How could direct democracy work?

[Nick]

Allowing the thick to vote

Just to examine your thick comment, if they are thick, are they voting? This is a bit like if a tree falls over and no one hears it does it make a sound.
Are they voting or are they just doing something that their mate in the pub has told them they should do? Is that actually voting or just having a stroll and sticking an X in a box?
BTW I believe that the vast majority of the electorate vote how their parents / piers think they should and neither know or care who is in government.

[cromwell]

All true.
And what you said was:Not thick, but idiots.

Of course, none of this applies to us well informed geniuses on Internet forums who all have IQs over 130.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All irrelevant to my case. However, I do see there might be some relevant objections. PP always says he likes to vote for his local representative. I've not said anything about constituency changes or reducing numbers in the HoC, even though it is bloated. He would still have an MP. It would be a Labour MP, almost certainly.

Perhaps someone could explain how we could end up with a worse system than the utterly useless broken one we have now.

Well I think the consensus apart from odd dissent is that there is a problem that needs addressing and has for some time.

However reform cannot happen overnight and depending on the approach to reform we could easily end up in a worse situation.

[Barry]

I never said the electorate are thick. I said a proportion are. And we all know that to be true. We all meet thick people all the time as we go through life.

All true.
And what you said was:

There is an idiot vote out there large enough to make it difficult under FPTP for either main party to win without the support of at least some of it. Giving them a direct vote on all legislation would be dangerous. Most of them would never read it. They would simply believe what the Sun, Mail, Express, and Mirror told them it said, ignoring the fact that all of these rags have an agenda of some kind.

Not thick, but idiots.

Of course, none of this applies to us well informed geniuses on Internet forums who all have IQs over 130.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All irrelevant to my case. However, I do see there might be some relevant objections. PP always says he likes to vote for his local representative. I've not said anything about constituency changes or reducing numbers in the HoC, even though it is bloated. He would still have an MP. It would be a Labour MP, almost certainly.

Perhaps someone could explain how we could end up with a worse system than the utterly useless broken one we have now.

[Sheepy]

That is a massive overgeneralisation and sweeping misinterpretation of a kind you are known for.

Yes Barry and all those populists are Nazis trying to bring in a fair and honest voting system, even worse somebody might question the Lefts so called democratic credentials.

[srb7677]

srb is repeating the old remainer type tripe that the electorate are too thick to be trusted with making decisions about our political future. The problem with that is that if it were true we should not be allowed a vote at all.

That is a massive overgeneralisation and sweeping misinterpretation of a kind you are known for.

I never said the electorate are thick. I said a proportion are. And we all know that to be true. We all meet thick people all the time as we go through life.

That is not a justification for none of us having a vote. Allowing the thick to vote is the price we have to pay for the rest of us having a vote. It is just something we have to live with as the price of freedom. But of course, that does not mean our current system is perfect. It is in fact not fit for purpose at all.

[srb7677]

Thomas, I lack sufficient time to quote you sentence for sentence and respond at length.

But you do make a lot of good points. Overall I think I can summarise by saying that you see fewer dangers than I do in direct democracy, and believe that a written constitution with built in safeguards should suffice. But Weimar Germany had a witten constitution with built in safeguards and looked what happened there. A written constitution is far better than an unwritten one but it does not actually guarantee anything that cannot be undone.

I fully accept your point that the media holds far less sway than it did but it is still a powerful influence upon certain demographics. It's ability to whip up malice in some should not be under-estimated. The fact that newsprint media is mostly far more hostile to the left than it is to the right just makes those of us on the receiving end of this naturally more acutely aware of it. Whilst it's malign influence can be and often is overstated by the left, we cannot afford to underestimate it either.

But I do think we agree on the central thrust of your post. That the current political system in Westminster is broken beyond repair, that those within it lie regularly with virtual impunity, and that we need to replace it with something better. Direct democracy is one solution being put forward here, but  I fear that in  practice it is likely to be no better and probably even worse, and potentially even more open to abuse.

My preferred change would involve PR for both local and general elections, replacement of the Lords, aka the House of Cronies with an elected second chamber, and an elected head of state, all fully backed up by a written constitution. One further suggestion that requires more thought which I will just put out there would include criminalising lying in public office and in parliament, unless a public interest defence can be proven. I would also make it mandatory to hold a byelection if a sitting MP changes party. And outlaw high office holders from working at senior levels in big business or as a lobbyist until at least 10 years after leaving office. I also think the whole process of expenses needs massive overhall and curtailment. Their purchases of second homes should not be paid for by us. If they live in London they can commute like so many others. If they live outside London they should have rental accommodation only paid for in the capital. If occasionally one of them gets an eviction notice for no good reason, then they'll get a taste of what many other private renters have to put up with. Ideally, MPs should have to have had employment outside the realms of politics for at least 10 years before being allowed to stand for parliament, but am unsure whether that would be too draconian to mandate by law, or how workable it would be.. I certainly do not think MPs should be allowed to have second jobs. We are paying them a decent full time wage. They should do it full time. As far as the newsprint media is concerned I would like to grant a right of replay guaranteed in law to anyone maligned in it's pages except for anyone convicted and currently serving in a jail or a mental health institution.

[Thomas]

The problem with direct democracy is that most people won't vote unless they believe any proposall is something that a) will benefit them or their family financially, b) will make them or their familly worse off financially, or c) involves something that the tabloids can encourage them to emote against.

I enjoyed reading your post steve , but im not sure i agree with it all.

I dont want to get too hung up solely on direct democracy , its simply one solution being put forth to the obvious disillusionment many see with uk politics at westminster , and it can be tweaked or other soultions offered up. What isnt credible is westminster continuing in the 21st century as it is.

It will result in people voting for endless tax cuts for the masses, plus endless spending increases on everything they like, which will of course lead before long to financial disaster.

It could do steve , and it might not. You talk later in your post of the need for honesty , and that is the problem currently as im sure we agree in politics.

There is nothing wrong with endless tax cuts , if that what you want. As long as politicians make clear what that entails , like the yanks say , small government whose job is to maintain roads and infrastucture , possibly the armed forces , and little else.

In return , there is no safety net , no spending on anything you like unless you privately want to spend on for example private healthcare and so on.

Alternativley , you can have the opposite scandinavian style big government , large taxation and all the safety nets and big state rewards that entails.

The trouble isnt either of these solutions , its what we currently have , where the tories and to be fair others like to offer sleight of hand politics , dishonest politics , of stealth taxation , paying twice for the same service while the servie reduces in quality , in short , an unhappy middle ground where we get the worst of both worlds.

The english pay their council tax , the highest in the uk nations , and pay twice for green bin collection. The english pay council tax , and then are forced to pay a seperate water charge. Water is nationalised (almost fully) in scotland and the council tax charge covers our usage with no extra charge as you have.

You are paying double for the same serive while governments squander billions of your cash.

Then the public will vote through measures to pass the blame onto target groups and try to make them pay with punitive taxes or targeted spending cuts

well im sure its not beyond the wit of man to put safeguards in place so no minority group is unfairly targeted. Conversely , what we have at the moment are those who are not entitled to use of uk/scottish /english services abusing systems currently in place , so that too needs looked at to my mind.

Mob rule via the ballot box, division, and hate will become endemic. And then all it will take is some charismatic strong man promising to right all wrongs if he is given full powers, and before we know it the public would have voted away their direct democracy and empowered a dictator.

Again steve not sure i agree. Surely thats the job of a written constitution and safeguards , to restrict the power of would be dictators. Isnt that what joanna cherry of the snp , and others accused boris johnson of acting like when he prorogued parliament?

Although you have some safeguards in your parliament , without a written constitution , you have essentially a parliament who make up things on the hop and cannot be bound by previous parliaments.

Most of them would never read it. They would simply believe what the Sun, Mail, Express, and Mirror told them it said, ignoring the fact that all of these rags have an agenda of some kind.

dont necessarily agree. Yes many people dont care about politics , some are indeed clowns , but the idea thoughts are controlled by the media is something we have discussed at length before.

This is old labour mantra and excuses , ( no offence intended to you personally) which largely ignores the media still have some power , but far less than many make it.

Brexit was blamed on the media , yet no one could suggest why the same british media were able to influence england and wales but not scotland and northern ireland.

Just as many idiots here as anywhere else.

No one under the age of 60 watches the noraml mainstream telly , and newspaper sales are though the floor , so im at a loss to see how the old mainstream media influences anyone who isnt retired.

As for the interwebby , sure , there is as much propaganda and fake news on here as anywhere. The difference is there is more choice and more opinion to make up your views , as many young folk do , and you arent restricted to the views of a journalistic elite and bought and paid for bbc who are in the back pockets of the government of the day. I think the power of the old media is gradually waning on the verge of being extinct to be honest steve.

No, although our politicians are mostly a sorry bunch, at least they are all politically knowledgeable and intelligent enough to think for themselves and question what they are told, and can put together some sort of costed and coherent program via a manifesto.

Sorry steve  , i dont want to name any names as i dont want to offend you( some labour party and to be fair snp and tories) but there are just as many idiots in parliament as a percentage as there are in the general population .Many of these people are careerist bench warming yes men and women without a brain between them.

The party apparatchiks and geeks behind the scenes do a lot of the donkey work , unsung heroes , not the men in suits and the mouthpieces.

I have met a number of politicians in my life , and in my view very few are sharp as a tack and bright as a button.

The increasing failure of and distrust in politics in the UK is a problem

.

it is  , and thats what the thread is about , offering a solution. While it might not be perfect in your opinion , there is no  perfect system without flaw , but i personally think there are many BETTER systems than FPTP and two parties trying to contain all views.

Sticking with the current system as some are suggesting for fear of something worse isnt an option. Politics is breaking down , especially in your country , and the worse it gets , the less politicians are trusted and break commitments , the more chance ther becomes of the armageddon you suggest.

Doing nothing is not an option.

As is our lack of written constitutional safeguards

Completely agree. When scotland becomes independent , by universal consent this is something the vast majority of scots i speak to want in holyrood , a written constitution .

It would be all too easy to drag us down the road of some kind of populist fascism as in Hungary when faith in democracy itself is so damaged, and faith in the goodwill and integrity of our leaders so justifiably lacking.

You say that , but fscism isnt the only way to damage democracy .Isnt that exactly what tony blairs greatest achievement was damdaging demcoracy so much that none of the above became his legacy  ,and voter apathy went through the roof with 2001 being one of the lowest post war turnouts i uk political history???

When barely 50 odd poer cent of the electorate bother to vote when faced with the choise of red or blue tory , then you have as big a problem as hungary or anywhere else in your democracy.

[Sheepy]

Well you meant post 77 surely 

But Switzerland is not quite as it was described.

If you say so, on the other hand it seems plenty of Scots have heard of it, so that is fine with me.

[cromwell]

Because I already know it is outside their realms of limited political thinking. The simple facts are this is, it works very well. I am not going to spend the rest of my life explaining it. Just like direct democracy you have to put your own effort in.
Try post 78.

Well you meant post 77 surely 

But Switzerland is not quite as it was described.

[cromwell]

Bridges ??

He who lives by the ......

[Sheepy]

Well I understand your enthusiasm (though when I asked you couldn't be arsed and went off playing music) so had to wait for Barry to come up with the goods.

I don't think people are dismissing it all out of hand but T00ts and Steve came up with some valid ponts.

People are right to be cautious we don't want to end up worse than we are though for sure some reform is required.

Well as you say  are we all missing something here,which country operates like this?

Because I already know it is outside their realms of limited political thinking. The simple facts are this is, it works very well. I am not going to spend the rest of my life explaining it. Just like direct democracy you have to put your own effort in.
Try post 78.

[srb7677]

How is that a coherent statement? when you have written so much nonsense in this thread? you said I would need a nation of political geniuses or such like, I said it each policy would stand on its own merit, so in actual fact no I don't need a nation of geniuses each policy stands on its own merits. As explained before each vote.

And I have explained quite clearly and cogently why it wouldn't work. Pie in the sky. Too many idiots who'd believe what the Sun or some other rag told them what legislation was about instead of reading it for themselves. And policies cannot be voted for independently unless part of a costed and coherent policy platform put forward by a government. Because we both know that people will never vote for tax rises but always vote for spending increases. Conversely they would always vote for tax cuts but rarely vote for spending cuts. If you cannot figure out these obvious flaws for yourself, you need to do some more thinking.

Right now it is just so much moonshine and pie in the sky.

[Nick]

some valid ponts

Bridges ??

He who lives by the ......

[cromwell]

I was laughing at the typical establishment rhetoric, but, but it would never work, well the funny thing is it does and rather well, but hey keep voting for more of the same, what could possibly go wrong.

Well I understand your enthusiasm (though when I asked you couldn't be arsed and went off playing music) so had to wait for Barry to come up with the goods.

I don't think people are dismissing it all out of hand but T00ts and Steve came up with some valid ponts.

People are right to be cautious we don't want to end up worse than we are though for sure some reform is required.

Well as you say

well the funny thing is it does and rather well

are we all missing something here,which country operates like this?

[Sheepy]

srb is repeating the old remainer type tripe that the electorate are too thick to be trusted with making decisions about our political future. The problem with that is that if it were true we should not be allowed a vote at all.

I would like a vote on some moral issues, such as abortion time limits, such as the age of consent for hetero/homo relationships.
Age of consent for trans decisions.
Whether NHS should be used for trans surgery.
Whether Northern Ireland should be practically annexed by the EU.

Other people might like a say about the Banking system, bitcoin, Internet freedoms, all things that affect society as a whole.

We are not stupid, we are the electorate, we deserve a say in the running of the country which is meaningful.
Currently the government are breaking their manifestos so there should be a general election as they have betrayed their mandate.

I was laughing at the typical establishment rhetoric, but, but it would never work, well the funny thing is it does and rather well, but hey keep voting for more of the same, what could possibly go wrong.