Next step in Democracy

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

As it stands now it is more then obvious that democracy is anything else but exersizing will of majority. In many countries people have no one to vote for since politicians are all the same. They don't care about and don't represent their voters. Many time it is obvious that people don't want something but politicions still manage to make it happen because they have their individual inresest in it.

The only real impact people can have in making decisions is through referendum but these are very expensive and in current form can't be used for every daya decision making process.

I feel that the reason we have polititions representing people is because in old days of democracy technolgoy was very primitive and this was the only way to practive democracy. Democracy is about majoroty deciding what do and in old days this was technycly possible only by choosing your representatives because not everyone could fit in a room Smile

.

Things are different today. Today we could have a referendum every day where people could vote using computer and web or by sending SMS. this way people could have direct impact of what will be decided completely bypassing any corrupted "representatives". Also if each SMS has to be paid suddenly referendum becomes source of money instead of big money waste.

For instance anyone at any time could create it's own referendum on the web allowing others to vote for it. Those referendum that get enough votes get implemented in practice. We could still use politiocions but only as group of people used to support such process, something like web administrators, or to write laws to support those new referendum ideas and so on.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE. Smile

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 853 • Replies: 9

No top replies

Yes, I've always believed anarchy is the only reasonable mode of governance.

0 Replies

This has nothing to do with the technology or the cost of having a referendum.

The fact remains (and our founding fathers understood this)...

Rule by majority, where the clamoring mob has power on day to day issues, would be a unmitigated disaster.

4 Replies

@ebrown p,

Your right. The big businesses and politicians dont want the voters to interfere in thier money makeing business. If we could force them to do some of the things they should be doing to help all the people it takes away from thier power trips. And interferes with big business ability to steal from the poor and middle classes.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Switzerland begs to differ....

Seriously, though: even if you see mob rule as a danger, don't you think that political apathy where you have only a small fraction of eligible voters taking part in the political process, every couple of years, as something that can lead to disaster just as well?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

We are talking here about democracy and it is defined as "mob has power".
We are discussing here how to give that power back to the mob.
We are not discussin if giving power to the mob is good or not.

Also there is no specific number of people that group must have to be called a mob. Politiocions that rule your country can also be called a mob.

So to be absolutly sure that mob is not rulling you country is to have a king, one man to rule them all. Smile

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Rule by majority, where the clamoring mob has power on day to day issues, would be a unmitigated disaster.

vis the current state of the republican party.

0 Replies

@old europe,

There is no perfect political system.

You run the risk of mob rule if you put too much power in the hands of crowds. Crowds don't take the time to learn about the issues or even to get past the initial emotional (and often hysterical) response.

On the other side, of course, you run the risk of corruption if you put too much power in the hands of too few. (I won't argue this point since everyone seems to already be behind this side.)

The United States has a decent (not perfect but decent) balance. Populism has a voice in the US, as does conservatism as do business interests. It seems to me that the presence of multiple voices is a sign of health in a political system.

Representative government-- where people elect leaders who spend their time governing is a fine system that has served our country (and others) as well as any other system could.

A "real" democracy, where important policy was crafted by the whims and emotions of people, would accentuate the worst instincts of humanity.

1 Reply

Quote:

Arthur: Old Woman!

The peasant turns around, revealing that he is in fact a man.

Man: Man!
Arthur: Man, sorry.... What knight lives in that castle over there?
Man: I'm thirty-seven!
Arthur: (suprised) What?
Man: I'm thirty-seven! I'm not old--
Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man"...
Man: Well you could say "Dennis"--
Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis!
Man: Well, you didn't bother to find out, did you?!
Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind, you looked--
Man: Well I object to your...you automatically treat me like an inferior!
Arthur: Well I *am* king...
Man: Oh, king, eh, very nice. And 'ow'd you get that, eh?
(he reaches his destination and stops, dropping the cart)
By exploiting the workers! By 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma
which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
If there's ever going to be any progress,--
Woman: Dennis! There's some lovely filth down 'ere!
(noticing Arthur) Oh! 'Ow'd'ja do?
Arthur: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose
castle is that?
Woman: King of the 'oo?
Arthur: King of the Britons.
Woman: 'Oo are the Britons?
Arthur: Well we all are! We are all Britons! And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we 'ad a king! I thought we were autonomous collective.
Man: (mad) You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship! A
self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
Woman: There you go, bringing class into it again...
Man: That's what it's all about! If only people would--
Arthur: Please, *please*, good people, I am in haste! WHO lives in that
castle?
Woman: No one lives there.
Arthur: Then who is your lord?
Woman: We don't have a lord!
Arthur: (spurised) What??
Man: I *told* you! We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We're taking
turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--
Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...
Man: But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a
special bi-weekly meeting--
Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!
Man: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--
Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!
Man: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
Arthur: (very angry) BE QUIET! I *order* you to be quiet!
Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is?
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you!
Arthur: You don't vote for kings!
Woman: Well 'ow'd you become king then?
(holy music up)
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite,
held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by
divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why
I am your king!
Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power
derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical
aquatic ceremony!
Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!
Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
watery tart threw a sword at you!!
Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*!
Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some
moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: (throwing the man around) Shut up, will you, SHUT UP!
Man: Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: SHUT UP!
Man: (yelling to all the other workers) Come and see the violence inherent
in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!
Arthur: (letting go and walking away) Bloody PEASANT!
Man: Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's
what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it,
didn't you?!

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

Crowds not only don't take time to learn about the issues; they usually make a decision based on nothing beyond the title of the bill or referendum.

0 Replies

Next step in Democracy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know