Forum Post: Please explain why direct voting (no representatives) is a bad idea.
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 6, 2011, 8:40 p.m. EST by ScrewyL
(809)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Whenever this idea is proposed, everyone seems to raise their eyebrows and nod and agree it's a bad idea, usually giving the complaint that people who don't know about an issue would be voting poorly, however I have five problems with that assertion:
The Law of Averages implies that the same would be true of both Yays and Nays, so it would cancel out leaving the informed majority's conclusion.
How is that any different than our present system, where people don't know (or care?!) how their representatives are voting?
It concentrates power into the hands of a few, who will invariably be self motivated and are, by virtue of being a smaller group, more easily manipulated.
Currently, people who don't know or care don't vote. Why would that change?
I don't accept the premise that people would vote "stupidly" as compared to their representatives.
The problem is that the minority would be overshadowed by the majority. That being said, the problem with our current system is worse. The minority overshadows the majority.
Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
The legality of statutes would still be reviewed for constitutionality. The minority would not neccessarily be oppressed, (one sheep eaten by two wolves), and that is no different than our present system in which the minority of representatives are overcome in the final vote. That is, after all, the mode of democracy in any form.
representative democracy is a bad idea -
just like anti-flag burning
and NOT ending dadt
and getting rid of the fed
and affirming the motto
IT WASTES TIME AND RESOUCES THAT ARE NEEDED TO SOLVE PROBLEMS THAT THE REPUBLICANS DONT WANT TO SOLVE
we dont need direct democracy
WE NEED CLEAN DEMOCRACY WITHOUT CITIZENS UNITED
I keep failing to see how representative democracy is better then direct democracy. All the dangers of direct also exist in representative, with the added problem that the power lays in the hands of a small few who are easily corruptible.
The only argument i keep hearing comes down to the 'mob rule' argument. And i don't see how the current representative democracy is any better then that.
Right, and in a direct system of government, I no longer have to blindly trust any particular politician.
Nobody has to campaign for our votes. The corruption and the ego and the cheerleading fall away; infact, those things would be detrimental to the passage of a bill.
By eliminating representatives, you are able to better separate the agenda of a bill from its effects, and the conspiracy of oligarchs becomes impossible.
Under such a system, corporate money would NOT be in politics. (But would still attempt to sway opinion through advertising) -- that happens now, but it must be in plain sight. Whereas politicans can be bought under-the-table.
I vote to ban all abortions and to imprison all illegal immigrants? Who's with me? Don't you love majority rules?
This might be a couple of ridiculous examples, but you might see that it can be dangerous. As Plato put it, "Democracy leads into despotism".
Or as Ben Franklin put it: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." Alexander Tyler, famous Scottish historian from 1700's
A democratic republic or constitutional republic was to be the answers for stopping the fatal flaws of a direct democracy . Our republic is a democratically-elected system, in which the people elect representatives from each region, that have equal power. This ensures that farmers in rural areas (less populated) have the equal say as the heavily, more-populated cities. Our Constitution divides the powers into three separate branches, so NOT to have a king or dictator. A system to unite the states when threatened by foreign enemies. A system that would ensure greater power and sovereignty to the states, with no state more powerful than another.
How is that dangerous? If most people agree strongly, it happens. Otherwise it doesn't. Under our current mechanics, if most representatives agree, then it happens.
The difference is, "representatives" currently vote for themselves, as is human nature -- not The People. They tell the people what benefits their campaign; yet vote what benefits their bank accounts. Eliminate the representatives, and you eliminate the popularity contest altogther, hence, no political deception.
We still might suffer from some political ignorance on the part of The Voting People, but the Yays and Nays should balance out, and I don't believe that people are too foolish to rule themselves. They certainly aren't any more foolish than the people who represent them!
We've hashed Ben Franklin's misapplied quote already. Judicial review deals with that problem, striking down unconstitutional laws which violate individual sovereignty. Why do we keep having to address that? False!
To be very, very clear: I am not proposing that the majority be given the power to oppress the minority. I am proposing that the representatives be removed from the process because, at the moment, they wield selfish power under the guise of official authority, and therefore have an all-too-easy-time of violating individual sovereignty.
You're eyebrow-raising and parotting canned phrases, and infact, we HAVE a public treasury, and it's BEEN looted -- but not by The People as was predicted; rather by the politicians by way of the bankers and military-industrial complex.
Not to mention, to many people's eyes, OWS itself, is the very proletariate uprising which is expected to "vote for themselves bread and circuses"!
Furthermore, government governs by the consent of the governed, not by the consent of the land. Regional districting (and asymmetric representation) is a FLAW of our current system which is open to all sorts of corrupt influence.
Once upon a time this country was administered as a confederacy. It still is one by design, but The States are not enforcing their rights.
so you, in town x, want to vote with city y -
should we fix the bridge in town x or city y ?
should we fix school in town x or in city y?
our representative democracy has flaws - mostly defined with dollar signs -
but I agree with WC
I strongly agree with what afarmer said above, and I think he said it very well. I'm not sure I can improve on that! But I'll try to address some of your issues.
Representatives should vote based on the needs/wants of their constituency, AND the good of the country overall. Currently, they are corrupted due to money in the political system. The problem is money in the political system. Not our Representative form of government.
With regards to OWS, I see this movement as a result of wealth and representation inequality. In my mind, those things can be fixed through government policies - campaign finance reform, taxation, perhaps some stronger anti-trust and the always mentioned, financial reform.
It's not the first time our country has been through a rough patch (not to minimize our problems), and it won't be the last. And, I don't see any need to change our form of government.
Not to mention all of the many downsides to direct democracy or direct voting, most of which I see have already been mentioned by others here.
I hold that the problem is the representatives, and that corruption is intrinsic to job; if you take away the money, they will horde all the power. If you take away power, they will buy it all back.
Relying on representatives to do what they should is at best a gamble, and a poor one at that given the historical probabilities!
So far, I haven't seen a single salient downside yet. So far, these issues have been raised and quashed (correct me if I forget one):
Effort and cost to implement
(it's not any more involved than myriad government systems we use today. good government is worth whatever the cost, and by controlling the purse and eliminating pensions and cronyism, The People will likely save much more!)
"Two wolves and a sheep"
(this quote is misapplied here, and generally melodramatic. It refers to a system in which the majority can take the rights of the minority, but in our Constitutional Republic that is against the supreme law, and judicial review provides protection)
Ballot access in rural areas
(anyone who could not vote for an issue directly, currently cannot vote for a representative. no change.)
Voter turnout
(this affects our current system and would not be changed; the difference being that turnout will more directly represent the degree of interest The People have in an issue. Majority polling scales with the number of samples.)
"Mob rule"
(this is a slur against The People, and one I find both offensive and inaccurate. It is not a rational argument.)
Regional representation / district-equality
(This is a BAD thing! Plots of land cannot consent to being governed, but people can. Why should a region with 5 people get the same vote as one with 5,000? madness. Furthermore, in my district, I will never be represented because my neighbors all feel differently than I do. Under representative systems, thanks to the magic of Gerrymandering, I have no voice. Under a direct system, every person's voice has the same volume, regardless of situation.)
Can I take just one of these points. I think it has to do with Effort to implement and also touches on Voter turnout.
Example- I have no idea about the intricacies and details of world trade policies. Nor do I want to. I think trade policies are very important. But I do not have the time or inclination to be educated to direct vote on such an issue. This would be an enormous effort on my part and would preclude my voter turnout on this issue. Important yes, but I would not vote on it. It is the job of our politicians/Representatives to study these issues in depth, summarize their views for the electorate to understand their positions. Then I can decide which candidate I believe has the better position. Would I rather leave this up to direct voting and be at the mercy of other people - who may not be any more knowledgable than I am to vote on such a thing - absolutely not. Do I place more trust in our Representatives for this . Yes.
Maybe call this the "Uneducated Mob Rule". How would you possibly be able to know whether the persons choosing to vote on an issue are knowledgable enough to do so? Maybe that was covered here somewhere. If so, point me, I didn't see it.
If an issue is not important enough to you, then you won't bother to investigate or vote. That is true. The same can be said of a representative, except that a representative votes his conscience -- not yours.
I addressed it in my original post: 5.I don't accept the premise that people would vote "stupidly" as compared to their representatives. -- although I admit that's hardly proof.
As for throwing your hands up and surrendering to the will of the majority, that happens now in every election; vast numbers of people vote along party lines every time, and the nominees are chosen by their "likelihood to win". Our representative system literally represents cronyism!
Currently "the majority" decision is chosen from 400-500 congress people (who make a career out of their secret earmarks) instead of 350,000,000 real people (or let's say 1% of that turnout; 3,500,000)
I'm not going to debate point by point. For a couple of reasons. I believe there is a very very high probability that once we get the money out of the political system, our situation will be MUCH improved. I believe we have a wonderful country with a wonderful history of solving problems. Those problems were solved under the Representative form of government. Based on history, this form of government has served us quite well. I do not believe there is a compelling enough reason to change it. And changing our form of government would have to be a VERY compelling reason. And I don't even believe that our problems are bad enough to up-end our form of government. To change it to something essentially untried and untested? I don't think so. How about lets just fix what we have and see how that goes.
That may be the difference in our viewpoints; I feel that Congress has overwhelmingly failed to perform their duties and, more and more often lately, passes very bad legislation.
OWS almost unanimously wants to get corporate money out of politics; what better way to do that than to fire all the politicians?!
The Law of averages is an idea of the 1%. For the record I am being sarcastic.
[representative] democracy is the worst form of government - except all of the others
WC
That is the best reply so far -- except all the others in this topic.
A democratic country that is not protected by the concept of individual rights (as ours was supposed to be via the Declaration of Independence) will vote itself into oblivion. It doesn't matter whether it is a republic or a direct democracy. The argument that the majority would overpower the minority is true in either case so long as rights are not considered to be outside the realm of democratic interference. The citizens of a country with a legal system based on the supremacy of rights (what our country was supposed to be), rather than government edict (which is what our country is), is protected against the majority, no matter how they vote.
Agreed, and it is the point I have made in contravention to the "mob rule" arguments.
Our country and its people do not currently protect or defend rights, and representatives certainly don't!
The Judicial branch should have all along, but it is gravely malnourished. I consider that a separate problem, and to me, wrenching the legislative power from the cronies is the first step.
So how should we go about doing it? I hear a lot of talk about what should be done (and have been the source of such talk myself) but little said about how to do it.
Unfortunately, the current system does not have provisions for enacting such a thing, even if the majority of people supported it.
To "do it", this system will have to fall -- and by the ruminations of all who have commented on democracies in the past, it will.
I say, it is.
--and it's not going to be pretty.
Yeah... that's pretty much the conclusion I've come to as well...
People today, in our representative democracy with voting no more than twice every year or two, do not want to put the amount of time necessary into making the political decisions needed to run this nation of 300-million people. This is why we have so many people or doubtful character re-elected.
Now try to increase that to making direct legislative decisions on all legislation not only for the federal government but for states and municipalities as well. Americans would have to be studying legislation every day for hours on end to keep the nation from grinding to a halt.
--Or legislation would have to be made more granular and simple; but that's a side issue.
Any piece of legislation, even at 1,000 pages, is nowhere near as complex as the deep-rooted psychology of a representative.
Furthermore, proposed legislation is there for anyone who is sufficiently interested to read -- yet representatives habitually do everything within their power to hide their funding and motives.
You have conflated so many issues into each sentence that you make no sense.
Or, you imply don't know what your talking about.
(Don't let that stop you.)
Most of the people here have managed to reply politely with only minor detours into ad hominem. Please don't take my rebuttal personally, it was not meant that way. I do not want this topic to devolve into a flame war like so many others.
What do you disagree with?
The only difference is that no one would be in charge of counting the votes in the 'new' world, so direct voting is akin to no voting at all. Everyone would just vote for themselves.
I can answer that question.... but it requires a book, to explain....
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50500650/yourtopia-your%20official%20final%20beginning.pdf
I just spent, 10 mins or so, writing, and deleting, writing and deleting, because every time I tried to summarise, my answers had logical holes the size of elephants in them... This system, and this book, has critical answers to the question you propose, and is too interlinked and balanced to explain any one part without the other... It exists in a dichotomy of sorts, between the things you propose, and the things you refute...
I will leave it to you to judge instead, and give feedback, please!
Who's next? Step up, step up!
Get just 80% of eligible voters to the polls once every 4 years (General) and maybe you'll have a snowball's chance in hell.
Currently, we're at 50-55%
Good Luck you'll need a boat load.
General...Election? No thanks.
It doesn't matter to me how many or how few vote; that's a function of the strength with which people hold their opinions. Percentages scale by sample size. Ultimately, the most strongly-held opinions win out either way.
Question is: Do we want OUR opinions winning, or the politicians'? I'd rather not have to gamble on someone's "voting record". I'm not a gamblin' man.
I'm still not convinced.
BECAUSE we are a REPUBLIC, a true democracy will lead to horrible things as all you need is 50.01% in order to control the other 49.9%, thats NOT what we, you, or anyone should want.
No, I've already addressed that. Judicial review ensures the legislation passed by the majority remains constitutional (or nullifies it under the Supremacy clause)
Furthermore, under our current system, 50.01% of the representatives could achieve the same thing -- that is, UNTIL judicial review occurs.
I am well aware of the difference between a republic and a democracy. Notice I said "direct voting", not "direct democracy" in the title above.
WIth all due respect, you're parotting the canned reponse of what I see as a debunked viewpoint.
We've had this discussion more than once on this forum.
If you can convince a three quarters majority, you might be able to make the change you advocate. One of the biggest push backs you will get is the practical issue of implementation. A large segment of the population doesn't have access to the means of responding to a large volume of decisions in a timely way.
They don't have phones and/or are losing the phones they have. They are rural and the land lines that they have are going away, or have already gone away. And the cell phones they may have are also going away because the company has gone bankrupt and is liquidating. Those with land lines, many are dial up and some are party lines, know what that is?
Then, if you don't have a computer, and many don't, how do you get enough information to decide how to vote?
They can't vote by mail, because the USPS are closing post offices. The UPS and FedEx folks don't serve large areas on the country.
How many decisions do you want them to vote on, at the federal level, state level, county level, Home owners association, special improvement district? how far do you want to take this. You can't just disenfranchise people. They may not choose to vote, but you can't choose not to let them.
So, how are you going to solve all of this?
Implementation detail; We're discussing the abstract comparison of a representative system to a direct system.
Not being able to fund those things is a separate problem--one which is, admittedly, a consequence of our representative system. I would argue that we'd save quite a lot more than it costs!
Our current voting system utilizes a multitude of methods:
For arguments' sake, I propose telephone and internet as valid methods with proper safeguards (let's say PIN numbers and record-retrieval for verification)
For people without access to telephone or internet, they could default to one of the other two methods.
Of course, anyone who doesn't have access to ANY of those options, also could not vote for a representative -- so your conundrum is moot; not affected either way. Sure, some staff would be neccessary to lock and unlock the doors, tidy up the polling systems, program the computers which keep tally, etc. But such a thing is not by any stretch unattainable or unmanageable.
If an issue isn't important enough to you to get out to the polls and make your will known, then you let it go, trusting the will of the majority.
As it stands now, my will is utterly irrelevant because my "representatives" never, ever vote how I would at all.
As for how many decisions, every single one that our current representatives would.
This provides for much MORE manpower in the decision-making process than the current system allows. As for the argument that the reps are somehow "more dedicated", have you ever investigated how many of them ACTUALLY READ the bills they pass?!
On a side note, I'd like to see omnibus bills done away with, but that's a difficult thing to define in law.
Look: Legislation defines authority. That doesn't need to change very often. Once authority is defined, the Executive branch is supposed to enforce the rules.
Under our current system, The Executive merely needs to cow The Speaker, and from there, the rest of The House and Senate. That's proven to be all-too-easy.
Ask Anonymous what that level of security really accomplishes. And, look at the amount of Internet credit card losses. I know, just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it is impossible.
I am Anonymous, so I know precisely what's involved in securing such a system -- and let me tell you, it's a LOT easier (and cheaper) than securing 10,000 ballot boxes! ^_^
Regarding your statement that I didn't address some of your points, I re-read your post and I can't find anything I skipped over. You said (paraphrasing):
If you can convince a three quarters majority, you might be able to make the change you advocate.
if we currently had a direct system and I was arguing for representatives, you could make the same argument. thus, it has no bearing on the merit of the system in question. There are numerous ways to change a political system; when all else fails, if neccessary, you can "water the tree of liberty".
One of the biggest push backs you will get is the practical issue of implementation.
this problem is much less complex than moving mail around or regulating a worldwide standing army with big big bombs. we can handle it.
They don't have phones and/or are losing the phones they have.
people who can't vote directly, couldn't for for representatives either
(parenthetically, YES, Mr. Sarcasm, I know what a party line is. Are you implying my arguments are invalid because you are more knowledgeable than I?)
how do you get enough information to decide how to vote?
"how" is the prerogative of the individual voter. I would use my gut, internet, news, radio, and talking with my friends and family. How someone else does it it up to them. Under representative systems, most people do zero legwork, including checking up on their elected Rep's record after-the-fact
How many decisions do you want them to vote on
anything that currently involes a representative, I say remove the middle-man. As I illustrated, by employing the whole of The People, more manpower is made available, not less. - and, once the votes are tallied, there is no question that the voice of the people has been heard.
-- in your post below, you said --
You seem to be combining in some way, votes actually made by citizens with those of representatives.
I don't know what you mean. I'm talking about a new system with "no representatives." I'm not conflating AFAIK.
The logistics details do matter and glossing over them isn't going to convince real people
I don't mean to gloss over them; I just recognize that it is not for me to decide the details of how to implement. Anything I devised, even if perfect, will initially be distrusted by some segment of the populaton, and I'm no expert in poll-taking. My question is more "assuming it functioned properly", which is the implicit assumption in remaining with our current representative system.
We are represented by several people at several levels and they are seemingly pretty busy
If you ask me, they're mostly busy glad-handing and grandstanding!When they do focus on legislation, they seem more interested in carving out their pet loopholes, than considering the whole of the bill.
Getting informed (and who do you trust to decide what minutae that you want in your inbox daily) is a challenge.
I trust me to decide how I would. That's not a tough question. Getting informed is, yes, a challenge, and I do so to the degree that I am motivated. This is a good thing; the more important and far-reaching a proposed legislation is, the more people will get involved
If you expect people to do the work, they will have to have the information
That's how it is now. Before you vote on a representative, you have to research their voting records, and even then -- it's a crap shoot
--
One of the implicit assumptions I see in many of those points is that legislation is big and complex and hard to understand. This is true!
Currently, that situation arises out of the desire of politicians to hide their intent, or to attach earmarks (bad ideas) to bigger bills (omnibus bills).
It is my expectation that an involved public would generally reject such legislation, requesting that the separate issues be separated (perhaps by virtue of the tally not reaching sufficient majority.)
I don't know that's what will happen, but it's a pretty good guess. It happens in Congress now, just not enough, and Congressmen conspire to allow eachother's earmarks "as long as they get their own".
Most likely, If proposed legislation was competing for votes among the people, Occam's Razor would prevail, and the simplest bills would do best.
I didn't intend to upset you. (parenthetically, YES, Mr. Sarcasm, I know what a party line is. Are you implying my arguments are invalid because you are more knowledgeable than I?)
What I am trying to tell you is that convincing me is easy. I have been in tech since chips were made out of wood. Party lines are not compatible with high volume internet traffic which would be required to fully inform those voters. People get upset by their neighbors having long conversations. They have to be convinced that they are not at ANY disadvantage compared with urban dwellers. They are already paranoid about things like that some of which are very real and you are trying to address."My question is more "assuming it functioned properly", which is the implicit assumption in remaining with our current representative system. " My point is that large segments of the population will not easily accept the "assumption that it will function properly"
"I am Anonymous, so I know precisely what's involved in securing such a system -- and let me tell you, it's a LOT easier (and cheaper) than securing 10,000 ballot boxes"
I believe you can spoof and capture, and send the image of their vote back and submit something different. I wasn't concerned about the cost or complexity for the government but the difficulty for the voter. The folks rigging today's elections have a lot of resources and motivations that are just as strong in the new system. They have hired guns that are attacking guys in the internet security business and "you" Anonymous guys. The common folks, to some degree, know this is going on and there are those who benefit from discrediting a better system.
One thing I thought you might incorporate an issue hierarchy system and delegate house keeping issues that reps and their staffs deal with and allow voters to have a floating criteria of issues that want to directly deal with, which would manage the flow according to a hierarchy of priorities.
Whatever CHANGE evolves to the action stage is probably going to need a trail period or process to get from zero to large scale, to build confidence.
Good answers to a lot of questions I didn't raise. But you did ignore some that I did raise. You seem to be combining in some way, votes actually made by citizens with those of representatives. If that it true, what is your process?
The logistics details do matter and glossing over them isn't going to convince real people that they aren't getting lost in a different type of shuffle.
We are represented by several people at several levels and they are seemingly pretty busy, if you watch CSPAN 1, 2, 3 and your state and local versions, covering these bodies. Getting informed (and who do you trust to decide what minutae that you want in your inbox daily) is a challenge.
If you expect people to do the work, they will have to have the information, which I suspect, will appear to be an insurmountable deluge (especially on a dial up land line. "Every single one" is a large number. The burden is on you, sir.
Ok, I see your point.
How about this, we could all vote online, one vote per person. The problem? That it would be a cheerleading match, unless 100% of the people voted on issues only the group that got enough people to vote would win. For instance, if every single person eligible voted to legalize marijuana then it would be legalized but when then voted in Cali the nays got out more votes.
To me, the ability for an issue to attract supporters (or detractors) is the essence of a valid poll. (Ballot access and literacy notwithstanding which must be maximized in any case)
Regarding States Rights versus Federal powers, I'm not implying any legislative change in that regard; except that The States need to stand up and enforce!
umm. let me see . . .
how about the potential length of time it might take to pass a simple budgetary matter?
Implementation detail; solvable as far as I'm concerned. After all, it comes down to a simple Yay-Nay-Abstain, which can easily have a deadline.
When it comes to "simple budgetary matters", line-item granularity is preferrable in any case.
Have you been to a GA?
I don't think GA's have the proper implementation for speedy resolution! Plus, most of the time you're talking about is spent drafting resolutions, but voting on them would be relatively quick (if you didn't rely on handraising)
because majority rule is mob rule
(With all due resepect) Meaning what? You're raising your eyebrows, but not making a salient point. You're committing Ad Hominem, essentially calling "The People" a "mob".
Keep in mind, I am not describing the elimination of Constitutional protections. There is and always will be the neccessity for judicial review of the legality of statutes.
I'd say therein lies the problem. Even if we had a direct democracy, it would still be subject to judicial review (which is open to biased interpretations of the Constitution). That seems to be a large part of the problem already.
No matter what system you devise, you won't eliminate subjectivity from the human experience. Thank god.
Agreed, but I am just wondering how an effective system could be devised to protect the Constitution (since we are seeing such protection erode rather rapidly).
Easily. I'm armed. Aren't you?
I'm hoping it doesn't come to that. The government knows it can't withstand an occupation (for lack of a better word) in this well armed country. That means one of two things. They either listen to the people or turn to drastic military measures.
Well, we were certainly foolish for letting the military grow so big. Shame on us. It's going to hurt, no?
We were foolish for a lot of things, but at least we didn't miss much TV :\
:/
[Removed]