Smelling The Coffee: 2010

Hi LegendWithout messily trying to deal with the many points you raise in your previous posts about direct democracy, I'd simply like to ask you a few questions.In a representative democracy, my one vote goes towards the person I feel is most qualified to make the important decisions they will be called upon to make during their term. Through the political process, hacks that clearly have no experience are (usually, apart from Sarah Palin) eliminated in the early going.In direct democracy, the laws of the land rest in the hands of everyone equally, no matter how educated, qualified, informed, or cognizant they are.

Do you really want major decisions made by the general public in the fashion of direct democracy?

​

Do you really think it would matter if we each (all 300+ million in the case of the USA for example) got our 1 minute to comment?

​

Do you really think that anyone (let alone everyone, and it is everyone who decides after all) could read and absorb all those comments, and be able to fairly take on-board the viewpoints across the continuum and come to a conclusion from such?

​

Do you really think enough people would vote for a tax increase to pay for something "on the other side of town"? (especially when things on their side of town need work)

​

Do you really think a majority could ever be achieved on important issues? What would you do with the likely 51/49 result on abortion? Would you declare the 51% side the winner, thus forcing this ruling on 49% of your population, all based on a vote that could go 51/49 the other way the very next day?

​

Do you really think that it would be wise to implement a system in which the many people who are uneducated on particular matters get votes equivalent to those who are informed and in a position to make wiser choices? (by using representatives we try to take this problem out of the formula).

​

Do you really think it would be wise to implement a system in which there is no-one to hold accountable after the fact, no-one to vote out of office in the next term?

​

Whether such a system is technologically possible is one thing ... whether it would serve us well is another.

​

I think not sir. I think the prospect of direct democracy, if applied to decisions on anything more important than the American Idol or X-Factor winner, would be disastrous.

​

Edited by Briterican, : Tidying

Hi onifre I'm an American (Texan to be more exact) who migrated to England 7 years ago, so I sorta think of myself as a British American, hence Briterican. In the words of Professor Dawkins, "I gratefuly accept your rebuke." Let me try to reply without this single-line at a time mess...I suffer from an unfortunate tendency to post more than I intend (possibly due to typing 100+ wpm), and inadequate patience when it comes to reviewing it prior to posting. This shows badly in my post which, though I'm not waffling and abandoning my comments completely, clearly doesn't account for some of the major points you and Legend have made in reply.I cannot disagree with the point about hacks: we have had and will continue to have them. My comment regarding the tendency to "weed" these out early was clearly not thought through. You make a very good point when you mention how a well-organised campaign can make it easy for unqualified people to get elected.You mention that the "uneducated, unqualified and uninformed peopole" (words I had initially used) are still responsible for voting someone in. I appreciate this, but I'm still inclined to think that there is some degree by which individuals who actually manage to take a serious run at public office are more qualified than the average joe blow, so I think that even if the general public voted in the worst of the candidates, that individual is still likely to be more qualified than a large chunk of those voters.As to the comment you made in which you said the priveleged elites see to it that the general public is uneducated: This is one of those things that I can't fully convince myself is false, and yet I intuitively feel that it is. I'm sure there is some degree of this, but I don't think it is really possible today to "control information" to such a great degree. Yes, I know you could provide me with a million examples of how this takes place, but the very fact that you could provide these examples shows that it isn't working.I think it's come up before in another thread that I am not convinced there are an elite few in control of the media either. Certain powerful elements of it, sure, like news networks and the deplorable Rupert Murdoch. As far as "the media" as a whole, I just don't see it, and frankly don't think it's possible in the internet age.I absolutely agree with a general thread of your reply calling for a better-informed public. The only way in which our opinions might diverge in this respect is my opinion that there's no excuse for not being more well-informed. There's an internet cafe down the road from here that costs 50 pence per hour (under a dollar). If someone really wants to get an idea about a political issue, or a politician, or an upcoming law, or creationism v evolution... there is no real reason that they can't.So I hope I don't sound like I'm waffling or backtracking - I'm taking what you've said onboard and rethinking what I said in light of it. One thing I do need to do in future is start proofreading my posts more for content than syntax.I sadly don't have time right now to reply to Legend, or watch that video you linked, or indulge in psilocybin magic mushrooms - but I shall watch the video in due course, and I thank you for your reply.

Noted and retracted. My wording was inappropriately arrogant. It's not that I distrust or disrespect "the general public" that much, I was just trying to make the point that I believe (possibly wrongly) that even the worst candidate for public office is still probably better qualified than a large chunk of the voters.As I said to onifre, thanks for calling me out on my inadequately expressed opinion. I sound like a dick sometimes lol.

Hi LegendThanks for actually answering the questions I asked as opposed to glossing over specifics.As I've said in replies to others, the wording of my post was somewhat ill-advised, and my failure to think some of it through is apparent.I've made the point in my other replies that (possibly wrongly) I feel that even the worst choice for a candidate for public office is likely to be better qualified than a large chunk of the voters. I welcome anyone's comments in this regard, and am still formulating my own opinions. Nonetheless, I chose unnecessarily negative words to describe "the general public" in my post, and will learn to take my time and be a bit more reasonable rather than posting for dramatic effect.Your responses are reasonable and I see very little that I want to specifically disagree with. At the risk of getting tomatos thrown at me, I would like to say that GW was a good governor of Texas (where I lived during his term). He sponsored badly needed tort and judicial reform, and better funding for education. Wiki also credits him with making Texas the leader in wind-powered electricity in the US. Now while dodging those tomatos, I'll point out that I consider his presidential administration to be a disgrace to put it mildly.I have to sum up as I'm running late - I think onifre's response to me made me realise that I don't sit at the end of the spectrum you might infer when reading my post. I think I fell victim to taking a polar opposite view to you that doesn't really match my own. I felt I was making sense at the time, but discovered later I had gone too far.The subject is fascinating - I'm still not convinced direct democracy is a viable alternative to representative democracy, but yours and others responses are informative and appreciated. Thanks.

Heya onifre This would be a whole topic in itself, but I can sum it up in a few personal observations:Texas=warmer and less rain.
England=colder and less cops.Texas=Sunday afternoon football and a barbecue + hot apple pie.
England=Desperate attempts to find a good internet stream to watch the NFL on whilst eating a ready meal (tv dinner).Texas=conversations that rarely achieve a level higher than "Did you see Jackass the other night?" and "Come on man, pass it."
England=conversations that often rise to intellectual heights such as "The founder effect is evident in the genetic code of Icelanders" and "Come on man, pass it."To be a bit more serious, like anything it has its positives and negatives. I'll try to get around to starting a serious thread about my observations at some point. Overall I am finding my life here more interesting, but there are many reasons for that which have nothing to do with USAvEngland.One example:

Your personal space is smaller here. People regularly move into a space so close to me that it sets alarm bells ringing in my brain. However, I suspect I would get the same sense if I had moved to New York or some similarly denser US area. My sister who travels to Germany on business says it is a European thing as well. She says "In Texas, if you get that close to somebody it's either because you're gonna fuck them up, or just plain fuck them." Ah - my sis - she knows how to turn a phrase.

​

--2010 EVC BALLOT: Briterican

​

Legalise cannabis? yes

​

Establish direct democracy? probably not, but I'll keep reading about it here.

Hiya Straggler I'll keep your gracious invitation in mind. I've got no trips to London in the near future, but I'm overdue a visit to the British Museum, so I'll get back down there eventually.