ANOTHER Political Quiz

No wonder its all screwed up...everybody has 300% worth of opinions.

I think that we should stop electing people altogether and instead we should vote on issues directly.The idea that I am represented by my member of parliament is pretty thin. I can barely talk to the guy let alone get him to represent my opinion on any given matter. He really only represents the people that agree with him.I think that most people are quite frightened by the idea of democracy and our systems are set up to avoid it.

At least my vote would get counted. As it is now I do not really have any say on particular issues at all. This is the fear that I am talking about. We don't really trust the people to make the right decisions.The same checks and balances that there are now. The vote for teaching creationism in school never comes up because there is a law regarding the separation of church and state. If the people want to overturn that law then so be it but the threshold should be high. If that threshold is surpassed then so be it. That's what the people want and in a democracy the people should get what they want. Of course they have to live with the consequences so when they start teaching Islam in the public schools in Dearborn Mi. that comes with the deal.Take an issue like going to war. Do you think the Iraq war would have happened if there was a direct vote of the people about it? Do you think that the evidence in support of going to war would have needed to be much more evident?Or Taxes. What do you think the vote would be if there were a binding plebiscite about what to do about tax rates or gun control or science funding?I see the operational difficulties like how to form the issues and pose the questions but I also see the vast potential. People are more kind than not and we should trust that.

Ah yes, the great unwashed masses who don't know what is best for them or what they really want. That is just bogus fear mongering and completely wrong headed. Every advance that we have made has come from popular uprising against the tyranny of oligarchs, monarchs and tyrants. Every travesty has come at the hands of individuals and strong men acting against the wishes of the many.Switzerland has some elements of direct democracy and they have not devolved into mayhem. In fact they stand out as reasonable peace loving people who tend not to go around invading others or abusing the minority. They tend not to make drastic changes in direction or throw out ideas that work. Indeed they are rather conservative. I have to say that this is completely unsupported. The only way that we could know this would be to actually ask the people and we have never done that. Again, do you think that an invasion of Iraq would have passed a popular vote? Do you really think that Americans would vote to go to war with Russia over Ukraine? I don't see it. And on the other hand maybe we should invade Saudi Arabia or N Korea or Rwanda.If we really believe in the concept of democracy then we shouldn't be so afraid to actually try it.

There is some element of consensus gov't in Nunavut and in the Guernsey Islands.Consensus government in Canada - WikipediaConsensus democracy - Wikipedia

You are imagining the worst. Is that the way that you would have voted? I know that it is not the way that I would have voted and I do not know anybody who would have voted that way.The only way to know is to have the vote. It would be cool if we could craft an experiment to see what the results would be. Given that we are all so timid and sold on the idea that we need 'special' people to tell us what we want we could make it non binding to begin with.It is really only those who enjoy some exclusive benefit of the status quo who would be against the idea. I agree that those people should be worried but only because they stand to lose their unfair advantages. I wonder how many of us are actually interested in equality.

Are they flighty now? How would you support that assertion? Can you reference some opinion polls that would indicate this? No doubt that there would be plenty of teething problems. It likely needs to be generational change that starts in kindergarten. Start by teaching children how to make decisions and what the consequences are. We can have those people. They just wouldn't be in charge.If the idea of democracy has any credibility at all then it makes good sense that we should use the model that allows for the most participation possible.

I think that you are confusing examples of chaotic mob rule with the idea of direct democracy and that it has never been attempted on any grand scale. I would submit that every move toward a more inclusive democracy leads to improvements in the standard of living and to more just societies. Of course the system has to open with good access to good information and devoid of corruption. Do you really think that we will start burning witches again?There is no need to abandon the rule of law and I don't see why you guys think that that would be the inevitable result. Take prop 8 in Ca. for example. The established protection of constitutional rights kicked in and the rights of the minority were protected against the will of the majority. (I am not sure what the mechanism was or what the actual numbers were.)Take another example of a plebiscite held in Kitimat BC regarding the construction of a pipeline through the community. Why shouldn't these folks have some right to prevent the construction of a pipeline through their community against the wishes of some rich dudes in Calgary and Toronto? Why should the PM be able to override the wishes of the people in favour of the wishes of some group of elite and powerful?You don't abandon the rule of law. You don't throw out all of the advances that we have made and all of the lessons that we have learned. I don't see why you think that would happen. Again if democracy is a good idea then why isn't more democracy a better idea?Direct democracy is not the same thing as mob rule.

Except that you don't really believe in freedom and equality. You believe that the people need to be told what to do by the elite wielders of power.

The way that it is now is that a minority decides where the next land fill is.

Don't you think that if we can figure out how to go to Mars that we can figure out how to vote on the budget? The first requirement is to decide that we want to do it.

I didn't mean to be casting aspersions.I thought that this conversation qualified as political opinion but we can start a new thread if need be. No change. The same people who are allowed to vote for their representative now. No change. Those divisions remain as they are. Change them later if you like. As much as is necessary. You start by allowing the people to vote directly on any issue that comes to a vote before the congress, legislature or town council. Once you are up and running you can create the infrastructure and process that allows people to begin to directly influence the issues that are to be voted on. Eventually, the members of congress et al can disappear completely. We would be left with employees doing as they are told. Anybody I suppose. Vote on the propositions that you are going to vote on. Create the mechanism and let the ideas matriculate. The cream will rise. The rule of law is essential to any egalitarian society. The function of an impartial judge is essential and works well. Our laws are so convoluted that they demand the skills of a professional to interpret them. This wouldn't change very quickly. I would not vote to mess with the judicial system apart from being able to vote for my judges up here. I can see the need for some restrictions. Voting thresholds set appropriately to avoid too much disruptive change. We would have to search for these limits but they would become apparent.Again, you don't throw out those things that work. Take professional advice where it is necessary and give precedence to it where required. So we let the Drs vote on which vaccines to recommend and let the people vote on making them mandatory or not.I question the idea of minorities being at risk. Take a look at the index of polls from the link in msg 1. Do you see any results there that would indicate that the majority were ready to abuse the minority? edit; apart from the one on drone use but we are already abusing that minority.Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

Well look at prop 8. It didn't make it through the courts. Those protections are in place at a national level and would require a national vote to overturn. Do you think that the country is ready to overturn the 14th amendment?

Wait a minute. On the one hand you are raising doubts about the will of the majority and then on the other you are defending the will of the majority when it is condensed into the hands of a few representatives. What is it about the filtering of peoples opinions that makes them safer?

How do you figure? It is exactly the opposite of that. Do you think that voters would be less interested as they become more empowered? I don't see it. I think that the quality or awareness of the voter will increase as they become more used to the authority.I think that what will soon become apparent is the need for a better informed electorate and the need for an increase in the free flow of information.