[Kerrigan]

I admit that I know next to nothing about Swiss politics. But I read this interesting article in the Times (London) highlighting the advantages of Swiss direct democracy. For instance:

Swiss citizens have the right to call a referendum on any subject they want as long they can gather the required number of signatures. At a national level this is set at just under 1.5 per cent of the electorate — about 100,000 people. If enough names are collected within an 18-month period, then a proposal can be put on the ballot paper and voted on by the general public. If it is passed, it becomes law. A study highlighted in Richard Layard’s book, Happiness, even showed that Swiss in cantons with the most direct democracy were happier than those with more limited rights.

Britain is a sophisticated 21st-century society, but we still make do with a crude 19th-century system of limited and indirect democracy. A general election is held once every four or five years and power handed to a political party that forms a government. During that time hundreds, perhaps thousands, of important decisions affecting the lives of millions are made by a handful of politicians and civil servants. We can’t go on like this.

Do you agree with these conclusions? Would larger countries like UK, France, or US be suited to this style of democracy? Or are we better off with our civil service and aristocrats?

[Shaddim]

For the US? On a state level, yes. On a federal level? No.

What's good for Delaware isn't always good for Tennessee, and vice versa.

[analogika]

Of course, you'd have different minimum signee requirements.

If a certain percentage of the entire federal population wants something, it's worth being heard by all.

They can all still abstain or vote against it.

[ghporter]

In SOME states we have initiative and referendum (as well as direct recall of all elected officials). Here in Texas, we DO NOT. And we cannot recall some elected officials-more's the pity.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by analogika

Of course, you'd have different minimum signee requirements.

If a certain percentage of the entire federal population wants something, it's worth being heard by all.

They can all still abstain or vote against it.

For just getting a referendum, I'd agree. Perhaps make it 1%.

However, for it to become law, it should require a majority in every state... which means that almost nothing would actually pass.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

In SOME states we have initiative and referendum (as well as direct recall of all elected officials). Here in Texas, we DO NOT. And we cannot recall some elected officials-more's the pity.

IMO, the more distance between the momentary whims of the people and the government, the better. California is a mess largely because of "people power." Whatever initiative or referendum sounds good to the masses at the time wins, whatever sounds unpopular loses, governors get replaced in farce-like recall elections, etc. It seems to me that representative democracy, accompanied by constitutional limitations imposed by a strong judiciary, works best. I'd also like to see term limits and I'd like it to be absolutely illegal to give money or any gifts of any kind to government officials.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

For the US? On a state level, yes. On a federal level? No.

What's good for Delaware isn't always good for Tennessee, and vice versa.

I'm inclined to agree. Referenda work well on small scales, but the grouping issue you mention is a real problem. The way around that is to couple referenda with decentralization of power, so that a group can effectively decide issues for itself with minimal (ideally zero) impact on other groups.

The other problem with referenda deals with the fact that when the common man rules, he rules as a common man. It's a common complaint in many democratic societies today that the people in power don't know enough about many of the issues they legislate. Putting such issues to the general populace, however, doesn't fix this problem. If anything it makes the problem worse: one might perhaps lament that only 5% of Congress is knowledgeable about copyright issues, but even less of the general population is likely to have that knowledge.

(Now that I think about it, the first issue is really just a specialized application of the second, isn't it?)

Representative democracy sucks. I do, however, think that it manages to suck somewhat less than direct democracy. I didn't always think that way, but I'd like to think I'm wiser now.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I'm inclined to agree. Referenda work well on small scales, but the grouping issue you mention is a real problem. The way around that is to couple referenda with decentralization of power, so that a group can effectively decide issues for itself with minimal (ideally zero) impact on other groups.

The other problem with referenda deals with the fact that when the common man rules, he rules as a common man. It's a common complaint in many democratic societies today that the people in power don't know enough about many of the issues they legislate. Putting such issues to the general populace, however, doesn't fix this problem. If anything it makes the problem worse: one might perhaps lament that only 5% of Congress is knowledgeable about copyright issues, but even less of the general population is likely to have that knowledge.

(Now that I think about it, the first issue is really just a specialized application of the second, isn't it?)

Representative democracy sucks. I do, however, think that it manages to suck somewhat less than direct democracy. I didn't always think that way, but I'd like to think I'm wiser now.

I disagree. I think a direct democracy on the state level would encourage more citizens to pay attention to the issues of the day in the United States. Part of the reason people are so ignorant here about politics is because decisions are made for them and generally speaking we can only vote in the person that makes those decisions. How do you know that representative democracy "sucks less" than direct democracy?

Your use of the term "common man" suggests a kind of elitism that suggests the citizenry are not intelligent enough to make these kinds of decisions. That becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy I think. Besides, our representative goverment hasn't made the best decisions in quite a while.

[Dr Reducto]

As much as direct democracy is in fashion with the Lib right now, it's really a case of be careful what you wish for.

The power of the churches here alone could probably get bans on abortions, gay marraige, etc really quickly if they wanted to.

I really think direct democracy is a bad idea for that reason. It's mob rule, and the people are rarely good judges of what is right. Imagine after 9/11 had direct democracy been in place. Pretty much any law could have been passed in the wake of that.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BRussell

IMO, the more distance between the momentary whims of the people and the government, the better. California is a mess largely because of "people power." Whatever initiative or referendum sounds good to the masses at the time wins, whatever sounds unpopular loses, governors get replaced in farce-like recall elections, etc. It seems to me that representative democracy, accompanied by constitutional limitations imposed by a strong judiciary, works best. I'd also like to see term limits and I'd like it to be absolutely illegal to give money or any gifts of any kind to government officials.

California is a mess because so many people actually went along with so many STUPID ideas without thinking at all critically about them. They ammended their state constitution to make it almost trivial to put an issue up for a vote, whether it's "equal rights for otter/badger crossbreeds" or "once you turn 18 we'll give you a high school diploma because studies show that 18 year olds with high school diplomas earn mor money." They are just looney.

Here in Texas there are actually too many elected offices. It sounds good to be able to "vote out" a scoundrel, and that's why our 1876 constitution has it this way (yes, it's the same, horrendously ammended constitution that was adopted in 1876), but in practice it actually REDUCES accountability, particularly since we cannot recall most officials higher than county level. It also sounds good to limit the term of a state legislature to keep the legislators from mischief, but in practice, they manage to wind up not knowing beans about the bills they vote on. They once voted in favor of Albert deSalvo's work in limiting population growth. REALLY! It's because they not only aren't all the sharpest utensils in the drawer, but they also have almost no time to actually read what they're voting on. But we haven't managed to redraft our constitution because people who benefit from its horrbly dysfunctional state have managed to scare the general population into thinking that making the document work (the real purpose) will destroy democracy. Bastards...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell

California is a mess largely because of "people power."

Bah, California is a mess because we have a shitty-ass legislature that relies on "people power" to get anything useful done.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

They once voted in favor of Albert deSalvo's work in limiting population growth. REALLY!

That's great.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Bah, California is a mess because we have a shitty-ass legislature that relies on "people power" to get anything useful done.

You don't think an out-of-control initiative/amendment system where people can vote for all the popular goodies has done damage to the state? I admit that I'm basically just regurgitating what I've heard others say, and I don't know enough to have much of my own opinion on the matter. But I believe I've read that argument, and it seemed convincing.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I disagree. I think a direct democracy on the state level would encourage more citizens to pay attention to the issues of the day in the United States.

'Encourage', yes. But encouragement is no guarantee, which makes the whole thing a gamble. Even if the people are encouraged to be more informed, there remains the logistical problem of providing that information in a way everyone can digest. Contemporary attempts at this have led to most modern newspapers being written on a sixth-grade level, and many people still find them too difficult or too boring.

This is a serious problem. In theory it can be corrected without forcing people back to school by simply overhauling the existing educational system and training our youth to do better. But aside from the massive expenditure of money and force, it would also take at least two generations for enough people to get through the new program and of an age where they would be able to have any real influence.

That's an ugly reality to be facing. Exactly how any why we got to this stage is debatable, and frankly both sides of the political spectrum are probably to blame: each side has contributed its own unique brand of decadence: principles which were basically good, but taken to extremes and combined in ways that have had crippling effects on the mentality of the masses. It has left us in a state where the people are frankly in no condition to be assuming that kind of power over their own lives. Functionally we are nations of children, looking to nanny states because we just can't handle the responsibility over our own lives that a mature adult should be expected to assume.

The generations currently in power might as well be written off as lost. The generations currently coming into power -us- are somewhat better off, in that most of us realize that something is wrong. But even we haven't escaped completely: with a very few exceptions, most of us -myself included- still latch on to at least one of the sins of our fathers which have brought the world to this state, and we are twisted by those viewpoints. The people who frequent PoliWar, for example, are not stupid people, but I don't think there's a single one of us that hasn't been hit by this one way or the other, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone else.

This can all be corrected in future generations. But doing so would take not only a complete overhaul of the educational system, but at least two generations for people to get through it to a state where they're ready to assume control, and the first few will still likely carry some taint, inherited from us. More realistically, it's likely to take eight to ten generations just to undo the damage wrought by the last three. It's not something any of us will live to see, barring major scientific breakthroughs which may occur someday but probably too late for us.

Part of the reason people are so ignorant here about politics is because decisions are made for them and generally speaking we can only vote in the person that makes those decisions.

Yes, and that

How do you know that representative democracy "sucks less" than direct democracy?

Because as soon as direct democracies have grown to a size where the people directly involved in an issue are no longer in the majority most of the time, they have invariably failed and broken down. Direct democracy's main problem is that it doesn't scale, and the problem isn't just the logistics of taking votes. The problem is that you can't trust people who aren't directly involved in an issue to be able to make the best possible decisions: they just don't know enough about it, and for the most part they can't know. Aside from the problems of disseminating the information, there is some that simply cannot be disseminated: there's no substitute for direct involvement.

This is why I suggest that any move to make democracy more "direct" needs to be coupled with decentralization of power. Breaking power out into smaller groups helps to mitigate this, because a greater proportion of the people deciding any given issue will be directly involved in it, and because the power is broken into smaller communities (states, counties, cities, or perhaps even smaller), each person will be better able to decide in the context of that community.

Your use of the term "common man" suggests a kind of elitism that suggests the citizenry are not intelligent enough to make these kinds of decisions.

Can you really deny that they currently aren't that intelligent? I don't place myself above them in this either: the tests may say I'm smart, but I certainly couldn't run a nation. This is a problem which can be corrected, but the logistics aren't as simple as simply instituting direct democracy now.

Besides, our representative goverment hasn't made the best decisions in quite a while.

Let me guess: since November 1996?