Smelling The Coffee: 2010

Or Superman. Or Dracula. Or Osama Bin Laden.

And if you want to meaningfully communicate with people you use the same words they do with the same meanings or find other ways to express yourself.

Yep. Gun totin, bible bashin, inbred rednecks who live on coke and McKingBurgers, drive huge gas guzzlin cars, wear bad fitting Hawain shirts and carry overly expensive cameras around as you make your brash, loudmouthed and ill tempered one time trip out of the US. Yes. I hear that hot dogs are popular too. On a more serious note - America (and Americans) inspire some very strong stereotype based opinons both negative and positive around the world IMHO.But the details, reasons and reality of that are almost worth a thread in itself (again IMHO)

I was tryin to be sarcastic/ironic.I/We know that Americans are no more like that than Brits are bowler hat, pin stripe suit wearing gents who eat fish and chips followed by boiled beef every day whilst out shooting pheasants and shouting "Tally ho" in Hugh Grant type accents.But stereotypes serve a useful purpose. Even if it is only to those of us who (tragically and wrongly as it happens) consider ourselves comediens of sorts.

If I start on Welsh stereotypes I will no doubt be accused of hate crimes.

Well I am glad you mentioned the dreaded S word. As I would have been uncomfortable doing so in this volatile context. But dude my wife isn't called flossy and has never been sheared. So none of you guys would be interested.

Your direct techno democracy idea sound like mob rule with electronic knobs on. A couple of questions/points:1) Who decides what gets voted on?
2) You do understand that true democracy is at least as much about representation and accountability as it is about simple majority rule don't you? How do you give minority points of view a voice that isn't just completely drowned out by the majority in your system?
3) How do you ensure 'one person one vote' rather than powerful employers or whatever dictating the votes of others en masse?
4) Is the fickle, emotional and unconsidered rule of the X Factor/Big Brother/Britains Got Talent/American Idol/whatever voting mob the best way to make decisions pertaining to complex social and diplomatic issues in your opinion?
5) Is there never a need for unpopular decisions to be made? Your system doesn't seem to cope with this need very well at all.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But what you seem to be advocating is simply an electronic version of majority rule. Do you really think that is all democracy is?

What do you think the answer is Oni?In a speech in the House of Commons on 11 November 1947, Winston Churchill said:"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."But he also said:"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."Which to my mind makes Winston even more cynical than you. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What you have described so far sounds more like the tyranny of the majority than any recognisable form of democracy.In your setup can the majority vote to overrule the constitution by simply voting to do so?

The majority

At a very localised level it might. Where essentially the group is small enough that what is good for the majrity is good for all.But nationally? Huge groups of competing and dispirate interests that number in the millions even if they are a minority. No.Are you really advocating Legend's mad American Idol style of "democracy"?

Unions almost by definition are collections of people with a common purpose. That is what unites them in the first place. Fair enough. If the commonality of purpose is well enough defined and agreed upon. Which makes unions a case in point. But seems difficult to translate to society at large. Or even not so large. Well that is bit like advocating world peace surely? We can all as citizens pretty much agree on that. But it is all but a meaningless platitude unless backed up with a workable method of pursuing. And representative democracy (not of Leg's pure majority rule type either) is the best we have managed thus far. Imperfect as it is. Yeah I wasn't comfortable with what he was saying on that score either. Or at least how he was saying it.I guess this comes down to how much expertise is required to make a partricular decision. Can everything be reduced down to a yes/no vote that the general public can meaningfully comment on?
If not then how does the direct democracy method deal with that issue? Governments are armed with reams of researchers, advisors and experts and access to information in various fields in a way that every member of the public cannot be. And even if there is a president/minister with the ultimate decision these things are (or should be) collective decisions based on this pool of information to some extent.As a comparison relevant to EvC type topics - Would we advocate taking a popular vote as to whether ID met the requirements of being taught in science classrooms as genuine science? Should that not be put to majority vote?Are the general populace qualified to make that call? If not then why do we think that this method of decision making will be any better for areas where sociology, law, international diplomacy or whatever is the relevant field of expertise?What are the limits of direct democracy as being proposed here? On what basis are we applying those limits? If we think collective wisdom is somehow superior why not apply it to everything and anything? Let's decide the age of the Earth by popular vote - No?Why not?

Oh you know. World peace. Ideal form of governance. Meaning of life the universe and everything. Nothing heavy. On that I can agree. How to achieve democracy of a desirable sort. Maybe starting with what desirable form of democracy is. I don't think Legend's version of simplistic and unconsidered majority rule would result in anything but complete catastrophe that would make the present and far from perfect systems look like the glory days of democratic idealism. In other words I think his version would result in social hell. And when you have done that you can go on to win the nobel prize for literature and lead this new found world democracy we are about to invent.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What? And who decides what gets voted on to get further voted on? This sounds like infinite regress.