don't really follow the sense of "we elect terrible officials therefore we should continue to elect terrible officials"...or i'd say even that there doesn't seem to be a basis for intelligent discussion there at all at all, but... :P

    and i do believe we would become more thoughtful and informed voters through a direct democracy. how couldn't we? i mean the democracy would be brought directly to us...we'd see the decisions, our responsibilities with regards those decisions and we'd not take them lightly...that's what i think. rather than how we see just a popularity contest, pictures stuck to polls of smiling faces to vote for to make those decisions for us...
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    We have a phenomenal tolerance for being lied to. We were lied to - repeatedly and loudly - by Fianna Fáil-led governments for the guts of a generation - but we kept re-electing them. We're suckers for believing what we want to hear. We let people put up posters about EU armies, abortion, higher taxes - during referendum campaigns - the same posters they put up in every previous election campaign, and were proved repeatedly to be liars - and we don't crucify those liars in the polling station.

    i do agree that we have a problem with believing what we want to believe. and i'd put you as a prime example :P but even so, your allowing blame to be cast off, by the majority, onto the individual, isn't helping anything...i don't get why you think it does. if anything, it'd be the main cause of how lightly we take political disasters i'd think...that they're but a mistakes of our fellow man, of a man who's just made a few wrong decisions or acted the bit of a rogue where we all could have. the voter doesn't accept the ramifications of that man's bad calls as their own...making it rather unlikely that they'll put in more effort in future to prevent such calls, only maybe to elect some different fellow man from his smiling picture...and hey, you can't have a representative government without corrupt bastards.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You have a great deal of faith in the average Irish voter to do the right thing. I don't have much faith in the average Irish voter to give a damn. I'm not trying to persuade you around to my point of view, but I'm a little surprised at your faith - and it seems to be an article of faith, rather than being in any way evidence-based.

    you have a great deal of faith in yourself to do the right thing. i don't have any faith in you. i'm not trying to persuade you around to my point of view, as it'd be futile, i know, but i'm a little surprised by your faith - and it seems to be an article of faith, rather than being in any way evidence-based. i mean how could it be? i'm fairly sure a quick aptitude test would........ammmm :P lol...

    will you ever stop reporting me for such nonsense? i mean it's intellectual dishonesty to the last :P as you said yourself earlier in this thread to the dude who reported you as a bigot...

    edit: i do however very much agree with that dude who called you a bigot even with his lack of argumentation. it's obvious.


  • Options
    #75
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I've made the point earlier about the Swiss attitude to civic responsibility. I think we have a quaint post-colonial mistrust of authority that we need to get over. We're sort of an adolescent nation, and we could do with growing up. I judge the Irish electorate on the quality of the candidates they return. When Irish people start voting for quality candidates based on sound policies, and voting in referendums based on logic and reason rather than lies and soundbytes, maybe we can trust them with more control.

    So your argument is because the Irish people return poor candidates (having been given a limited choice to choose from) they themselves cannot be trusted with direct democracy?
    I'm sure you already see the failure of logic in this, but in case you do not, perhaps you could explain to me why 166 people (or in reality less than 20) can be trusted with the running of this country, but the 2 million plus adults living here cannot?


  • Options
    #76
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    ...perhaps you could explain to me why 166 people (or in reality less than 20) can be trusted with the running of this country, but the 2 million plus adults living here cannot?
    No, I can't. I've made myself plain. Clearly you disagree; which is fine.

    I don't think we as an electorate have demonstrated the maturity required to be trusted with power. You (and others) think we should be trusted with it without having demonstrating that maturity. We'll agree to differ.


  • Options
    #77
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, I can't. I've made myself plain. Clearly you disagree; which is fine.

    I don't think we as an electorate have demonstrated the maturity required to be trusted with power. You (and others) think we should be trusted with it without having demonstrating that maturity. We'll agree to differ.

    From whence stems those who DO exercise power? Allegedly, from the franchise granted to them via election by the same people you don't believe should be permitted access to govern themselves.

    This is not only an utter defiance of logic, it's also risible.

    Furthermore, the only requirement of maturity relates to the universal franchise - ie to be of adult age. Your logic also fails on the ground that those in power under the current system have not demonstrated any especial capacity for governance that would legitimise your anti-democratic stance that only elites should be permitted to govern.

    You surely wouldn't have the temerity to argue that the governments we have enjoyed in this country exercised anything remotely resembling sensible government. Well, perhaps you might. Evidently, you'd be wrong for the (very) most part of this state's existence.


  • Options
    #78
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    You surely wouldn't have the temerity to argue that the governments we have enjoyed in this country exercised anything remotely resembling sensible government. Well, perhaps you might. Evidently, you'd be wrong for the (very) most part of this state's existence.
    Well done, you've managed to misunderstand me to an extent that can be explained by either (a) a complete failure to read what I've written, or (b) a total refusal to accept the very idea that I could possibly have a point. Either way, there's no point continuing the discussion.

    I will say this: it's interesting how you and others are prepared to completely absolve the electorate of any responsibility for electing the succession of piss-poor governments we've suffered through - it's all the fault of the "elites" that we continue to elect (over and over and over again) in good faith.


  • Options
    #79
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Well done, you've managed to misunderstand me to an extent that can be explained by either (a) a complete failure to read what I've written, or (b) a total refusal to accept the very idea that I could possibly have a point. Either way, there's no point continuing the discussion.

    I will say this: it's interesting how you and others are prepared to completely absolve the electorate of any responsibility for electing the succession of piss-poor governments we've suffered through - it's all the fault of the "elites" that we continue to elect (over and over and over again) in good faith.

    No, I'm not going to let you run away so easily.

    Kindly explain how 20 people in an executive can be permitted to exercise power over 2 million plus, when those 2 million cannot be trusted with ruling themselves, when that 20 gain their only entitlement to govern FROM the same 2 million people?

    Here's what I'm suggesting to you - in this country, the people have never been permitted the right to govern themselves via direct democracy, therefore you cannot make any assumptions on how well or badly they might fare. The example of the Swiss model indicates that it works very well. Logic similarly might suggest similarly that 2 million minds are more likely to obtain a solution to a problem better than 20.

    By contrast, we've had rule by elected elite for the entire duration of this state's existence, rule which you accept has been 'piss-poor'. Therefore, I ask you, why do you support the continuance of a system you acknowledge is 'piss-poor'?


  • Options
    #80
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    No, I'm not going to let you run away so easily.
    I'm not running away. I'm just not wasting energy arguing with someone who isn't listening.
    Kindly explain how 20 people in an executive can be permitted to exercise power over 2 million plus, when those 2 million cannot be trusted with ruling themselves, when that 20 gain their only entitlement to govern FROM the same 2 million people?
    I have explained that. Go back and read what I've written, and please try to do so with an open mind.
    Here's what I'm suggesting to you - in this country, the people have never been permitted the right to govern themselves via direct democracy, therefore you cannot make any assumptions on how well or badly they might fare. The example of the Swiss model indicates that it works very well. Logic similarly might suggest similarly that 2 million minds are more likely to obtain a solution to a problem better than 20.
    Logic might suggest that, but experience suggests the contrary. In the first Lisbon referendum, we rejected the treaty for a variety of reasons that had nothing - nothing whatsoever - to do with the treaty.
    By contrast, we've had rule by elected elite for the entire duration of this state's existence, rule which you accept has been 'piss-poor'. Therefore, I ask you, why do you support the continuance of a system you acknowledge is 'piss-poor'?
    Because I don't have a better idea. I'm not a big fan of democracy, but in the absence of a better system, at least representative democracy limits the damage that can be done by an uninformed and apathetic electorate.


  • Options
    #81
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm not running away. I'm just not wasting energy arguing with someone who isn't listening.

    I've listened. So far, you cannot explain why a derived legitimacy is permitted but a direct legitimacy is not to be permitted. Your logic fails. You haven't once attempted to explain that.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I have explained that. Go back and read what I've written, and please try to do so with an open mind.

    I've read what you wrote. My mind is always open. You seem to be the one who refuses to countenance change, however. Not once have you been able to explain the logic failure that you suggest should prevent direct democracy. Either legitimacy stems from the people and therefore could be exercised directly by them, or it does not stem from them - which is it?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Logic might suggest that, but experience suggests the contrary. In the first Lisbon referendum, we rejected the treaty for a variety of reasons that had nothing - nothing whatsoever - to do with the treaty.

    And, as it turns out, the people were right to do so, as we've since seen. Lisbon for Jobs, wasn't it? Neither you, nor any other appointed or self-appointed elite is in any position to gainsay the legitimate democratic expression of the people. You are of them, not above them. Your opinion and franchise carries no extra weight, and you are in no position to judge in some condescending fashion whether the demos are capable of understanding issues and voting the way YOU feel they ought to.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because I don't have a better idea. I'm not a big fan of democracy, but in the absence of a better system, at least representative democracy limits the damage that can be done by an uninformed and apathetic electorate.

    I do have a better idea, however. It's called direct democracy. It works. Ask the Swiss, a country with little natural resources, four national languages, umpteen regional identities, and yet is one of the most prosperous on Earth, has enjoyed peace for centuries even as wars raged around them, and the only thing that sets them apart from any of their neighbours who have not enjoyed those benefits is the fact that they have a longstanding direct democratic tradition of government.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    I've listened. So far, you cannot explain why a derived legitimacy is permitted but a direct legitimacy is not to be permitted. Your logic fails. You haven't once attempted to explain that.



    I've read what you wrote. My mind is always open. You seem to be the one who refuses to countenance change, however. Not once have you been able to explain the logic failure that you suggest should prevent direct democracy. Either legitimacy stems from the people and therefore could be exercised directly by them, or it does not stem from them - which is it?




    And, as it turns out, the people were right to do so, as we've since seen. Lisbon for Jobs, wasn't it? Neither you, nor any other appointed or self-appointed elite is in any position to gainsay the legitimate democratic expression of the people. You are of them, not above them. Your opinion and franchise carries no extra weight, and you are in no position to judge in some condescending fashion whether the demos are capable of understanding issues and voting the way YOU feel they ought to.



    I do have a better idea, however. It's called direct democracy. It works. Ask the Swiss, a country with little natural resources, four national languages, umpteen regional identities, and yet is one of the most prosperous on Earth, has enjoyed peace for centuries even as wars raged around them, and the only thing that sets them apart from any of their neighbours who have not enjoyed those benefits is the fact that they have a longstanding direct democratic tradition of government.

    You keep using Switzerland as an example, but at the national level that is not really correct.


  • Options
    #83
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    marienbad wrote: »
    You keep using Switzerland as an example, but at the national level that is not really correct.

    Because?
    Because the vast majority of decisions aren't made at national level, but at canton level or lower, is why. Subsidiarity is a genuine element of Swiss direct democracy, unlike the EU where it is a buzzword which doesn't even cover the glaring democratic deficit of the institutions.
    The Swiss national government is an expression of small government at its finest. They don't seek to micromanage the lives of citizenry, but simply to administrate the nation at nation state level.
    We could easily transpose the Swiss system to Ireland, and in fact it would probably be sensible to do so, as the needs of Greater Dublin are not the same as the needs of Connacht-Ulster.
    Equally, as a small nation, direct democracy on the national level is worth exploring in and of itself.
    Let's face it - it couldn't be much worse than some of the parliamentary governments we've endured.


  • Options
    #84
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    I've listened. So far, you cannot explain why a derived legitimacy is permitted but a direct legitimacy is not to be permitted. Your logic fails. You haven't once attempted to explain that.
    You're not listening, you're caricaturing my position. I've explained myself repeatedly and at length.

    I can do the caricaturing thing too. Watch this: by your logic, only direct democracy in its purest form is acceptable. Since the voice of the people is infallible, any distortion of their pure legitimacy through representative democracy is abhorrent. So why aren't you demanding a referendum on every single law and ministerial order? What are you, some kind of hypocrite?!

    But that's a stupid way to hold a discussion, so I'm not going to go there. I'm willing to discuss the topic if you're willing to listen.
    I've read what you wrote. My mind is always open. You seem to be the one who refuses to countenance change, however.
    Another caricature. I'm not refusing to countenance change; I'm arguing against a particular proposed change. I've said - in as many words - that I would welcome political reform, which directly contradicts both your assertion that I refuse to countenance change, and your claim to have read what I've written.

    So, for at least the third time: if you're willing to discuss what I've said with an open mind, fine. If you're only interested in winning the argument at any cost, I'll save you the bother and tell you that not only is everything you've ever said or are ever going to say absolutely right, but every thought I've ever had has been egregiously wrong. Happy?
    Not once have you been able to explain the logic failure that you suggest should prevent direct democracy. Either legitimacy stems from the people and therefore could be exercised directly by them, or it does not stem from them - which is it?
    I reject your false dichotomy. I refuse to subscribe to the ideological religion that states that a large group of people making a decision is incapable of making a wrong or a stupid decision. I accept that legitimacy stems from the people, and I believe that representative democracy is an important bulwark against the very real danger of mob rule.

    If your thinking is rooted in the fundamentalist belief that something is infallibly correct just because a large enough group of people votes for it, then we have nothing to discuss, because it's impossible to have a rational discussion with a fundamentalist.
    And, as it turns out, the people were right to do so, as we've since seen. Lisbon for Jobs, wasn't it?
    Thank you for single-handedly proving my entire point in two sentences. Hell, I could have saved myself a buttload of typing and just quoted that bit.
    Neither you, nor any other appointed or self-appointed elite is in any position to gainsay the legitimate democratic expression of the people. You are of them, not above them. Your opinion and franchise carries no extra weight, and you are in no position to judge in some condescending fashion whether the demos are capable of understanding issues and voting the way YOU feel they ought to.
    Just so I'm completely clear: are you arguing that the people were right to reject the Lisbon treaty, and right to accept the Lisbon treaty? Because that's the logical conclusion of that line of argument.
    I do have a better idea, however. It's called direct democracy. It works. Ask the Swiss, a country with little natural resources, four national languages, umpteen regional identities, and yet is one of the most prosperous on Earth, has enjoyed peace for centuries even as wars raged around them, and the only thing that sets them apart from any of their neighbours who have not enjoyed those benefits is the fact that they have a longstanding direct democratic tradition of government.
    It's just as well we're exactly like the Swiss in every possible way, isn't it. It's also a goddamn tragedy that I never thought to discuss Switzerland at any point in this thread. Which you picked up on, having carefully read - with an open mind - everything I had to say.

    I'm done arguing this with you. Instead of discussing it, we should just stick up a poll and ask people to vote as to which of us is right. Because, at the end of the day, if more people vote for one thing than another, then they must be right.


  • Options
    #85
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Because?
    Because the vast majority of decisions aren't made at national level, but at canton level or lower, is why. Subsidiarity is a genuine element of Swiss direct democracy, unlike the EU where it is a buzzword which doesn't even cover the glaring democratic deficit of the institutions.
    The Swiss national government is an expression of small government at its finest. They don't seek to micromanage the lives of citizenry, but simply to administrate the nation at nation state level.
    We could easily transpose the Swiss system to Ireland, and in fact it would probably be sensible to do so, as the needs of Greater Dublin are not the same as the needs of Connacht-Ulster.
    Equally, as a small nation, direct democracy on the national level is worth exploring in and of itself.
    Let's face it - it couldn't be much worse than some of the parliamentary governments we've endured.

    Sure, I completely agree with you there as regards local democracy- in our case local councils- but to have any meaning they must have revenue raising powers. They did have this at one time in the household rates but given the opportunity by Jack Lynch in 1977 to abolish them the electorate grabbed it with both hands and at a stoke emasculated any nascent local democracy and gave a huge impetus to the centralising forces in our political system.

    Your point on the differing requirements of across the country is absolutey correct and in the Swiss system nothing can be imposed on any area without an absolute majority and a regional majority and so strictly speaking it is not pure democracy.

    But I dont think it is reasonable to compare Ireland And the Swiss without also comparing our history , traditions, civic spirit etc. In a similar way the American Presidential System is great on paper but is has proved to be a disaster everywhere but the USA.


  • Options
    #86
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're not listening, you're caricaturing my position. I've explained myself repeatedly and at length.

    I can do the caricaturing thing too. Watch this: by your logic, only direct democracy in its purest form is acceptable. Since the voice of the people is infallible, any distortion of their pure legitimacy through representative democracy is abhorrent. So why aren't you demanding a referendum on every single law and ministerial order? What are you, some kind of hypocrite?!

    I haven't caricatured your position at all. Nor have I suggested that only direct democracy is acceptable. I've suggested it is preferable to the status quo and given reasons why. You, on the other hand, have not been able to offer any reasons why it ought not to be tried, other than to suggest that the people themselves are not to be trusted with self-rule. But since even you accept that power stems from the people, and that the governments we've had under the current system have led to piss-poor rule, I believe was your phrase, then your position that the current system is preferable is demonstrably lacking in logic. Now, if I've misrepresented your position, please clarify where.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    But that's a stupid way to hold a discussion, so I'm not going to go there. I'm willing to discuss the topic if you're willing to listen. Another caricature. I'm not refusing to countenance change; I'm arguing against a particular proposed change. I've said - in as many words - that I would welcome political reform, which directly contradicts both your assertion that I refuse to countenance change, and your claim to have read what I've written.

    This thread is about direct democracy, not reform in general. You seem to have a closed mind in relation to direct democracy, which was my assertion.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So, for at least the third time: if you're willing to discuss what I've said with an open mind, fine. If you're only interested in winning the argument at any cost, I'll save you the bother and tell you that not only is everything you've ever said or are ever going to say absolutely right, but every thought I've ever had has been egregiously wrong. Happy? I reject your false dichotomy. I refuse to subscribe to the ideological religion that states that a large group of people making a decision is incapable of making a wrong or a stupid decision. I accept that legitimacy stems from the people, and I believe that representative democracy is an important bulwark against the very real danger of mob rule.

    Firstly, I didn't suggest that the citizenry are incapable of making bad choices. What I did say was that it is likely that 2 million people can come up with better results than 20 can, and furthermore, where this has been tried, ie in Switzerland, it works better than any other form of government has historically anywhere.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If your thinking is rooted in the fundamentalist belief that something is infallibly correct just because a large enough group of people votes for it, then we have nothing to discuss, because it's impossible to have a rational discussion with a fundamentalist.

    You're really becoming rather shrill here. All I'm doing is making the case for trying direct democracy in this country. The alternative, the status quo, has been repeatedly disastrous. As the maxim goes, the definition of stupidity is attempting the same thing repeatedly expecting different results. We have been poorly served by the inherited British parliamentary system we use for governance. There is a much better model, demonstrated to work in the context of a small European country. I have suggested there is nothing to lose from trying it. That's not a fundamentalist position remotely, and you're being shrill and disingenuous by attempting to depict it as such.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Thank you for single-handedly proving my entire point in two sentences. Hell, I could have saved myself a buttload of typing and just quoted that bit. Just so I'm completely clear: are you arguing that the people were right to reject the Lisbon treaty, and right to accept the Lisbon treaty? Because that's the logical conclusion of that line of argument.

    In a word, yes. In a few more words, I'm saying that the people's decision in referenda are sovereign. To explain further, the sovereign decision of the people made in the first referendum would, in a direct democratic system, not have been open to instant overturning by either the elected elite nor their Brussels masters either. Effectively, the credibility of referenda was deliberately damaged by the parliamentarians in both that episode and the previous Maastricht episode.
    (One could argue similarly in relation to Divorce or Abortion, however the divorce issue had sufficient time elapsed to allow for societal change of opinion, and the abortion issue was not quite on the same topic as the earlier referendum.)
    Ultimately, a direct democratic system permits the people to generate their issues of interest as well as to vote on them. Therefore, if the people had wished to vote repeatedly on an issue, be it Lisbon or something else, then that is their decision and they are sovereign.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's just as well we're exactly like the Swiss in every possible way, isn't it. It's also a goddamn tragedy that I never thought to discuss Switzerland at any point in this thread. Which you picked up on, having carefully read - with an open mind - everything I had to say.

    This is again a straw man argument. Do we suggest that the citizens of third world dictatorships must be in all ways like us before they can enjoy democracy?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm done arguing this with you. Instead of discussing it, we should just stick up a poll and ask people to vote as to which of us is right. Because, at the end of the day, if more people vote for one thing than another, then they must be right.

    It's not an issue of right or wrong. It's the moral question of who has the right to rule. I say the people do.


  • Options
    #87
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    marienbad wrote: »
    Sure, I completely agree with you there as regards local democracy- in our case local councils- but to have any meaning they must have revenue raising powers. They did have this at one time in the household rates but given the opportunity by Jack Lynch in 1977 to abolish them the electorate grabbed it with both hands and at a stoke emasculated any nascent local democracy and gave a huge impetus to the centralising forces in our political system.

    I don't think the electorate can be blamed for the failure of the councils to be transformed into subsidiary democratic entities anymore than I accept OscarBravo's attempt to blame poor parliamentary governance on the people either.
    What is needed to created proper regional governance is firstly that the central government is prepared to give up revenue, which it is loathe to do. If it won't give up revenue to regional authorities, they have no opportunity to function.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Your point on the differing requirements of across the country is absolutey correct and in the Swiss system nothing can be imposed on any area without an absolute majority and a regional majority and so strictly speaking it is not pure democracy.
    I think concepts of purity are emotive and hard to measure when it comes to democracy. I prefer the direct democratic concept because it adheres closely to the will of the people, as expressed at a level where it affects them directly. One classic gripe in Ireland is that Dublin gets all the transport, leaving the country high and dry. If Ireland were regionalised along the Swiss canton model, then it wouldn't matter to Munster what Dublin provided for itself. There are limits to this model, and the Swiss have had hundreds of years to develop the demarcation lines between region and nation in this regard. As a small nation, I'd be inclined to see us try direct democracy on a national level first before pursuing subsidiarity. But the councils or the EU electoral constituencies both offer models which could be used to decentralise power in a direct democratic manner along Swiss lines.
    marienbad wrote: »
    But I dont think it is reasonable to compare Ireland And the Swiss without also comparing our history , traditions, civic spirit etc. In a similar way the American Presidential System is great on paper but is has proved to be a disaster everywhere but the USA.

    Well, the Swiss history and traditions in part stem from their having had direct democracy for many hundreds of years. We're always going to have a different history from every other nation. But that doesn't mean we cannot learn from their modes of governance.


  • Options
    #88
    JohnRiver
    Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭JohnRiver


    cavehill red I love you buddy...


  • Options
    #89
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Cavehill would you attribute any responsilibity for the current situation to the electorate ?


  • Options
    #90
    Cavehill Red
    Registered Users Posts: 6,109 ✭✭✭Cavehill Red


    marienbad wrote: »
    Cavehill would you attribute any responsilibity for the current situation to the electorate ?

    Could you clarify what you mean by 'the current situation'?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Cavehill Red wrote: »
    Could you clarify what you mean by 'the current situation'?

    Whatever you want it to mean Cavehill- that we are a fcuked bannana republic/ that we are in some diffculty but are recovering/ that europe is good/that europe is bad/ etc etc

    my point is are the electorate in any way responsible for whatever type of republic we have become ?

    I am not being smart or anything , but I just don't accept that it is just the ''system'' that has us where we are .


Advertisement