John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 So, it seems like we're a democracy. There was never much doubt. But now comes the hard part. What kind of democracy. Here are a few of the biggest flavors. 1) Direct democracy is any form of government based in which all citizens can directly participate in the decision-making process. (Assume provisos for what happens in times of crisis where the citizens could not vote in a timely fashion). Direct Democracy can work in several ways. First, the electorate is the source of an initiative that will be voted on. A certain number of voters would have to sign a petition to get something before the electorate. Second, the electorate could hold a referendum on all legislation, effectively giving the people the power to veto government proposals. Third, voters can, at the initiative of a petition, recall elected officials. Switzerland has a direct democracy that follows the first and second lines. 2) Indirect democracy is a broad term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives. A couple variant theories exist. In the first, the elected person does what he wishes once elected (like in the US). A variant called delegative democracy makes the elected officials mere pawns of the people- they do the electorate's bidding. (there are other varieties- for simple explanations, try the Wikipedia) *** Some other things to consider in this are the forms of any checks and balances, if any. Does a parliamentary system make sense? It gets things done. Or is our check and balanced system better, even though it is set up to slow the effectiveness of government?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 So, it seems like we're a democracy. There was never much doubt. But now comes the hard part. What kind of democracy. Here are a few of the biggest flavors. 1) Direct democracy is any form of government based in which all citizens can directly participate in the decision-making process. (Assume provisos for what happens in times of crisis where the citizens could not vote in a timely fashion). Direct Democracy can work in several ways. First, the electorate is the source of an initiative that will be voted on. A certain number of voters would have to sign a petition to get something before the electorate. Second, the electorate could hold a referendum on all legislation, effectively giving the people the power to veto government proposals. Third, voters can, at the initiative of a petition, recall elected officials. Switzerland has a direct democracy that follows the first and second lines. 2) Indirect democracy is a broad term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives. A couple variant theories exist. In the first, the elected person does what he wishes once elected (like in the US). A variant called delegative democracy makes the elected officials mere pawns of the people- they do the electorate's bidding. (there are other varieties- for simple explanations, try the Wikipedia) *** Some other things to consider in this are the forms of any checks and balances, if any. Does a parliamentary system make sense? It gets things done. Or is our check and balanced system better, even though it is set up to slow the effectiveness of government? 255585[/snapback] I never voted for Democracy. But if I was given the choice, I'd say direct democracy a'la ancient Athens.
Brandon Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 I'd vote for a representative republic, so I guess that puts me in the 2nd category of indirect democracy.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 While I think Direct Democracy has some issues and could really bog government down, I know Indirect Democracy has some issues and IS bogging down the government with idiot politicians who want to constantly create monuments to themselves, so I'll give DD a try. I would totally eliminate the House of Representatives though. Seems to me we could get by just fine with the Senate and save a ton of dough and lessen a lot of headaches in the process.
Terry Tate Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Fans of American Idol and Survivor will like the new direct democracy, they can text message in their votes deciding our foreign policy.
brihs2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. -Winston Churchill
KRC Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Fans of American Idol and Survivor will like the new direct democracy, they can text message in their votes deciding our foreign policy. 255643[/snapback] I vote Direct Democracy.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Fans of American Idol and Survivor will like the new direct democracy, they can text message in their votes deciding our foreign policy. 255643[/snapback] Actually, it could be made effective.
John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Author Posted February 28, 2005 I vote Direct Democracy. 255658[/snapback] What kind though? I'm all for giving the people the right to veto legislation, and with instant communication, technology could make direct democracy more possible. Still, how involved do you want people in the day to day operation of the government? And what happens to minority views? The direct democracy system should be set up so as not to create a system in which the majority subjugates the minority, don't you think? How do we set up checks and balances in the DD system?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 What kind though? I'm all for giving the people the right to veto legislation, and with instant communication, technology could make direct democracy more possible. Still, how involved do you want people in the day to day operation of the government? And what happens to minority views? The direct democracy system should be set up so as not to create a system in which the majority subjugates the minority, don't you think? How do we set up checks and balances in the DD system? 255672[/snapback] No need, majority rules on everything.
KRC Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 What kind though? I'm all for giving the people the right to veto legislation, and with instant communication, technology could make direct democracy more possible. Still, how involved do you want people in the day to day operation of the government? And what happens to minority views? The direct democracy system should be set up so as not to create a system in which the majority subjugates the minority, don't you think? How do we set up checks and balances in the DD system? 255672[/snapback] Recalling officials would be good. This will help them stay honest. It would be your checks and balances system. This is what I see: The government proposes legislation and enacts. Enough petition signatures can bring any legislation up for a referendum. Then the people can veto the legislation. If an elected official does too much against the will of the people, the people can recall him, using the same petition/referendum procedure. In essence, the people are the checks and balances. This system keeps the people out of day-to-day activities but keeps them involved on major legislation. Minority views present a problem regardless of the system implimented. Each section of the population will be represented (by geographic area). IMO, that it the best way to get their views heard but I am open to other suggesstions.
John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Author Posted February 28, 2005 No need, majority rules on everything. 255674[/snapback] Seriously, that's a nightmare, don't you think? The dissenting voices often deserve a right to live their lives the way they see fit. There must be a check on the majority. Further, in direct democracy, who decides on things like going to war (assume a situation like Iraq, where the US was not attacked). Would you leave the power to go to war at the whim of an unchecked populace? Imagine some the rash decisions people would have made in the wake of 9-11. I prefer a representative form of government where the people have the ability to veto legislation. It's a cross between indirect and direct democracy. I am also against the parlimentary system, and like the checks and balances (three brances) set up in our current constitution. My only change to the checks and balances, assuming people think they are necessary, is that I would severely limit the power of the executive.
Terry Tate Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Actually, it could be made effective. 255661[/snapback] I can only suggest a review of ballot initiatives in states that have them. That's one of the best examples of direct democracy we have on display. Most voters do not educate themselves properly on these initiatives, let alone running the rest of government. You may not think well of some or all of our politicians, but direct democracy advocates putting decisions in the hands of people who regularly make asses out of themselves on Jay Leno's 'man on the street' interviews. I think it would end poorly.
Alaska Darin Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Personally I think a direct democracy would be even worse than the current clusterfug. There are so many people who are easily manipulated that the "Frankenstein mob" mentality would be the rule rather than the exception. A person is smart. People are stupid.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Seriously, that's a nightmare, don't you think? The dissenting voices often deserve a right to live their lives the way they see fit. There must be a check on the majority. 255692[/snapback] No they don't.
John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Author Posted February 28, 2005 How about a system with 4 checks on legislation. Assume we keep our three branches, but add a fourth, where the people can veto legislation. Maybe every quarter, the populace can veto legislation they disagree with. I like this, but worry that it favors the populated areas, which could veto things they don't benefit from in favor of things they do. They could veto farm susidies while refusing to veto welfare. Or veto public funding of transportation in rural areas and refuse to veto things like the big did. Or, more likely, the active rural constituencies could take over the process by doing the opposite (see the last pres. election), refusing to support legislation that gives to city centers. This checks and balance thing is critical. How can we strike the right balances?
Alaska Darin Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 How about a system with 4 checks on legislation. Assume we keep our three branches, but add a fourth, where the people can veto legislation. Maybe every quarter, the populace can veto legislation they disagree with. I like this, but worry that it favors the populated areas, which could veto things they don't benefit from in favor of things they do. They could veto farm susidies while refusing to veto welfare. Or veto public funding of transportation in rural areas and refuse to veto things like the big did. Or, more likely, the active rural constituencies could take over the process by doing the opposite (see the last pres. election), refusing to support legislation that gives to city centers. This checks and balance thing is critical. How can we strike the right balances? 255724[/snapback] That's what the HoR is supposed to accomplish. Again the only answer to this is curing apathy - both at the representative and represented levels. The reps don't care what their constituants think and the represented feel powerless to change it. Way too many party line voters drinking the koolaid. The Constitution is an amazing document. The bastardization of it is sickening.
GG Posted February 28, 2005 Posted February 28, 2005 Should you have started the thread out whether we should revisit federalism vs union of states? If you introduce the 4th check & balance into the system, would that mean that people would be voting on 4 levels of legislation every quarter?
John Adams Posted February 28, 2005 Author Posted February 28, 2005 Should you have started the thread out whether we should revisit federalism vs union of states? If you introduce the 4th check & balance into the system, would that mean that people would be voting on 4 levels of legislation every quarter? 255963[/snapback] Good point. For simplicity, this was focused on federal government. 10th Amendment type issues will come soon.
Recommended Posts