Digital Democracy or Democratic Dictatorship?

Spacedog

It occured to me that the way we elect political representatives today is grossly outdated. It's supposed to be the digital age, if you can get half the nation to vote for crap like big brother by using phoneins and e-mail voting, what is to stop the people of a developed country to weekly/daily vote on the political issues of the day? Why must we elect a representive once every blue moon who's allowed to run unchecked as they misrepresent the people who elected them? For example the Shannon issue, it was clear that the people of ireland did not want the planes landing here, one of the largest protests in modern irish history was ignored completly! On the other hand, would such a system be used by mass media to cease power? Would the rights of minorities be endangered? what other benifets or dangers from such a system involve?

simu

This would necessitate reducing every issue to simple, media friendly sound bites and could lead to some extremely inconsistent policy formulation. I know politics seems to be heading that way even with our present system but I think a better solution would be to change the party system somehow, in order to attract more innovative and intelligent ppl to politics.

dahamsta

There was a fantastic black comedy which covered this to some extent on the telly recently, a Peter Cook classic. If you watch it, you might change your mind. It's called The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer.

adam

ColinM

Originally posted by Spacedog
On the other hand, would such a system be used by mass media to cease power?

I was confused for a short while when I read this bit. Then I realised you meant seize power. I don't know if they could actually do that, but they wouldn't have to. There are enough easily-led people out there who don't do any thinking for themselves who are quite happy to go along with the knee-jerk ill-thought-out opinions to be found in the popular media. Think of the great unwashed as rookie storm-troopers, and the media as Alec Guinness in Star Wars - (in an ethereal voice) "these are the opinions you are looking for..."
I don't believe this kind of person who is unable to formulate ideas independently should be allowed to vote once every four years, let alone by their mobile phone on every matter that they read about in the Daily Star. Let them continue to occupy themselves by voting on matters relating to reality-TV shows, but please don't facilitate them participating in matters that may affect me! See here for more regarding my elitist views that not everybody's opinion should count.

bonkey

Originally posted by Spacedog
if you can get half the nation to vote for crap like big brother by using phoneins and e-mail voting, what is to stop the people of a developed country to weekly/daily vote on the political issues of the day?

Because while phone-ins and e-mail/internet voting are fine for BB et al, they are not secure, nor can they be. Indeed, it is doubtful as to whether or not they could even be made as trustworthy as the existing "outdated" system....at least with current technology.

jc

canker

There are an awful lot of stupid people out there, do we really want them having a say on every single thing? The current system, inadequete do it is in many instances, ensures only the very interested and only those who have bothered to research for themselves the issue will make a decision. I agree with simu that we need to attract more intelligent ppl into politics, and there does need to be more cooperation with the top and bottom of society. But a strong elected leader who can sometimes act against the current wishes of the nation is required for any progress to be made. We just have to ensure we elect the right people.

dahamsta

There are an awful lot of stupid people out there, do we really want them having a say on every single thing?

You can twist that around several ways. Here's one: Do you really want a self-proclaimed elite running the country? Isn't that what we have already? Who gets to decide who's qualified and who's not? Should we stop the stupid people voting in elections too?

Here's another: If democracy is supposed to be representative of the people, then stupid people /should/ be allowed make decisions. If the country is stupid, it should be represented as such. Silly, but think about it.

Anyway, as bonkey says the point is moot, the infrastructure, technology and plain old finances don't exist for something like this yet. Until long-range quantum cryptography and reliable digital identification become reality, you'd just be handing ballots to whoever controls the technology.

adam

canker

Do you really want a self-proclaimed elite running the country? Isn't that what we have already? Should we stop the stupid people voting in elections too?

I suppose my answer to all those questions is yes. Assuming that once somebody turns 18 that they are mature and intelligent enough to have a vote is careless. Perhaps some test, not considering opinions, to determine if somebody is interested, willing to take time to consider issues and not obstructive should be used to decide the eloctorate. These would then vote on a leader who could be trusted run the country and who would be able to seee when it was time to ask the public its opinion on matters and when to act regardless.

I guess it is a 'democratic dictatorship'. So long as I'm the dictator there should be no problem But seriously and regardless of technology currently available, it would be silly to put so much power in the hands of the people.

The Beer Baron

Well right now it's not viable.
Would you trust your vote to €ircon?
Cut off every 2 seconds, paying thru the nose...oh c'mon!!!

Besides- I wouldn't want to connect to some government server where not only is my IP, ISP info, cookies, OS, browser configuration everything now laid bare, but also which party I vote for! So Fianna Fáil or whoever now have this information as well as your voting habits. :ninja:

Using such a system would be a dream for any country who would like to sell their own voters out to market research companies. You think ours wouldn't?

sovtek

Anyone read this
?

They've already found some suspect results in various races in America using this system.
Makes you wonder if the 2004 campaign will matter at all.

Turnip

Seems to be quite a few people who agree with Corinthian's declaration that democracy is a fundamentally bad idea; that allowing people to choose their political representatives is wrong and that everyone would be better off if they'd just shut the hell up and obey the decrees of some self-styled idiot elite. Why stop there though? If the public can't be trusted to vote for the right Leader then why should they be allowed have any control over what they buy? Consumer choices after all determine the direction of society and have a profound impact on the global economy; arguably a much greater impact than casting a ballot every four years. So why not do as Corinthian and co suggest, ban the fundamentals of democracy (the free press, the right to free assembly etc) and make it illegal for the plebs to carry cash without permission or something.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
So why not do as Corinthian and co suggest, ban the fundamentals of democracy (the free press, the right to free assembly etc)

Where has he suggested that.

Democracy is not necessary for free press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, nor does it guarantee their existence.

jc

Turnip

Bonkey, what are the fundamentals of democracy? In our particular system, even the most "ordinary" citizen is as entitled to property rights, equality before the law, free expression, and free association as the wealthiest, holiest or most pure blooded (bleurgh). What's so fundamentally bad about all that? Everyone's going o have quibbles about the tax system or bias in RTE or whatever but saying that democracy is fundamentally bad is not quite the same as saying that it could do with improvement.

canker

I think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself turnip, if you take the suggestions being put forward about not giving total political power to everybody and apply the idea to absolutely everything it totally distorts the argument. I dont suggest the complete removal of freedoms, but we do have to be sensible, put every little issue to a public vote on which action will be taken and in no time the country will be falling apart. We need a leader who will make these tough decisions with carefull thought. Elections are fundemental to the system if we are to have a thrustworthy leader. Allowing people choose their representatives is not wrong. Not allowing the elected to act as they see fit is!

Éomer of Rohan

Democracy is a great idea but you see Turnip, the present day media is not free to write about what it likes; it is told what to write about by the corporations that own it - have you ever watched either Fox or and BSkyB channel? They are atrocious; more so the American new companies because all they do is cover the American perspectives of any given issue re-inforcing the idea of manifest destiny.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
So why not do as Corinthian and co suggest, ban the fundamentals of democracy (the free press, the right to free assembly etc) and make it illegal for the plebs to carry cash without permission or something.

‘Corinthian and co’? He’s onto us Grand Master, and he must be wearing one of those tin foil hats too, ‘cos the mind control rays aren’t working on him any more...

You really must get over this obsession you seem to have with me - it’s all getting far too homoerotic :rolleyes:

Oh, and as JC asked, where did I suggest any of the above?

Éomer of Rohan

Turnip said
Bonkey, what are the fundamentals of democracy? In our particular system, even the most "ordinary" citizen is as entitled to property rights, equality before the law, free expression, and free association as the wealthiest, holiest or most pure blooded (bleurgh). What's so fundamentally bad about all that?

Western democracy is plutocracy, not democracy. Simple as that. The adage is true, however much distaste for it I have, that money makes the world go round.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
Bonkey, what are the fundamentals of democracy?

By the people, Of the people, For the people.

Thats about it.

In our particular system, even the most "ordinary" citizen is as entitled to property rights, equality before the law, free expression, and free association as the wealthiest, holiest or most pure blooded (bleurgh).

Allow me to repeat what I said in the last post, as it clearly hasnt sunk in with you yet....

These freedoms are not guaranteed by the existence of democracy, nor do they require democracy to exist.

Gottit? They are not the fundamentals of democracy.

Now, if you want to assert that they are more prevalent in democratic societies then in non-democratic ones, I will quiote happily agree with you, but that has nothing to do with what was being discussed in the other thread, and even less to do with what was being discussed here before you felt the need to hijack the thread to have a go at The Corinthian.

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
By the people, Of the people, For the people.

Thats about it.

Heh, what a marvellously sophisticated political philosophy that is. As sophisticated as a t-shirt slogan.

These freedoms are not guaranteed by the existence of democracy, nor do they require democracy to exist.

In any real democracy, yes they are and yes they do.

Gottit? They are not the fundamentals of democracy.

You're entitled to your own little definition but historical fact says otherwise.
For a start I suggest you read the French National Assembly's Declaration of The Rights Of Man And Of Citizens or the US Constitution, instead of barracking me with non arguments. Got it?

Now, if you want to assert that they are more prevalent in democratic societies then in non-democratic ones, I will quiote happily agree with you, but that has nothing to do with what was being discussed in the other thread, and even less to do with what was being discussed here before you felt the need to hijack the thread to have a go at The Corinthian.

What's being discussed here is democracy and whether some people should not be allowed to choose their own political representation. Corinthian says that democracy is fundamentally a bad idea (but of course one is simply too cowardly to say why unless one is langered at a ridiculously expensive dinner in Paris or something); that government by the people, of the people and for the people is wrong. Evidently, there are some others here who agree. To any rational person this suggests that this lot of little Mussolinis are in favour of a demotic form of government, whether it's a theocracy, or one party Communist madness or a ridiculous military dictatorship or an even more ridiculous inbred monarchy or whatever. Let's find out who's really too "stupid" to be trusted to be a responsible citizen shall we?

Turnip

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Democracy is a great idea but you see Turnip, the present day media is not free to write about what it likes; it is told what to write about by the corporations that own it - have you ever watched either Fox or and BSkyB channel? They are atrocious; more so the American new companies because all they do is cover the American perspectives of any given issue re-inforcing the idea of manifest destiny.

Eomer, Naomi Klein's No Logo book was published by Rupert Murdoch even though it critised him heavily. How's that for a free press? The present day media is free. I don't see anyone going round smashing up printing presses for printing rubbish like Socialist Worker. Look, there's always going to be a shifting relationship between power and justice but democracy allows this to occur. Other total systems do not.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
You're entitled to your own little definition but historical fact says otherwise.
For a start I suggest you read the French National Assembly's Declaration of The Rights Of Man And Of Citizens or the US Constitution, instead of barracking me with non arguments. Got it?

Those are two interpretations of democracy. Historical fact is littered with examples of other interpretations, such as those in the ancient World or even with governments alive today that would not be Western democracies, but would still fit the bill, such as that in Iran.

Democracy is simply government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. Anything more is an interpretation of democracy.

Corinthian says that democracy is fundamentally a bad idea (but of course one is simply too cowardly to say why unless one is langered at a ridiculously expensive dinner in Paris or something)

I gave my reason, which began this obsession that you now seem to have with me - which includes the invention of the above suggestions, which I will note you seem too cowardly to admit to.

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Those are two interpretations of democracy. Historical fact is littered with examples of other interpretations, such as those in the ancient World or even with governments alive today that would not be Western democracies, but would still fit the bill, such as that in Iran.

I take it you agree with the violent clampdown on the Iranian pro-democracy movement. Clearly, the mad mullahs despise the "mob mentality and the politik of the pub conversationalist" as much as you do.

Democracy is simply government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. Anything more is an interpretation of democracy.

You may have been born with priviliges coming out your arse but you do not own a monopoly on political definitions. Your definition is only an interpretation, and not a very sophisticated one at that. The ideals of democracy have been advanced over the centuries. If you think that democracy is fundamentally a bad idea then it follows that the advancements are also bad ideas.

I gave my reason, which began this obsession that you now seem to have with me - which includes the invention of the above suggestions, which I will note you seem too cowardly to admit to.

Yes you said this...

My criticism of democracy centred on the mob mentality; the politik of the pub conversationalist; the average man on the Clapham omnibus who has an answer for everything, even if he does not understand the question.

you're pretty fond of shooting your mouth off too I notice. Why is your opinion more valid than one held by the "man on the Clapham omnibus" as you put it with your characteristic patronising tone? Surely if you are so clearly superior then you would have no trouble defeating the fellow using material facts in a rational debate in front of an intelligent audience. Oh I see. If you do lose arguments it's because the audience (mob) are too stupid to understand you. It would never ever cross your mind that you're talking bollocks to begin with. I'll ask again. What is your alternative to democracy? What is it about our system that can't be fixed by the democratic process? I suspect you support a form of authoritarianism like old fashioned fascism (yawn) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
I take it you agree with the violent clampdown on the Iranian pro-democracy movement. Clearly, the mad mullahs despise the "mob mentality and the politik of the pub conversationalist" as much as you do.

Jumping to conclusions? Or trying to put words in my mouth again?

On which note, you still have not explained where you found any of the above suggestions that you attributed to me.

You may have been born with priviliges coming out your arse but you do not own a monopoly on political definitions. Your definition is only an interpretation, and not a very sophisticated one at that. The ideals of democracy have been advanced over the centuries. If you think that democracy is fundamentally a bad idea then it follows that the advancements are also bad ideas.

My definition (like JC’s) is the most basic and common interpretation of what democracy is. Yours is a particularly narrow interpretation, unless you have a credible source for it?

Yes you said this...

So you retract your previous accusation of my not giving a reason?

Why is your opinion more valid than one held by the "man on the Clapham omnibus" as you put it with your characteristic patronising tone?

I never said it was. Now, on the other hand, if you feel threatened by how I come across, I suggest you talk with a professional.

Surely if you are so clearly superior then you would have no trouble defeating the fellow using material facts in a rational debate in front of an intelligent audience.

In fairness I’ve already made you look like a spanner in argument on more than one occasion, according to our peers. As a good democrat, you probably should know when to accept that all you’re doing is looking more and more foolish in perpetuating this apparent vendetta.

Probably about time you grew up a bit.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
Heh, what a marvellously sophisticated political philosophy that is. As sophisticated as a t-shirt slogan.

Being a mathematician, I would have gone for the term "elegant", and dropped the dripping sarcasm. It is as complex as it need be, and no more.

As an idea. my philosophy covers everything which democracy is and should be. Everything else comes from the want of the people, and given that they are ruling themselves, for themselves, they have the ability to put their wants into practice.

For a start I suggest you read the French National Assembly's Declaration of The Rights Of Man And Of Citizens or the US Constitution,

What about all those other democracies?

Take Ireland, as an example. Are we somehow not a democracy because we don't have an equivalent? Or perhaps there you will say that our constitution is the equivalent.

So lets look to our closests neighbours, where you will find that the UK doesn't even have a written constitution. So surely they couldn't be a democracy either by your standards?

They do not guarantee the things you hold fundamental to democracy, and indeed (like the Americans) have on occasion passed laws which specifically act against those wishes.

So are you saying that Britain is not a democracy / democratic nation?

Or would the signing and ratifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights qualify....something which is most categorically not limited to democractically-elected governments....again supporting my argument that democracy is not necessary for these things. They are seperable.

instead of barracking me with non arguments.

Its not a non-argument, and if you want less barracking, I'd suggest you tone down the bile, sarcasm and righteous indignation that someone would dare disagree with you.

You have not shown why these freedoms cannot exist without a democratically elected government. All you have done is asserted that it is so, and then harrangued anyone who disagrees with you that their POV is a "non-argument".

I, on the other hand, am showing that they do not necessarily exist within democracies, and am asking why the existence of a democratically elected government, or of democracy at all, is necessary for these things at all.

Also, if these things are fundamental to democracy, perhaps you could explain how we have so many democracies in the world who do not honour them? Surely thats a contradiction in terms, if not in your argument?

Indeed, I would defy you to find a single democracy in the world which does not break with your so-called fundamentals at least on occasion.

If you cannot, then the only conclusion is that either these are not the fundamentals of democracy, or that there are no democracies on the face of the planet at present.

jc

nadir

I apologise for this flame in advance. Sorry.

Turnip,

For posts too numerous to mention. You take an agressive belittling stance, quoting out of context and reading your own righteous maligned point of view into others opinions. You have no interest in discussion and seem to force your argument rather than debate. Your bigoted right wing perspective is unconstructive promoting flames like mine and other off topic posts. Such an attitude negates the purpose of these conversations and is basically disrespectful. This behavour of yours goes beyond this thread, I refer to
Chewing Gum Levy
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=106392
Demand equal rights for...
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=110544
Antiglobalisation Debate on Boards
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=109478&perpage=20&pagenumber=2
'Recreational' Drugs
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1070068#post1070068

I also find your quoting of Oscar Wilde out of context with the ideals you share with us.

Damn I hate making enemies!

ColinM

Except I don't know if it's necessarily true to say that Turnip is right-wing. It's probably not true to say that anyone is right-wing or left-wing, or middle of the road, because people's views and opinions don't necessarily have to all fit into one consistent idealogy.

Lately I've been expressing what would probably be considered right-wing views of elitism, but I have other views which would be considered liberal.

I meant to clap you on the back earlier, Canker for answering yes to Dhamsta's question about whether you really wanted a self-proclaimed elite running the country and whether we should stop the stupid people voting in elections.

That would have been my answer too.

But don't worry any of you. You all seem intelligent enough to deserve to participate in the decision making process. It is only the stupid people that I seek to suppress.

Don't worry either Turnip, you will not be first against the wall when the revoIution comes. I would actually be happy for you to participate in the decision making process of Colin's Brave New World. I would actually listen to your views and take them on board if they had merit. Ditch all those stupid people. Let them stick up for themselves if they can. They are only dragging you down with them.

So can I get everyone to chant along with me now:

Don't give me your poor, your sick,
your tired or your huddled masses,
give me your rich, your healthy,
your kind who pay the taxes?

Actually, maybe it's not just the stupid people I want to get rid of...

bonkey

Lads - you know better.

No flaming, and keep on topic.
This is not a discussion thread about Turnip, nor do I want to see one.

jc

ColinM

I didn't think I was flaming.
I was having a bit of a laugh, but at no one's expense, not even Turnip's.

I think I made some serious points as well.

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
As an idea. my philosophy covers everything which democracy is and should be. Everything else comes from the want of the people, and given that they are ruling themselves, for themselves, they have the ability to put their wants into practice.

Name one present day democracy where the people have voted for the destruction of the free press, for the dismantling of the independent judiciary or for institutionalised social inequality?Democracy is about consensus more than simple majority rule you know, as northern ireland proved.

Take Ireland, as an example. Are we somehow not a democracy because we don't have an equivalent? Or perhaps there you will say that our constitution is the equivalent.

This article from the national assembly's declaration illustrates what democracy is all about.

"Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents."

Why is that such a fundamentally bad idea? That's what I want to know.

So lets look to our closests neighbours, where you will find that the UK doesn't even have a written constitution. So surely they couldn't be a democracy either by your standards?

Ehh, where did I say that democracies had to have a written consititution? The UK has an independent judiciary, a free press and tolerates all religious and political persuasions. In other words it has all the fundamentals of a stable liberal democracy that people here are opposed to. It could do with being a republic of course. Their particularly idiotic monarchy should have all been shot for supporting Hitler.

They do not guarantee the things you hold fundamental to democracy, and indeed (like the Americans) have on occasion passed laws which specifically act against those wishes.

So when a country is under attack, as America is, how is it supposed to defend itself internally? Are they supposed to give Al-Queda its own 24 hour news channel?

Because we are a democracy, any citizen can try to change laws they don't like. What really annoys me is that the anti-democrats here do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to actually try to change things and just moan "it's sooo unfair" like Harry Enfield's teenager instead. Why don't they organise protest marches, or lobby their TD or run for election or start a campaign to get article 40 of the constitution ditched or something!?!!?

Because they'd get laughed out of the country that's why.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted From Turnip
Because we are a democracy, any citizen can try to change laws they don't like. What really annoys me is that the anti-democrats here do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to actually try to change things and just moan "it's sooo unfair" like Harry Enfield's teenager instead. Why don't they organise protest marches, or lobby their TD or run for election or start a campaign to get article 40 of the constitution ditched or something!?!!?

We DO organise protest marches and lobby our (MP's in my case) but the fact is, unless you are a wealthy business leader, you get an automated response from the MP's office and even if the protest is over 4 million strong nationwide, it is pointedly ignored.

As many representative posts as we create, the fundamental problem with representative democracy is that it is biased in favour of either the status-quo or the wealthy.

Turnip

Eomer I wasn't referring to you. I should have added that at least the left DO try to change things. I was referring to the far right elements here who despise the "mob mentality" (democracy) and want to replace it with a system that demands blind obedience and replaces the "mob" with a flock of sheep, but are too lazy or cowardly to do anything practical to bring it about.

As many representative posts as we create, the fundamental problem with representative democracy is that it is biased in favour of either the status-quo or the wealthy.

I disagree. In capitalist liberal democracies, for the most part, you get out what you put in. If someone works harder than me then they're entitled to make more money than me. Fair play to them.