voting for law change

[Paulie Tandoori]

Seems to me it indicates:

1) A disillusionment with our current party political choices and their consensus on neo-liberal economic solutions.

2) A massive disengagement from party politics (but not from single issue or non-aligned politics) at a grass roots level.

3) An erosion of the quid pro quo or "social contract" that made previous generations willing and ready to engage with party politics and "parliamentary democracy".

Yes, I'd certainly go with that. I suppose the inevitable, if uncomfortable, next question, is what if anything could be done to change/improve the situation?

 

[CyberRose]

What? How on earth does that follow from my post?

More people voted for Labour than any other party, yet you sit here every day criticising Labour and hoping they lose the next election. Fair enough, but that was the democratic result of a national vote. You say below you welcome votes that go against what you believe, well every single post in the politics forums would suggest otherwise, wouldn't it? The fact is, you're under some misguided belief that under direct democracy, the public will support your beliefs (as proved by your post above where you guessed the public would back your beliefs in that list of referendums), so you're just as guilty of what you accuse others - you only want a system that will return the results you want.

You clearly do think much of the electorate is thick

Three pages I have spent explaining why direct democracy would be a bad thing, three pages and this is the only thing you have said in it's favour "support it or it means you think the public is thick". It's a poor argument I'm sure you'll agree, even poorer that it appears to be your only argument. Now why don't you tell me why you think direct democracy will be a good idea? How will it result in more positive policies? In fact, why do you think it will result in any different policies than we have today? Going further, if you want this system because you are unhappy with the policies we have today, that backs up what I said above about you wanting a system that will return the results YOU want.

YOur question is irrelavent, it was precisley the limited democratic structures that you support that allowed the US to invade and occupy Iraq. Given the anti-war mood in the US do you think this would have happened under conditions of direct democracy and popular political participation. I doubt it myself.

The anti-war mood in the US never out numbered the pro-war mood, and I'm not sure it does today. The Iraq war would have definitely happened under direct democracy and there would have been no fannying around at the UN either, it would be total annihilation...

Everything you say proves you are a hypocrite for accusing others of wanting a political system because it returns policies they favour (which in my case is completely untrue) while at the same time demanding we all support a system that returns policy results that YOU favour. Not only that, it just shows how far out of touch you are with the mood of the public because you think they'll all back your beliefs.

 

[butchersapron]

More people voted for Labour than any other party, yet you sit here every day criticising Labour and hoping they lose the next election. Fair enough, but that was the democratic result of a national vote. You say below you welcome votes that go against what you believe, well every single post in the politics forums would suggest otherwise, wouldn't it? The fact is, you're under some misguided belief that under direct democracy, the public will support your beliefs (as proved by your post above where you guessed the public would back your beliefs in that list of referendums), so you're just as guilty of what you accuse others - you only want a system that will return the results you want.

WTF? Did you even read the post that you're replying to? I clearly and expressly said that potential results that i do not support are inherent in the democratic process. I haven't argued in a single post that my ideas will 'triumph' if DD existed, and i welcomed the fact that they might not. So where you have got this above nonsense from i'm not entirely sure.

Three pages I have spent explaining why direct democracy would be a bad thing, three pages and this is the only thing you have said in it's favour "support it or it means you think the public is thick". It's a poor argument I'm sure you'll agree, even poorer that it appears to be your only argument. Now why don't you tell me why you think direct democracy will be a good idea? How will it result in more positive policies? In fact, why do you think it will result in any different policies than we have today? Going further, if you want this system because you are unhappy with the policies we have today, that backs up what I said above about you wanting a system that will return the results YOU want.

No you haven't. You spent three pages explaining that you don't trust the public, don't think they have intellectual or other capabilities to engage in politics (read: return the right result) so support limits on their democratic participation and oppose any plans to extend things in that direction. Given that this is your own claim and that it rests centrally on your characterisation of those abilities i think it's fair enough to argue that this characterisation is a) wrong and b) irrelevent as the democratic process should not tied to IQ or returning an outcome that you favour and shanhai-ing any other possible outcome. And you again appear to be confused as to what i've said.

The anti-war mood in the US never out numbered the pro-war mood, and I'm not sure it does today. The Iraq war would have definitely happened under direct democracy and there would have been no fannying around at the UN either, it would be total annihilation...

That's a mighty definitive statement to be making, based on nothing very much but that same old prejudice anoput the abilities of others to meet you own high standards. The democrats stormed both houses on a piss-weak stop-the-war platform (arguments about them never having any serious intention of doing so aside). What on earth makes you think that in system of direct democracy based on real participation and decision nmaking power this anti-war sentiment would bot have translated into different policies? I don't think i've ever seen any go to such lengths to dress up simple crude prejudice as concern before. It's fantastic.

Everything you say proves you are a hypocrite for accusing others of wanting a political system because it returns policies they favour (which in my case is completely untrue) while at the same time demanding we all support a system that returns policy results that YOU favour. Not only that, it just shows how far out of touch you are with the mood of the public because you think they'll all back your beliefs.

My god, three times in one post (and an extra special topping of 'man-of-the-people' spiel. To repeat:

Did you even read the post that you're replying to? I clearly and expressly said that potential results that i do not support are inherent in the democratic process itself. I haven't argued in a single post that my ideas will 'triumph' if DD existed, and i welcomed the fact that they might not.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Three pages I have spent explaining why direct democracy would be a bad thing, three pages...

You haven't. You've spent three pages claiming that direct democracy would be a bad thing, and you've presented people with your beliefs on the matter, but you can hardly be said to have explained why.

 

[butchersapron]

It's that finger wagging approach again - the one that gets people politically hot

 

[CyberRose]

You haven't. You've spent three pages claiming that direct democracy would be a bad thing, and you've presented people with your beliefs on the matter, but you can hardly be said to have explained why.

If you want to be pedantic, yes

 

[CyberRose]

I haven't argued in a single post that my ideas will 'triumph' if DD existed, and i welcomed the fact that they might not

But you wouldn't welcome results that went against your beliefs would you? Otherwise you'd accept the results of general elections and not complain when the winning party implemented policies you disagreed with, as proved by every single one of your posts in this forum. You also predicted earlier that the public would return results you favoured in the 4 referendums I asked you about, and above, you claimed the Iraq war wouldn't have happened under DD (other than the fact the Iraq war would have happened most definitely under DD, it also PROVES you think DD will return results you want, despite your sly protests against this)

No you haven't. You spent three pages explaining that you don't trust the public, don't think they have intellectual or other capabilities to engage in politics (read: return the right result) so support limits on their democratic participation and oppose any plans to extend things in that direction. Given that this is your own claim and that it rests centrally on your characterisation of those abilities i think it's fair enough to argue that this characterisation is a) wrong and b) irrelevent as the democratic process should not tied to IQ or returning an outcome that you favour and shanhai-ing any other possible outcome. And you again appear to be confused as to what i've said.

Not once have I said the public are too thick. My concerns centre around the power of the media to manipulate people. If you don't think the media has that kind of power then you're a fucking idiot and no way should you be allowed to vote on anything

That's a mighty definitive statement to be making, based on nothing very much but that same old prejudice anoput the abilities of others to meet you own high standards. The democrats stormed both houses on a piss-weak stop-the-war platform (arguments about them never having any serious intention of doing so aside). What on earth makes you think that in system of direct democracy based on real participation and decision nmaking power this anti-war sentiment would bot have translated into different policies? I don't think i've ever seen any go to such lengths to dress up simple crude prejudice as concern before. It's fantastic.

More proof you want DD to return results more favourable to your beliefs. Hypocrite

Did you even read the post that you're replying to? I clearly and expressly said that potential results that i do not support are inherent in the democratic process itself. I haven't argued in a single post that my ideas will 'triumph' if DD existed, and i welcomed the fact that they might not.

I see you claim that time and time again, yet your other comments betray your true reasons for wanting DD - it's a system you think (incorrectly) will return policies favourable to your beliefs...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I think your attitude says it all really. Everyone else is thick, they can't be trusted to think the right way etc And shockingly it's a common attitude amongst large numbers of people 'on the left' - it goe sosme way to explaining why they are so isolated and have no weight amongst the wider population. The same attitude is also partly responsible for what appears as political apathy but it often really rejection of, and disgust at, that sort of finger-wagging approach you embody.

What's more it feeds on itself, you put people off politics then damn them for not beng interested in politics, which then means that they need to be denied more responsibility and participation needs to curtailed, follwed by even more people becoming alienated from any sort of public political process, and round and round we go, withy the finger waggers being confirmed in their own prejudices along each step of the way.

but people are thick butchers...

maybe not even out of poor education but out of day to day grind of having to get on with other things which compete for their time, a lot of people don't want to enguage on a poltical level because it's an extra layer in what is already a complicated enough life for them...

they often chose to turn a blind eye to be uneducated in certain things and as a result shouldn't then get a say in those matters...

in practice even you act ont hsi assumption how often have you dismissed my comments as being naive or similar because you have more informaiton on a subject...

and i'm pretty sure for all your ideological posturing in that post the concept of someone like me being able to decide things would terrify you senseless particlarlly when looking at things which might be contentious...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes, I'd certainly go with that. I suppose the inevitable, if uncomfortable, next question, is what if anything could be done to change/improve the situation?

If you're operating purely in the context of "re-inventing" some form of democratic governance to make it amenable to the needs of the many rather than the few, then I'd make local representatives (councilors, Aldermen etc) accountable for representing the will of their constituents, as determined by annual plebiscites, and make MPs etc accountable to the same. I'd shorten electoral periods to two years to dis-incentivise politicians from formulating "vote grabbing" legislation, and penalise corruption mercilessly.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you want to be pedantic, yes

It's not pedantry to remind you that you've explained nothing, but merely offered an opinion.
An explanation would have, of course, entailed you revealing why you believe that direct democracy would be a "bad thing", and perhaps you didn't want to do that.

 

[CyberRose]

It's not pedantry to remind you that you've explained nothing, but merely offered an opinion.
An explanation would have, of course, entailed you revealing why you believe that direct democracy would be a "bad thing", and perhaps you didn't want to do that.

Oh well in that case you were completely wrong to tell me that I hadn't explained why DD would be a bad thing:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7922474&postcount=5
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7922604&postcount=19
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7923113&postcount=34

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

If you're operating purely in the context of "re-inventing" some form of democratic governance to make it amenable to the needs of the many rather than the few, then I'd make local representatives (councilors, Aldermen etc) accountable for representing the will of their constituents, as determined by annual plebiscites, and make MPs etc accountable to the same. I'd shorten electoral periods to two years to dis-incentivise politicians from formulating "vote grabbing" legislation, and penalise corruption mercilessly.

what about electorial burn out... people would be on an even short cycle of empty promises in order to prolong their career... we already have a 5 year cycle...

 

[CyberRose]

I'd shorten electoral periods to two years to dis-incentivise politicians from formulating "vote grabbing" legislation

You'd shorten electoral periods to dissuade (which I think is the word you were looking for above!) politicians from formulating "vote grabbing" policies?! Lol, you think all policies can be implemented over 2 years!?

Anyway, this post is completely irrelevant to the topic and the only reason I posted it was to lol @ "dis-incentivise"

 

[ViolentPanda]

what about electorial burn out... people would be on an even short cycle of empty promises in order to prolong their career... we already have a 5 year cycle...

The idea is they'd be too busy actually trying to do what their constituents had instructed them to do, to be able to knob about making empty promises.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

The idea is they'd be too busy actually trying to do what their constituents had instructed them to do, to be able to knob about making empty promises.

but that's not how it works now why would shortening the period change anythign and not accerrate the process... (equally lengthening it would also cuase problems)

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

The idea is they'd be too busy actually trying to do what their constituents had instructed them to do, to be able to knob about making empty promises.

So you would require some method of allowing policies to remain in operation outside of electoral cycles, whilst the elected representatives are held accountable for their success or otherwise of their implementation during those cycles. How could you allow people the opportunity and afford them the information to elect a policy that then has a finite timescale, say 10 years, during which time the actual consequences of pursuing that policy could be better understood?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You'd shorten electoral periods to dissuade (which I think is the word you were looking for above!) politicians from formulating "vote grabbing" policies?! Lol, you think all policies can be implemented over 2 years!?

No, but I believe that good policies would survive the electoral cycle. Perhaps if you spent less time "lol"ing, and more time thinking, that would have occurred to you.

Anyway, this post is completely irrelevant to the topic and the only reason I posted it was to lol @ "dis-incentivise"

Oh well done, such incisive criticism.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So you would require some method of allowing policies to remain in operation outside of electoral cycles...

It wouldn't exactly be a struggle to formulate a constitutional instrument that allowed policies (however far they'd proceeded along the legislative route) to be held in abeyance rather than being (as currently happens) kicked into the long grass if the policy (by virtue of it having reached the parliamentary level via the system I mention) had mass support.

...whilst the elected representatives are held accountable for their success or otherwise of their implementation during those cycles. How could you allow people the opportunity and afford them the information to elect a policy that then has a finite timescale, say 10 years, during which time the actual consequences of pursuing that policy could be better understood?

I'd have thought that if something had managed to reach the stage of being considered for proposal as legislation in the national parliament, it'd have to be reasonably well-understood anyway by those (i.e. "the people") who'd driven it that far.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

wouldn't that system have alos meant things such as the lower of the age of consent for homosexual releathionships be delayed or equally repealing the poll tax would have taken longer?? IF the policy had to remain for it' lenght regardless isn't not going to be very adaptive or would have to be so widely scoped that it could be used to justify anything...

 

[ViolentPanda]

but that's not how it works now why would shortening the period change anythign and not accerrate the process... (equally lengthening it would also cuase problems)

It might not "work", but I'd contend that it couldn't be any worse than the terminal inertia combined with government by headline we have now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

wouldn't that system have alos meant things such as the lower of the age of consent for homosexual releathionships be delayed or equally repealing the poll tax would have taken longer?? IF the policy had to remain for it' lenght regardless isn't not going to be very adaptive or would have to be so widely scoped that it could be used to justify anything...

As you may have guessed, I'm not particularly interested in "parliamentary democracy" as it stands, so I'm merely putting forward a few ideas that might kick-start "the system".
Personally, I don't see any "escape" from the system or from those who have made the system what it is, that isn't destructive, so we're quite likely stuck with a form of governance that is only nominally representative of the electorate, and all we can do is (try to) keep our heads above water.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

how about banning poltical parties and only allowing mps to stand in the areas they live in... (with the provisio that they must have done so for a minimum period say 5 years...)

no one MP can stand more than 3 consecutive times and like jury duty anyone can be placed into the role or called up into it...

Mp accountablity couplled with this where you could with a significant local refferendum force a reelection at anytime... (this would count as part of your 3 times...)...

 

[CyberRose]

Why not replace the House of Lords with a second elected chamber with proportional representation?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

wouldn't that system have alos meant things such as the lower of the age of consent for homosexual releathionships be delayed or equally repealing the poll tax would have taken longer?? IF the policy had to remain for it' lenght regardless isn't not going to be very adaptive or would have to be so widely scoped that it could be used to justify anything...

not so. the law on the age of consent and the poll tax were introduced by our elected leaders and found to be against public support over time. so i doubt (or maybe hope) whether such grossly unfair and divisive policy making would occur in the first place.

the bigger problem would probably be policies related to the economy and foreign affairs, very difficult to predict what's coming there.

 

[Crispy]

How about representation by lottery? Given a large enough number of representatives, you should get a statistical cross section of the population.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Why not replace the House of Lords with a second elected chamber with proportional representation?

yes cos one corrput house bought by big business isn't enough...