But the point of this test was to see if we could do this with a tiny number of people (8 participants as it turns out) and if so how easy would it be to translate the methodology to a population of 40 million plus voters.
To be a fair test though, we'd have to see if 8 people under similar system could form a parliamentary system with any more ease, which I suspect we wouldn't be able to.
And rather than pile all the pressure onto Legend, it'd be at least fair again to look at the Swiss system for inspiration since that seems to be the closest real-world facsimile to Legend's ideal vision.
quote:Switzerland's voting system is unique among modern democratic nations in that Switzerland practices direct democracy (also called half-direct democracy), in which any citizen may challenge any law at any time... Approximately four times a year, voting occurs over various issues; these include both referenda, where policies are directly voted on by people, and elections, where the populace votes for officials.
They get around some of the problems discussed here with a separation of powers, the courts having power to rule that some things cannot be voted on. For instance, some things (such as citizenship) have a 'prohibition of arbitrariness' built into their legal framework which means they are not subject to the vote. I'm sure it's more complex than that, and I don't feel like delving into Swiss politics right now, but maybe that is an interesting spring board for this thread?
To be a fair test though, we'd have to see if 8 people under similar system could form a parliamentary system with any more ease, which I suspect we wouldn't be able to.
It has been my position throughout that whatever the flaws of our current system it has been put into place piece by piece in such a way as to have adapted and evolved to suit the context and scale at which it is required to function. It is exactly this pragmatic adaptation that I think Legend is failing to recognise the benefits of with his suggested abandonment and replacement with an untested alternative. But having said that I do get what you are saying (if I remove my point scoring hat and instead replace it with my more reasonable ‘let’s try and make this work’ hat)
Mod writes:
And rather than pile all the pressure onto Legend....
I originally intended this to be a quick practical test of direct democracy as outlined by Legend in Message 293.
It was Legend who said that his idea of direct democracy would utilise a forum format much like this one as a method of raising and filtering issues. I maintain that there are some serious problems with this that he has failed to consider. I also think that highlighting these by trying that methodology with a few people is a (far from perfect admittedly ) method of highlighting the scale of the issues that would be faced if this were extrapolated to 40 million plus potential participants.
I'm sure it's more complex than that, and I don't feel like delving into Swiss politics right now, but maybe that is an interesting spring board for this thread?
Yes. Again with my more constructive hat on I agree. But I still think we need some input from Legend if we are to continue down this path as the whole direct democracy thing is his baby. But the Swiss model may well be worth looking at if we do progress any of this at all.
quote:We want to restore Britain’s traditions of freedom and fairness, and free our society of unnecessary laws and regulations — both for individuals and businesses.
This site gives you the chance to submit, comment on, or vote for ideas about how we can do this. Your ideas will inform government policy and some of your proposals could end up making it into bills we bring before Parliament to change the law.
So if there are any laws or regulations you'd like us to do away with, then submit your idea.
The website can be found here. I suppose this is a 'good start' for Legend - what do you think?
Current front runners, incidentally, say a lot:
Repeal the Digital Economy Act Self Defense in the Home {one Legend supports} de-criminalise drugs! de-criminalise prostitution
but the number of votes is still countable on fingers, so time will tell...
sorry for my unplanned absence from this forum but real-life managed to reel me in again. I haven't caught-up with the thread yet but will do later today and try to put together some posts.
BTW massive respect for Clegg, he's just moved up miles in my appreciation. It's not just an empty gesture as it will force the issues up into the politician's faces, they will have to deal with them for a change, even if that means rejecting them.
"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."
BTW massive respect for Clegg, he's just moved up miles in my appreciation. It's not just an empty gesture as it will force the issues up into the politician's faces, they will have to deal with them for a change, even if that means rejecting them.
Not really. At least Downing Street petitions required responses if they received enough signatures. Remains to be seen if this will be anything other than a political forum for people to argue in.
Of the three campaigners and their respective parties, give me pro's and con's for their views.
Conservatives: Conservative, traditionalist, "family-values". Sometimes ascribe to 'trickle down' economics. Cameron has shifted the party leftwards in order to increase its popularity.
Labour: Originally a socialist party for the working class. Blair moved them further to the right to secure their first election win for a looong time. There are some questions over what it will become now the Brown-Blair era is over.
Liberal Democrats: Power to The People! Freedom! The Bohemian Dream! Oh wait, we're in government? What the hell do we do now?
Conservatives: Conservative, traditionalist, "family-values". Sometimes ascribe to 'trickle down' economics. Cameron has shifted the party leftwards in order to increase its popularity.
Labour: Originally a socialist party for the working class. Blair moved them further to the right to secure their first election win for a looong time. There are some questions over what it will become now the Brown-Blair era is over.
Liberal Democrats: Power to The People! Freedom! The Bohemian Dream! Oh wait, we're in government? What the hell do we do now?
Which party or candidate do you think ascribes most to libertarian ideals:
Socially liberal, but fiscally conservative
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
Well, as I understand it, there was Labour , like Democrats here, that were the incumbents, and spent wildly, like Democrats here, and got themselves in trouble with scandals and the like, like Democrats here.
Then there were the Tories, like Republicans here, that wanted to spend wildly but on other stuff than Labour, like Republicans here, but didn't have any real oomph with the electorate, like Republicans here.
This is where things get different. There was a third group, the Liberal Democrats, that wanted to spend wildly, but on different things than the other two and who had a leader who was not a Ross Perot type of guy.
Well for the first time in British politics the leaders of the three had a couple of debates on TV. The Labour guy floundered, the Tory was wishy-washy but the LibDem surprised everyone by being charming and intelligent. Not a Ross Perot type at all.
Anyway all the pundits said the LibDems were going to show some real strength which would result in a "hung" parliament. Strange thing is, unlike American pundits, these Brit pundits were right overall even though they got the details wrong. Owing to their great showing in the debates by a personable charming leader and a message that really did ring to the people the LibDems ended up with fewer seats than they started with. Go figure.
The election was held, though it was only a formality since some stellar polling group had already called the election exceptionally accurately. But I guess since the ballots were already printed, the voting machines were in place, workers hired on, etc. (kind of a sunk cost situation) they went ahead and voted anyway.
It ended up in a hung parliament just like the pundits and the polls said with the Tories out front but not by enough. Labour, in lack luster fashion, picked up a good set of the remaining seats though not enough, while the new exciting LibDems ended up, as I said, with less seats than they started with. I guess Brits are like that. Go figure.
Anyway, the two "out" parties, Tory/LibDem, got together and decided to partner then went to the Queen and said they would lead and the Queen said, and I quote, "OK."
Though the actual details at the time of their happening were somewhat more exciting than this synopsis conveys that's about it.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Got all the players bassackward. Fixed.
™ Version 4.2