Forum Post: How do people feel about direct democracy?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 11:55 p.m. EST by JonL
(1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
How do people feel about the idea of purposing direct democracy and perhaps a fourth branch of government (the people) In the list of demands for the movement?
I'm new to the site, so I appologize if this has already been discussed. For me personally the solution isnt just to regulate and reform big business but we must also reform the government and reclaim it for the people. Its great that the 99 percent are waking up but IMO we cant change the world just by playing by the rules of the current system, we need more drastic change than that. What about a system where the people have the ultimate and direct power to veto congress or the president or vote directly for their representatives. What about if we have a set of issues (social, economic, political, etc.) that the people directly vote for annually? Technically we do have this power already as a form of responsibility but what if its amended as an official branch of government? Finally a real system of checks and balances and not rule by majority or by the elite few but by the concensus of the nation.
I find this site to be very interesting and supports the idea www.beyondplutocracy.com.... Check it out, its worth a read
Also americanselect.org is another great and important site
Thoughts, criticism?
I don't feel that direct democracy amounts to much unless you have informed voters.
The founding fathers knew nothing would ever get accomplished under a direct democracy. I think it's great as a practice in small communities (particularly at the municipal level), and programs like Alcoholics Anonymous (and NA) use it incredibly successfully, despite being global. I think it can be used sparingly at the federal issue. BUT to make anything like that work, WE MUST put restore restrictions on advertising and transparency. For ballot initiatives, it may be okay to allow big advertising spending, BUT the funding sources must be disclosed. The First Amendment does not give a speaker guaranteed anonymity, despite what the 5 Kings on the Supreme Court might insist.
Not going to work with our current population, and the deliberate divide that is going on in this country. We will get no where. Besides wouldn't it undermine our Constitution, the constitution is the only thing that is keeping people from being harmed more. Believe me the constitution is keeping people's rights and liberties enacted. Any other constitution would be a generic rip off with holes trust me.
Considering how few people in this country have developed critical thinking skills, I'd say direct democracy is a rather scary prospect. Think "Idiocracy".
Direct democracy can be shaded by a polluted media. Remember that much of the news the masses consume is editorialized, opinionated and chosen before its released. Doing so plants ideas some right, some wrong.
When people value what some major celebrity or reality show person does over what someone in office is doing, I'm not sure I want that person casting votes.
Exactly,many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various demands as the same time, especially a direct democracy, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do so at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to be 1 of 100,000 “support clicks” needed at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate – such as anyone you'd like to draft – in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Most importantly, remember that any candidate, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that people organize themselves behind, in military internet formation of their purchasing and investment power, that's important. Therefore, please read and think critically about the 1st link and join the 2nd link and you'll see and feel exactly what I mean.
Yes, Direct Democracy is what OWS is modeling...and I hope more people will look at the system of Direct Democracy...the Deliberative form that is used in Switzerland vs. the money game here in California.
Please look at this 4 min. film. http://ni4d.us If The People were brought in as our 4th check in our system of checks and balances, we would see more fairness in policy...the ending of the wars and bringing the money home for jobs, education and health care. The People are the counter balance to the Corporations but we need to be empowered to vote on issues not just politicians and political parties that are already beholden to the Corporations.
If you fear California style Direct Democracy, please watch this interview with Rachel Maddow and Sen. Mike Gravel on the subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVrdOv_f5XI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7PEPwjm1RM&feature=related
If we demand our right to vote and vote on the Internet in some organized fashion like NI4D.us then the politicians can not stand in our way. We deserve the right to vote on the issues, like how we want to spend our tax dollars.
With peace and sustainability, Lynne Gravel Mosier
http://ni4d.us 4 min. film on Direct Democracy, constitutionally vetted procedure for the U.S. "On the most major issues we've dealt with in the past 50 years, the public was more likely to be right based on the judgment of history than the legislatures or Congress." by George Gallup.
It’s Time.
Two hundred thirty-five years ago, monarchs ruled the nations of the world, and the thought of people choosing their leaders was revolutionary. We took that step. We formed a republic and began the great experiment.
Two centuries later, our republic still offers freedoms that motivate people from around the world to come here and make their lives anew. Nevertheless, our system of government is showing signs of age. “Untouchable“ issues like legislators’ salaries and benefits suggest that our elected officials are acting more like an oligarchy of cronies rather than a community of servants. More seriously, the threat of holding government financing hostage to ideological grandstanding suggests that the present system is susceptible to the will of the few, rather than the will of the majority.
I am suggesting a step toward democracy. Specifically, I am proposing that the people assume the power to enact legislation directly by means of a two-thirds majority vote. This proposal is similar to our existing right to amend the Constitution, but I propose that it be applied more widely and more frequently. The two-thirds stipulation is meant to decrease the adoption of frivolous legislation. As a balance to this right, I would propose that the Supreme Court could overrule such legislation by a vote of two-thirds of the justices.
I believe such power would rejuvenate our political process in several ways. First, the people would have the direct power to guide our nation, addressing untouchable or politically sensitive issues. Secondly, the threat of popular control should help focus our elected officials on problem-solving rather than ideological showmanship – if they can’t solve the problem, the people will. Finally, this direct power should motivate citizens to take a more active interest in political questions – they may have to play the role of final arbiter.
We are no longer in the horse-and-buggy era. We have the technology to present, discuss, and decide issues by national ballot in a matter of a few weeks. The people certainly do not have to decide every little matter that currently comes before our legislators, but we must hold the right to choose our fate when our representatives fail to decide.
Are there risks associated with granting power directly to the people? There most certainly are. There were risks associated with the birth or our republic, but we took those risks and inaugurated a system that has been the envy of people around the world. However, when the system becomes too sclerotic and too self-absorbed to address vital issues by itself, it should be fixed. This is my fix.
It’s time to move forward to democracy.
Well obviously we would still have some form of representative democracy that is essential but im just suggesting that people would have some or more control of the federal governments policys and actions with specific boundaries and rules just like every branch of the government. Its not quite direct or representative, its more hybrid that reflects the times we live in. An absolute direct democracy doesnt work as much as representative form in my opinion without the participation of its citizens. As stated below, people are lazy. Thats the problem in the first place, people have been lazy or asleep while both government and big business have walked over us. A new branch of the people would ensure the peoples presence in the decision making of the country.
The mob cannot rule. Direct democracy not only killed the ancient (and quite hot-headed) Greeks, it destroyed California. The founding fathers studied history and knew this was true, hence, representative democracy.
California is not the best form of Direct Democracy...Switzerland has a much better system of DD. Because our Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery in the Constitution it was not ratified by The People (who at first were allowed to vote and voted it down because of the slavery clauses) but by the hand picked representatives. I encourage you to explore the topic further and read some the scholars on the subject like Fmr. Senator Mike Gravel.
I am not sure it will work. the reason why is simple.
People are lazy.
For example, the town I live in has 120,000 people in it. They local city council proposed building a new civic center in order to attract new business and everything that goes with it. They put online, and in the local newspaper a questionnaire asking people what they thought on the proposal.
Results: 864 people voted, 604 wanted something better (and much more expensive), 60 agreed with the proposed plan. 200 said they did not care either way.
So out of 120,000 people, less than 1% voted, and of that 1% almost 25% said they did not care.
this was not run for a single day, or week, but was ran for almost 2 months.
Now apply this to direct government, you would end up with a situation much like we are in now where only a few would vote for the many.
People are lazy and apathetic when they have no real power and have been schooled to let someone else do it for them. Switzerland has Direct Democracy which was implemented after a bloody civil war in the 1800's they had/have 4 languages, 4 religions, no natural resources and are now one of the most prosperous and well educated countries in the world. Civic maturity takes time, but being held in civic adolescence forever by representative democracy is worse. As George Washington said "The People may make mistakes but they will correct them because they feel the pain. The leaders don't feel the pain."
People will be less lazy when they don't have to give away all their power on Election Day...when they can retain some of that to vote on the issues like how our tax money is spent.
Check out this 4 min. film on DD... it will move you :) http://ni4d.us
I encourage you to read some of the Federalist Papers written by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton; they write extensively on the subject of direct democracy. It was their opinion, my opinion, and the opinion of 99% of political theorists that direct democracy cannot survive. As groups grow in size their ability to make sound and reasoned judgments inversely shrinks. It is a fact of human nature. This is why past democrat socieities have failed and why the US was designed as a Representative Republic.
in todays day in age we should be able to have that, it just need to be extreme local, with no powers greater then that of the local
I wish this forum had a search feature. There are many posts about direct democracy. I just cant point you to any :(
Me too. Let me know if you find one... Also I hope you will look at the system of Direct Democracy...the Deliberative form that is used in Switzerland vs. the money game here in California.
Please look at this 4 min. film. http://ni4d.us If The People were brought in as our 4th check in our system of checks and balances, we would see more fairness in policy...
If you fear California style Direct Democracy, please watch this interview with Rachel Maddow and Sen. Mike Gravel on the subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVrdOv_f5XI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7PEPwjm1RM&feature=related