Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Bruce Banner

We need a referendum - Direct Democracy.

Recommended Posts

Our political system is broken so let's have a referendum to introduce "Direct Democracy". 

Surely that would solve most of our problems, Brexit, vested interests, house prices, monetary policy........

Instead of politicians telling us what "we want", we would be able to call referendums to tell them what we really want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what`s next weeks lotto numbers.  ?

 

Democracy the ability to make people think they have a choice, when they don`t really have one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, longgone said:

what`s next weeks lotto numbers.  ?

 

Democracy the ability to make people think they have a choice, when they don`t really have one. 

Yes, it is highly unlikely that any elected government would call such a referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said:

Yes, it is highly unlikely that any elected government would call such a referendum.

i still have trouble understanding what "elected" means ?

surely politics is like going to the fridge and finding cheese with some mold, ham out of date and the milk turned sour and nothing else to eat. 

elected to me means which one am i going to choose to eat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democracy has many weaknesses, the risk of a majority injuring a minority, acting in haste without due consideration, or emotions overcoming reason.

So, for example, what if there were an instant vote on a horrible death for paedophiles and terrorists, a penal surtax on all annual incomes over say £50k, opening fire on foreign trawlers that refused to leave our waters, doubling old age pensions and reducing the pension age to 50, a knighthood for Wayne Rooney, excluding non property owners from ever voting, granting a new bank holiday to commemorate the Grenfell Tower victims, etc, etc.

You may agree with some of these, but would anyone agree with all of them? Furthermore, would they be happy to bind themselves for all time to the capricious whims of the voting public?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Direct Democracy works for the Swiss, or does it? 

I don't know much about the Swiss system or experience. But I do recall the Swiss vote on $2,500 basic income. Presumably there was some support for the idea to prompt the vote (like 100,000 signatures on a petition leading to a debate in the UK parliament), but how was the $2,500 level determined? Was it possibly set at this level (arguably too high) so that it wouldn't pass? If it did pass, could politicians or civil servants implement it badly so that it would be unpopular and so reversed?

 

I'm not sure this would work well except in the case of very simple issues where the public is sufficiently well-informed. The issues have to be simple, because otherwise the policy may be contingent on other policies. Obviously the public has to be well-informed, or they may vote for harmful policies. For example I think a referendum now on extending help to buy might pass, even though an overwhelming majority would be harmed by this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Surely that would solve most of our problems, Brexit, vested interests, house prices, monetary policy........

 

I'm not saying yeah or nay...but look at how the 48% BrExit, easily controlled, loons are taking that result.

 

I'd prefer 1000 randomly selected individuals, 3 year tenure, no 2nd term, no partys, little change of corruption + a constitution and a republic.


The royals call all stay of course, in Sunderland, in a council flat, err, I mean, execute apartment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, silver surfer said:

Democracy has many weaknesses, the risk of a majority injuring a minority, acting in haste without due consideration, or emotions overcoming reason.

Why do you say that as if emotions and reason are mutually exclusive? The only reason for doing anything, even surviving, is emotional. A truly emotionless being with free will over all its actions (no hard-wired instincts) will just sit there doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

I'd prefer 1000 randomly selected individuals, 3 year tenure, no 2nd term, no partys, little change of corruption + a constitution and a republic.

They'd milk it for all it's worth now, or at least try to arrange things for their own benefit, just the same. Corruption isn't only about the long game, which is what you're really removing with that. And no rule or constitution can be set in stone forever. Even if you try to write it so it is people will eventually throw it away if they don't like it.

Edited by Riedquat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with democracy in the UK is the resultant tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

this is what has brought us nose bleed levels of national debt and grotesquely inflated house prices...policies that lead to both these outcomes suit the majority...or at least the majority believe it suits them.  Ie home owners are the majority and renters / landless the minority (at the moment).  Those that will have to pay the national debt are the minority (the youth or unborn).

I think we can trace all our issues back to this tyranny and the fact that the governing elite do not act in the common good...they are an evil cohort whose memory will be cursed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Brexit referendum was the first time I experienced real democracy and I think that would be the case most people...my vote was actually counted - amazing.  The first past the post system normally means most votes are worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

I'm not saying yeah or nay...but look at how the 48% BrExit, easily controlled, loons are taking that result.

maybe the 48% are the ones that did well out of the eu. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would decide upon what are to be the subjects of referenda?

Who would word them?

Would there be referenda to decide which referendum to have a referendum on?

Once those choices are out of the way, would there be one per quarter? One per half? Annual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, silver surfer said:

Democracy has many weaknesses, the risk of a majority injuring a minority, acting in haste without due consideration, or emotions overcoming reason.

There is no way that an average member of the public, with a job to do and a family to look after, can research in depth every issue to the point of making an informed vote, and they are hardly well placed to look at the big picture.  Take HS2 for example - I have absolutely no idea whether it makes sense economically, whether the route is sensible etc etc and no desire to research it either.

Our current system means that once every 5 years you get to vote in a group of people who you know vaguely think and act in a particular way.  We know the Tories generally favour the free market, we know the Labour party generally favour more social awareness.  Pick your choice and then let them get on with it.

If you had direct democracy I suspect what you'd actually get is voter fatigue, very low turnout, and then occasionally a huge emotion-driven turnout by an event like Grenfell Tower.  I don't honestly see how that is an improvement on the current system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

I'm not saying yeah or nay...but look at how the 48% BrExit, easily controlled, loons are taking that result.

I'd prefer 1000 randomly selected individuals, 3 year tenure, no 2nd term, no partys, little change of corruption + a constitution and a republic.

Maybe on balance the referendum was a good thing and the outcome will be desirable, but it seems to me it might not work out as many hope as it's so complex. Leave/remain was a binary choice, but the many choices which follow have to be made by representatives. This gives some the option of throwing a spanner in the works. Others have to grapple with how to fulfil the "will of the people."

 

On the second point "little change of corruption" may be an apt Freudian slip! People are not corrupt due to innate characteristics, but because they have an opportunity to gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Noallegiance said:

Who would decide upon what are to be the subjects of referenda?

Who would word them?

Would there be referenda to decide which referendum to have a referendum on?

Once those choices are out of the way, would there be one per quarter? One per half? Annual?

 

52 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

I recall the Swiss vote on $2,500 basic income. Presumably there was some support for the idea to prompt the vote (like 100,000 signatures on a petition leading to a debate in the UK parliament), but how was the $2,500 level determined? Was it possibly set at this level (arguably too high) so that it wouldn't pass? If it did pass, could politicians or civil servants implement it badly so that it would be unpopular and so reversed?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People complaining about the tyranny of the majority is hilarious. The tyranny of the minority is infinitely preferable of course ?

 

I mean Switzerland is just hell on earth as we all know. Yes, much better that we keep to this utopia that is the UK......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, silver surfer said:

Boaty McBoat Face

They sneaked out of that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ThoughtCriminal said:

People complaining about the tyranny of the majority is hilarious. The tyranny of the minority is infinitely preferable of course ?

Two different problems, doesn't make complaining about the idea hilarious at all, it's a very real danger if you somehow manage to overturn the mess we've got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Wayward said:

The problem with democracy in the UK is the resultant tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

this is what has brought us nose bleed levels of national debt and grotesquely inflated house prices...policies that lead to both these outcomes suit the majority...or at least the majority believe it suits them.

I think this better illustrates the power of banks and other interests and the success of their propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Wayward said:

The Brexit referendum was the first time I experienced real democracy and I think that would be the case most people...my vote was actually counted - amazing.  The first past the post system normally means most votes are worthless.

There was a referendum on first past the post in 2011. Only 42% of the electorate bothered to vote. People don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   34 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.