How could direct democracy work?

[T00ts]

Which is better?
A government which has to struggle a bit to compromise and come to agreements to govern in a moderate manner.
or
A government with a thumping majority which rides roughshod over the electorate, breaking its own manifesto, removing our freedoms without us having any input.

You know the answer.

Unconvincing for me. I think it could look ok on paper but I think it's a naive hope. I read somewhere that a large number of young people would rather have a more authoritarian government. Many of them no longer think too deeply and don't want to. To constantly confront this population with referenda would kill them. Look at the responses when we had referendum followed by regular GEs recently. People were sick to death with it all and still didn't agree with the outcomes. For this generation I think we are past consensus on anything. Not that many are political anoraks. 

[Sheepy]

Come on!



I think the last 18 months should be taken into consideration, don't you think?

Shouldn't you have been telling the government that at the start? That is another thing with direct democracy. each policy has to stand on its own merits failure isn't an option that Parliament can then rely on.

[Nick]

What about parties. Would there still be the party system or would there simply be free voting?

Interesting thought but Animal Farm comes to mind.
I'm also fairly sure some conglomeration would occur also, and in no time at all coalition's would be springing up all over the place.

[Barry]

How would that avoid hung parliaments all the time? We have seen how other countries have struggled to with this system.

Which is better?
A government which has to struggle a bit to compromise and come to agreements to govern in a moderate manner.
or
A government with a thumping majority which rides roughshod over the electorate, breaking its own manifesto, removing our freedoms without us having any input.

You know the answer.

[Nick]

breaking your manifesto without electoral consent

Come on!

I think the last 18 months should be taken into consideration, don't you think?

[Nick]

There are the obvious flaws,if we were under immediate attack we couldn't be waiting for a referendum though I guess in Bliars war we would've had a chance.

There's also the info given out before a vote and who decides what are major issues?

And in the case of Bliar, the info he would have presented to the house for debate would have been Blair faced lies, therefore most likely would have been passed anyway, changing nothing.

[Sheepy]

How would that avoid hung parliaments all the time? We have seen how other countries have struggled to with this system. What real benefit would it be or is it simply another ruse that would give voice to those not actually wanted by the majority. The minute people start talking PR it just represents more chaos to me.

By having the right of petition, for the electorates own policies and voted in by referendum which becomes law, it doesn't matter that politicians are in a hung Parliament though does it?

[T00ts]

There would still be parties, but instead of them having complete control by first past the post the electorate would have the power to call them to referendum.

How would that avoid hung parliaments all the time? We have seen how other countries have struggled to with this system. What real benefit would it be or is it simply another ruse that would give voice to those not actually wanted by the majority. The minute people start talking PR it just represents more chaos to me.

[Sheepy]

What about parties. Would there still be the party system or would there simply be free voting?

There would still be parties, but instead of them having complete control by first past the post the electorate would have the power to call them to referendum.

[T00ts]

What about parties. Would there still be the party system or would there simply be free voting?

[Sheepy]

Major issues are those that affect everyone, such as changing laws without the consent of the electorate or like this week, breaking your manifesto without electoral consent, for a couple of examples. If we were under immediate attack, you would be at war through no fault of populism, you would hardly be voting for the armed forces to stand down.

[cromwell]

There are the obvious flaws,if we were under immediate attack we couldn't be waiting for a referendum though I guess in Bliars war we would've had a chance.

There's also the info given out before a vote and who decides what are major issues?

[Sheepy]

Fair enough Baz and you very honestly gave a comprehensive reply which though I've asked before unable to get answer.
Well worth a discussion and others thoughts.

It also includes the electorate via petition to put forward their own policies.

[cromwell]

Fair enough Baz and you very honestly gave a comprehensive reply which though I've asked before unable to get answer.
Well worth a discussion and others thoughts.

[Barry]

It involves a proportional representation election to government and the parliament reflecting the votes. General running of parliament and business is done in similar manner to now. The civil service de facto run the country but don't make laws.

However, on major issues a referendum takes place to ensure we are not led by government, but government are led by the electorate.
Recent decisions which might have been referred:
Student fees at universities
Road taxation
Same sex marriages
Any decision to go to war
Forming regional parliaments

That's it in a nutshell. It couldn't work any less well than voting in a party with an 80 seat majority, which then declares a state of emergency, then uses the powers to act as a dictatorship!

Wikipedia's article on direct democracy perhaps shows I have a modified idea of how it might work.