Are you interested in a new Political Movement/Party?

redspider

Following on from the threads of "which party would you vote for" and "where are you on the political compass" www.politicalcompass.org , a question that no doubt many of us have thought about at some stage is the formation of a new political party or movement.

Many people and potential voters are disillusioned with current political parties on offer and the lack of an exact match of any party to an individuals preferences. An example of this can be seen if you fill out any questionnaire on your preferences. What are the chances of any of the 6 parties exactly matching your preferences? very slim indeed.

Another example of this "democratic deficit" is where the majority of people in this country protested against US military landings a Shannon yet our Government had no requirement to follow the wishes of the people.

Another interesting site to view is www.stemwijzer.nl . Whats interesting about the latter is that it asks 30 questions with a choice of 4 answers and the political parties must publish their answers. From that each voter can judge which party they are closest too.

Now, it is clear mathematically that say in a country like ours with 6 main parties (FF, FG, Lab, PD, SF, GP) that there is no way that most voters will match a party exactly (its the same in NL), and this leads into my hypothesis:

the current political system does not represent the views of the voters for a large part of the time .... in other words, the so-called democratic systems of the west are NOT really democratic at all!

How could one vote to one candidate in one party express all of my opinions on 30 issues, or even 1000 issues that may be of interest in the 5 year term of government. Its impossible. Essentially, the system is flawed.

I'm intesested in hearing your views, your solutions, and what you would like to see in a new political party or movement in Ireland.

One proposal is: a new party that reflects the thoughts of its voters in parliament exactly - EXACTLY. This will be done by using modern communcations with the voters on every issue, on every vote in the Dail, on every policy matter, etc.

Is it possible? opinions welcome ....

dathi1

Is it possible? opinions welcome ....

hmm... interesting concept especially using an internet based communications system to get valuable feedback. The first major problem for such a party would be to overcome an immediate crack down by establishment media and politics when the populist policies put forward don't fit in with the establishments agenda. There are a range of topics that the majority of people feel strongly about which vary from left to right across the political spectrum. For example most people believe we should have a strong public health care system but without the waste and mismanagement by senior management and unions alike. Most people disagreed with the implementation of the bin tax or the way it was implemented. Most people want a proper immigration policy to tackle illegal immigration. Most people don't want the Yanks using Ireland as a logistics forwarding base to bomb innocent Arabs abroad. I suspect the people who would set up such a project as above would be even shocked themselves as to what the electorate want.
Of course the registration system on such a project would have to be near flawless.

vorbis

hmm I think some people get the wrong idea about democracy. To me we elect someone or a party to lead the country. If after 5 years we feel they're doing a bad job then we can kick them out. What you suggest Redspider is too unwieldy.

therecklessone

vorbis wrote:

hmm I think some people get the wrong idea about democracy. To me we elect someone or a party to lead the country. If after 5 years we feel they're doing a bad job then we can kick them out. What you suggest Redspider is too unwieldy.

That is representative democracy, there are alternatives.

redspider

I'm not proposing that we go to a more democratic system straight away where every single issue is determined by popular vote. The current system of one vote every 5 years is our current starting point, so changes could be made to the system in steps. The proposal is that a new Movement/Party is established to progress these changes, one that would represent its voters much more closely than the current parties do.

For example, how many of us ever see a politician wanting to talk to us in between elections? Especialliy from the larger parties.

If there is a consensus among people that the current system is not representative of people's wishes, then shouldn't there be a need and support for people to change it?

I dont think all people elect leaders, government and representatives just for the sake of leading us wherever they feel like it. People vote for a number of reasons, policy and capability. If you take the concept of "I vote for you, now lead" a bit further, we could just elect one government that would last us for a century. People in between dont really need a choice. Or maybe something like one vote per person in their lifetime. The leaders that we elect should have the capablity to lead us after all.

The current systems are centuries old, when communications were poor, etc, and surely there is a better system.

Just try the 30 questions with your current chosen party and you may find out just how different their policies are to yours.

bonkey

redspider wrote:

the current political system does not represent the views of the voters for a large part of the time .... in other words, the so-called democratic systems of the west are NOT really democratic at all!

Surely that depends on how you look at it. To say its not really democratic, you'd have to show that the people didn't choose to vote for someone who doesn't accurately represent their day-to-day wishes over someone who will.

There is nothing stopping someone, for example, running for election on a campaign "promise" of representing any clear public sentiment. You can be pretty sure such a person wouldn't be elected though.....which then raises the question...

Is the system undemocratic because we choose not to be represented by someone who would represent us more democratically, or is the system democratic because it gave us the ability to choose the less democratic candidate???

There's no easy answer.

The whole concept of representatives - to me - is that as a whole they should average out to be what the public would wish for if the public invested as much individual/collective time and effort understanding and considering the issues.

I don't want a representative who will just follow mob rule. Generally, I want a representative who will go out of their way to be more informed, and more aware of the impact of their decisions than the mob is. Is that "less" democratic than mob rule? Perhaps. Is it worse because of it? Hard to say.

How could one vote to one candidate in one party express all of my opinions on 30 issues, or even 1000 issues that may be of interest in the 5 year term of government. Its impossible. Essentially, the system is flawed.

But unless you wish to have and require direct voting for every citizen on every issue, the system will remain flawed....and given that forcing every citizen to make a decision (and an informed one at that) on every issue is simply not feasible.

The issue is not that it is flawed, but whehter or not there is a less flawed system which we would be willing to implement. Switzerland, with its direct democracy, has a good system that many (including myself) are highly complimentary of, but its by no means perfect, and it suffers massive problems.

Did you know that as a result of the whole "direct voting" concept, for example, that there is currently no real legal "maternity leave" requirements. Why? Because the rich and the average male worker were vehemently opposed to the proposal, and so it meant it couldn't carry. Democratic, it may be....but fair? I think not.

I'm intesested in hearing your views, your solutions, and what you would like to see in a new political party or movement in Ireland.

Honesty, integrity, and a willingness to hold themselves accountable for their words, decisions and actions would be a good start.

One proposal is: a new party that reflects the thoughts of its voters in parliament exactly - EXACTLY. This will be done by using modern communcations with the voters on every issue, on every vote in the Dail, on every policy matter, etc.

Well, for it to be exact, then the party will generally abstain from issues, as the majority of the population won't actually express an opinion and generally don't care.

Add to that, the questionable policy of mob-rule...where you have a perty which will do what the public wants, regardless of how stupid or inconsiderate it may be.....

Add to that the reality that the public changes its mind about as often as the media tells it to. Governments, on the other hand, generally have to take more mid- and long-term views which are simply not maintainable in the face of a Want of the Week mentality....

Don't think its workable, or a great idea...personally.

jc

TheWolf

redspider wrote:

I dont think all people elect leaders, government and representatives just for the sake of leading us wherever they feel like it. People vote for a number of reasons, policy and capability. If you take the concept of "I vote for you, now lead" a bit further, we could just elect one government that would last us for a century. People in between dont really need a choice. Or maybe something like one vote per person in their lifetime. The leaders that we elect should have the capablity to lead us after all.

While I would like to see change, electing someone for life may not be an ideal solution either. Things change, people need to adapt. Some people adapt quicker to different things than others. If you stick someone in charge for life, then circumstances change and they cant adapt quick enough/at all, then they wont be able to lead to the fullest of their abilities

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

Just like the last time this came up, I can't for the life of me remember the movie that had this concept, where at the end everyone had to vote on every little thing via machines in their living room, and it all fell apart because it was so intrusive. Was Peter Sellers in it?

adam

Flukey

It is not realistic.

NinjaBart

this seems to be more about the methods which democracy is exercised through rather than any potential party as such. be interesting if such a party was a coalition partner, could you depend on them for anything?

Gurgle

dahamsta wrote:

Just like the last time this came up, I can't for the life of me remember the movie that had this concept, where at the end everyone had to vote on every little thing via machines in their living room, and it all fell apart because it was so intrusive. Was Peter Sellers in it?
adam

If its the one I think it is - Nobody gets older except as a punishment, if you die accidentally you get resurrected, all decisions made by popular vote.

Sean Connery, made in the 60s-70s. Was his name Zed in the movie ?
I have no idea what it was called either.

da_deadman

This idea is just too unfeasible to work. It requires that the general public will ALL have a thorough knowledge of EVERY issue, evaluate it and then vote on every single issue. This just won't work because people follow the "Can't someone else do it?" policy that Homer Simpson used to get elected as Sanitation Commissioner...."the garbageman can...."

Also, if you want a party to follow your exact wishes then all supporters of the party will all have to have the same wishes. If you vote on an issue and you're in the minority and the party follows the result of the vote then the party will not be acting on your EXACT thoughts.

The system will always be flawed.

dahamsta

Gurgle wrote:

If its the one I think it is - Nobody gets older except as a punishment, if you die accidentally you get resurrected, all decisions made by popular vote. Sean Connery, made in the 60s-70s. Was his name Zed in the movie ? I have no idea what it was called either.

That's not it, but thanks anyway. I'm pretty sure it was Sellers, who was a trades union leader that ended up as PM or something.

adam

uncivilservant

Gurgle wrote:

If its the one I think it is - Nobody gets older except as a punishment, if you die accidentally you get resurrected, all decisions made by popular vote.

Sean Connery, made in the 60s-70s. Was his name Zed in the movie ?
I have no idea what it was called either.

That was Zardoz.

redspider

You raise some interesting points bonkey:

bonkey wrote:

To say [the current system is] not really democratic, you'd have to show
that the people didn't choose to vote for someone who doesn't accurately represent their day-to-day wishes over someone who will.

To show that the current system is not representative of peoples views all you need are cases where the majority of the people are against the way that something is being implemented by the Government. There are many cases of this, such as the landing of US Military aircraft and personnel for the ongoing war in Iraq. If that issue would have been put to a referendum then, what would have been the outcome. Thats just one case and their are many cases of the Government recommending a choice in a referendum only for it to be defeated. The Governments response is that they reluctantly have to accept it with a "the people have spoken". The proposal is to take that a bit further and give people more issues to decide upon on a more regular basis.

In terms of the current system, parties publish manifesto's with their promises and voters vote for parties based on these manifesto's. However, there is no legal requirement for any party to carry out any of the points in their manifesto. eg: McDowell and the increased no. of Gardai.

There is nothing stopping someone, for example, running for election on a campaign "promise" of representing any clear public sentiment. You can be pretty sure such a person wouldn't be elected though.....

How can you be so sure about that? Do you have several examples of that?

Is the system undemocratic because we choose not to be represented by someone who would represent us more democratically, or is the system democratic because it gave us the ability to choose the less democratic candidate???

The system is undemocratic for the reasons I've mentioned originally. You only get one vote for one person for 5 years who in those 5 years has no onus to listen to what you say, except to try and get in the next time! But if all parties are working in the same system, then a certain type of approach will develop from the beginning so the problem is systemic. The total system is flawed, as the system dictates the type of representation we get, which currently is pretty poor.

The whole concept of representatives - to me - is that as a whole they should average out to be what the public would wish for if the public invested as much individual/collective time and effort understanding and considering the issues. I don't want a representative who will just follow mob rule.

ok, so what this is saying is that voters deserve to get what they get according to their level of understanding of the issues. At a general election voting for represenatives for 5 years, the voters have to understand all the issues and try to select a candidate and a party that will represent all of those issues as closely as possible. That is a much more onerous task on voters than if they had a system where all the issues were treated seperately and given time to deal with them. Your point is that the voters dont know enough about the issues to vote in parties that represent their views, but the obvious step therefore is to allow the voters more issues to vote on, not less and not the one vote every 5 years.

I agree that voters deserve to get the governments they select, but having a more democratic system would allow voters to select a better government, and what better way to get that through than via a new party that would bring this fresh approach into the current system.

Your point about the mob rule is that the voters if given all of these choices (ie: democracy) would produce poor results. You want someone elected to lead the mob, the unwashed voters who wouldn't know anything about anything. But if this is the case, how can those same voters vote with any sensibility once every 5 years on all the issues and have a result and different than the mob rule you predict. If you follow your argument through, we currently have mob rule!

Generally, I want a representative who will go out of their way to be
more informed, and more aware of the impact of their decisions than
the mob is.

But how does the mob (ie: voters) decide which representative to choose? How can each voter say, "yes, candidate 1 knows about A, B, C and D better than candidate 2" without the voter knowing a bit about the issues. If they dont its all based on perception/media, etc and if you follow your thoughts through, this is mob rule.

Is [the current system] worse [than proposed system]? Hard to say.

This is one of the points that most people make. Lets not give the voters more of a choice than they currently have as that type of system may be worse than what we have now. But you can apply this to any stage of increasing democratisation. eg: why should we give Women in Ireland a vote, the results might be worse - mabe mob rule, there are more of them! Why give the vote to people 18-21, the results might be worse. Why have a referendum on that issue, the result might not be "correct".

Overall, the one vote every 5 years is a microcosm of voting say on 30 issues 4 times a year. Its all a matter of frequency and the possibility of the voter to influence a decision on a particular issue. The current system is less democratic than a system that allows the voter with a higher degree of control.

But unless you wish to have and require direct voting for every citizen on every issue, the system will remain flawed.... and given that forcing every citizen to make a decision (and an informed one at that) on every issue is simply not feasible.

I agree that it is unlikely that every single issue can be decided upon for the collective good of the people. That would more or less require "connected brains", and for those star trek followers the concept of the Borg comes to mind. All thoughts are everyones thoughts. This is impossible. But getting a better system should be a target.

The issue is not that it is flawed, but whether or not there is a less flawed system which we would be willing to implement. Switzerland, with its direct democracy, has a good system that many (including myself) are highly complimentary of, but its by no means perfect, and it suffers massive problems. Did you know that as a result of the whole "direct voting" concept, for example, that there is currently no real legal "maternity leave" requirements. Why? Because the rich and the average male worker were vehemently opposed to the proposal, and so it meant it couldn't carry. Democratic, it may be....but fair? I think not.

Its true that a system like Switzerland can lead to situation where the minority might be unprotected. Minority issues are always difficult to deal with, but it always depends on what your concept of democracy is and what a majority is, etc. Its the age old problem of getting the turkey's to vote for Xmas. None of them will. But the issue has to be put across properly. If the benefits for society as a whole can be shown, then the voters will vote for it. If not, then they wont. Also, a balance has to be made that shows the consequences, eg: in monetary terms.

But this voter education and "conversion" of opinions is an important part of democracy, and a powerful aspect of the proposal/movement. Rather than having Governments legislate for ideas that the voters would'nt vote for and steamrolling them through is much weaker than having a system where the Government have to convince the voters to agree on the proposal. The latter may be slower at times but is much more powerful Government and much more representative.

Honesty, integrity, and a willingness to hold themselves accountable for their words, decisions and actions would be a good start.

Its a system and systemic problem. If the system allows corruption, it will happen.

the public changes its mind about as often as the media tells it to. Governments, on the other hand, generally have to take more mid- and long term views which are simply not maintainable in the face of a Want of the Week mentality....

Are you saying that the public dont have an opinion? That its the media which is driving us all? If that is he case it applies to the current system, and this is a different problem. But I dont think its as bad as you make out. People do have views that differ from the media and wouldn't a more democratic system actually give the people their own voice and counteract the media "control of the masses".

I agree that short-termism is a trap that needs to be avoided, and one solution for this are repeating issues - vote and vote often being the phrase. I dont necessarily agree that Governments take the best approach with long-termism in mind. They are equally culpable to want of the week, to panaormic ideals that are not feasible nor economic, but which we pay for all the same, and the are also subject to control by special interest groups.

A vote for all is the great equalizer. It wont be easy to bring in, and voter (and politician) education is needed, but the realisation that voters have more direct control should result in a better system long term and a more democratic one.

Dont give up just yet .....

redspider

dathi1 wrote:

hmm... interesting concept especially using an internet based communications system to get valuable feedback. The first major problem for such a party would be to overcome an immediate crack down by establishment media and politics when the populist policies put forward don't fit in with the establishments agenda. There are a range of topics that the majority of people feel strongly about which vary from left to right across the political spectrum. For example most people believe we should have a strong public health care system but without the waste and mismanagement by senior management and unions alike. Most people disagreed with the implementation of the bin tax or the way it was implemented. Most people want a proper immigration policy to tackle illegal immigration. Most people don't want the Yanks using Ireland as a logistics forwarding base to bomb innocent Arabs abroad. I suspect the people who would set up such a project as above would be even shocked themselves as to what the electorate want.
Of course the registration system on such a project would have to be near flawless.

You raise some good points dathai1.

I dont think the establishment would feel threatened until a new movement would become popular. A case in point is the slow rise of SF in the 26 counties. FF and FG and even Lab haven't done anything until SF becomes firmly established. The same coulld happen with a Popular Movement/Party.


In terms of which way people feel about topics, there is no way of really knowing without those topics given a fair and balanced discussion. The advantage of a Popular Party is that they have no hidden agenda and no past track record to keep up. For example, tax heavy or tax light. The party can move with what is seen to be needed by the people (an educated people).

> most people believe we should have a strong public health care system but without the waste and mismanagement by senior management and unions alike.

ok, but up to what point are people willing to pay taxes to provide for that service. And are people willing to tackle the unions and the interest groups within the health services (such as nurses, doctors and consultants) to tackle the inefficiencies. For example, one major problem in health is that public and private care is "mixed". So we have consultants that are being paid by public money and are also getting private money AT THE SAME TIME. This would seem to be clearly wrong, we could put it to the electorate and they vote on the matter.

But in all cases, a range of issues need to be put forward with suitable options. For example, what percentage of your tax should go to the health service? 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% (and with a good voting system you could offer everywhere in between). If people vote 10% they get what they vote for.

> I suspect the people who would set up such a project as above would be even shocked themselves as to what the electorate want.

Yes, it would be different and would take a long time of adjustment. In the early days with 1 or 2 TD's, nothing could be done, then in a coalition perhaps some of the policies that voters want could be brought through, but in time, more and more could get done and the voters could become better at self-government.

gom

In a country like the Netherlands there is no constituancy. So you can vote for any candiadate in the election. YOu have a vastly better choice and the electorite is much better representiated by view as oppose to location(constituancies). Take Ireland. 166 seats. Therefore you would only need 1/166 of first preference votes to be elected. With transfers almost any candiadate could get in on very small percentages. This woul led to a more representiative Dail Eireann.

I'm for the abolition of constituancies. Well atleast to the Euro Constituancy boundaries. Dublin, Leinster, Munster, Ulster/Connuacht

gaelic cowboy

redspider wrote:

Following on from the threads of "which party would you vote for" and "where are you on the political compass" www.politicalcompass.org , a question that no doubt many of us have thought about at some stage is the formation of a new political party or movement.

Many people and potential voters are disillusioned with current political parties on offer and the lack of an exact match of any party to an individuals preferences. An example of this can be seen if you fill out any questionnaire on your preferences. What are the chances of any of the 6 parties exactly matching your preferences? very slim indeed.

Another example of this "democratic deficit" is where the majority of people in this country protested against US military landings a Shannon yet our Government had no requirement to follow the wishes of the people.

Another interesting site to view is www.stemwijzer.nl . Whats interesting about the latter is that it asks 30 questions with a choice of 4 answers and the political parties must publish their answers. From that each voter can judge which party they are closest too.

Now, it is clear mathematically that say in a country like ours with 6 main parties (FF, FG, Lab, PD, SF, GP) that there is no way that most voters will match a party exactly (its the same in NL), and this leads into my hypothesis:

the current political system does not represent the views of the voters for a large part of the time .... in other words, the so-called democratic systems of the west are NOT really democratic at all!

How could one vote to one candidate in one party express all of my opinions on 30 issues, or even 1000 issues that may be of interest in the 5 year term of government. Its impossible. Essentially, the system is flawed.

I'm intesested in hearing your views, your solutions, and what you would like to see in a new political party or movement in Ireland.

One proposal is: a new party that reflects the thoughts of its voters in parliament exactly - EXACTLY. This will be done by using modern communcations with the voters on every issue, on every vote in the Dail, on every policy matter, etc.

Is it possible? opinions welcome ....

No it would be even worse it would descend into a lowest common demoninator party. By use modern communicatio methods yo limit the party to a specific socio ecomonic segment of society and not neccesarily the majority of Irelands people. ??????

redspider

gaelic cowboy wrote:

No it would be even worse it would descend into a lowest common demoninator party. By use modern communicatio methods yo limit the party to a specific socio ecomonic segment of society and not neccesarily the majority of Irelands people. ??????

It would be a party that would be more representative of its voters/followers on more issues down to a very fine level of granularity. Instead of publishing a manifesto and ideals which people vote on, the actual voters themselves decide what the manifesto is. If being more respresentative is lower or not is a matter of opinion, and the results may not be better or worse, but they will by definition be more representative.

In terms of modern commuications, the proposal was not to only use the latest and greatest only, but to provide a wide swathe of methods to allow ease of access, to keep it cheap, to keep it trailable, etc. For example, mobile phones, phones, e-voting machines installed like ATM machines, etc. If India can hold elections with e-voting surely Ireland can. Even the pencil and paper method will be offered, such as via the post office outlets.

redspider

da_deadman wrote:

This idea is just too unfeasible to work. It requires that the general public will ALL have a thorough knowledge of EVERY issue, evaluate it and then vote on every single issue. This just won't work because people follow the "Can't someone else do it?" policy that Homer Simpson used to get elected as Sanitation Commissioner...."the garbageman can....".

I agree that the extreme version of everyone voting on every single little thing cant work. But a lot of things could be voted on. And much more than currently.

For example, say there was a vote held 4 times a year say where 20 issues are put to the people. This would be quite feasible. In the case of a new Populist Party before they get into Government, they could conduct the poll themselves which would drive their policies.

The general public do have an opinion on many issues. If any voter doesnt have an opinion and wants to leave it up to others to decide, then they wont vote. Its not necessary that everyone is an expert on all the issues. If that was an approach for Government in general taken to its extreme, you could just appoint civil servants (=experts) who would run the country and no need for politicians or voters at all, as there is no way their opinions would have any expertise.

The point I keep coming back to is that our current so-called "representative" and "dmocratic" system was set-up in the 1600/1700's. It was a good step in its era, but its well past time for a better system.

Some countries have better democracy than Ireland, such that minority parties get a platform, but one vote every 5 years is not a very good democracy imo. It is very controllable from an authorities points of view, less controllable than a dictatorship though, but controllable for the people with special interests nonetheless.

Also, if you want a party to follow your exact wishes then all supporters of the party will all have to have the same wishes. If you vote on an issue and you're in the minority and the party follows the result of the vote then the party will not be acting on your EXACT thoughts. The system will always be flawed.

Well, this comes down to your own definition of democracy. For example, in some countries it takes two-thirds to make a majority. For us, we allow referendums that are as cose as 50.3% and 49.7% (Divorce). The Government was also allowed to rerun a referendum (Nice) because it didnt get the result it wanted in the first one! To many observers, this is far from being democratic. It is clear that the rights of minorities need to be preserved in some way, and the definition of a majority will need to be established (that culd be voted on!). In all elections, unless there is 100% for one of the choices, there will always be people that wont have their thoughts being represented. But all people's views can be considered.

For example, if the Populist Party (or whatever name its called) held a poll and found that 85% were against the US military landings in Shannon, then thta is pretty obviously the policy of the party. But if say 55% were against, then perhaps the party would need to conduct a more detailed poll and find out under what circumstances, etc. Not all problems will be a case of yes or no, and some are degrees, such as tax rates, etc.

redspider

therecklessone wrote:

That is representative democracy, there are alternatives.

Would you like to expand on that and discuss some of these?

One of the proposals for a new Party as mentioned could be better and more accurate representation.

But what else should a new party offer voters?

What philosophy should it adopt, etc?

redspider

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Possibly so as I haven't trawled through the Politics board.

Have you any links to the thread?

Would any of those involved in that discussion like to add a contribution here?


By the way, there's more to a new Party than say th proposal of better representation. This thread can be an open discussion about ANY policy that could be taken on board by a new Party.

On a few other threads there have been discussions about Socialism "versus" Capitalism. I dont see that these are two opposing poles. Capitalism by its definition is the free flow of capital and resources. Totally 100% free flow is 100% capitalism. There is NO country in the world with this model as all countries have Governments which regulate and operate certain functions and essentially control the capitalism in that country. The opposite of Capitalism is a fully planned economy. Everyone works for the government, everyone has a job, everyone has access to all opportunities.

Socialism on the other hand is Government operating a lot of functions for the betterment of society and to cater for those that have less opportunity, such as providing Health, Education, Security, infrastructure, services, etc.

So, countries are not either socialist or capitalist as these are analogue in nature and countries will have a certain shade of socialist policies, a certain shade of capitalist policies, a shade of liberatism, etc. And within these there will be items where a country is more socialist than other countries, so its quite a complex area to define.

Interestingly, this comes back to the issue choice and better representation. If you vote in one country say for a socialist party, you will have to agree to their wide brush of choices, without having the power to individually select which areas you want to be more socialist on, which areas you want

These are just some of my thoughts on it.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by NinjaBart
One proposal is: a new party that reflects the thoughts of its voters in parliament exactly - EXACTLY. This will be done by using modern communcations with the voters on every issue, on every vote in the Dail, on every policy matter, etc.

You will probably never get that, because ideology alone does not really govern a political-party's decisions and policy-positions. As we have seen with certain FF politicians, there are often "other" considerations e.g. bribes, or even legal-funding intended, in reality, to have the same affect as a bribe by influencing the decisions of a political-party in favour of those funding the party/parties.

The politicians would have to be Borg almost to do what you are suggesting, with their voters being part of their unimatrix (to use a Star Trek analogy no offence).

I personally feel very strongly that we need more free-market parties in the Dail. The PD's are the only one and although FF followed some of their partner's policies in term-1, term 2 seems to herald the resurgence of the irritating Left of FF, the one that helped keep Ireland a poverty-stricken backwater with policies that pandered to the Unions and taxed the country to high-heaven. FF are wrong to interpret their electoral-setbacks as being the PD's fault, or due to a perception of FF being too-beholden to the PD's. Remember, the most right-wing period of this Government was term 1, and they were re-elected. FF's fall from popularity started when the media started accusing them (in some cases rightly) of breaking their promises made at the election of 2002. THIS is the reason for FF's fall in popularity, not really ideology. Corruption also plays a role, and was my main reason for not voting for FF in the local-elections, since 70 year local one-party-states guarantee corruption due to the development of cosy relationships with dubious vested-interests.

I myself have no interest in forming a new political-party. The media never leave politicians alone, and it must be very annoying to have the media following you around all the time, with the consequent media circus if you have an affair etc. Alright, so it's not as bad as in the UK, but remember the fuss in the Indo over Bertie and Celia a few years ago. Again, nowhere nearly as intrusive as similar coverage in the UK, but still deplorable. I wouldn't want to have to put up with that. Or to have ever business-dealing on my part being viewed as "more corruption by politicians".

It is a pity that FF's behaviour has thus generated perhaps a lesser inclination of many talented individuals to enter into politics.

redspider

arcadegame2004 wrote:

You will probably never get that, because ideology alone does not really govern a political-party's decisions and policy-positions.

The proposal is to counteract that and make the "Populist Party's " decisions and policy positions governed by the people that vote for them.

As we have seen with certain FF politicians, there are often "other" considerations e.g. bribes, or even legal-funding intended, in reality, to have the same affect as a bribe by influencing the decisions of a political-party in favour of those funding the party/parties.

That would be an issue that would need to be voted, but it seems clear that all parties and the general consensus is to limit the funding of parties, not only to prevent dody deals but to provide a level playing field. There is a long way to go in this regard.

The politicians would have to be Borg almost to do what you are suggesting, with their voters being part of their unimatrix (to use a Star Trek analogy no offence).

Yes, that was mentioned that for a perfect communication system, the representatives would need to know the thoughts of the voters. That idea will remain in science fiction. The proposal is to make something thats workable, so increase the level of representation (democracy) in steps. The voting on everything wont work.

I personally feel very strongly that we need more free-market parties in the Dail.

There is nothing stopping the Populist party from being free market. If that is an individual policy that gets widespread support then it will get voted in.

FF's fall from popularity started when the media started accusing them (in some cases rightly) of breaking their promises made at the election of 2002. THIS is the reason for FF's fall in popularity, not really ideology.

Well, thats one thing that the Populist Party couldn't do with the system it would have in place. It could only change its policy if the same voters that voted the party members into the Dail decided to change their policy. Policies wouldn't be easily changed on the basis of a whim, such as a 50.3% majority going to a 49.7% minority. It would need to be a significant level, that level would still need to be decided upon and ay indee vary per issue type, although that may be too cumbersome at the start.

Corruption also plays a role, and was my main reason for not voting for FF in the local-elections, since 70 year local one-party-states guarantee corruption due to the development of cosy relationships with dubious vested-interests.

I agree its systems that lead to corruption. For example, did you know that Hospital Consultants do not have to account for their time where they work. They could 30 hrs private and 10 hrs puiblic and still get the 180k eur gross salary, compared to someone that does 60 hrs public work only. If you do not measure and control with authority, you cannot manage! Another example are County (Local Authority) Managers. They can re-appoint themselves! Have you ever heard of such blatant lunacy!

I myself have no interest in forming a new political-party. The media never leave politicians alone.

There are many roles to play apart from being the representative. There are lots of tasks needed that party activists and volunteers could participate in. Media is a necessary part of an open democracy but individual privacy is also something that needs to be upheld at certain times.

It is a pity that FF's behaviour has thus generated perhaps a lesser inclination of many talented individuals to enter into politics.

That may well be the case, dissaffection on a grand scale. But I wouldn't solely blame FF, as its an EU/Global problem.

redspider

It looks like I am the *only* board member really interested in discussing how a new political party/movement could work !!

So, is everybody satisfied with the status quo of parties on offer?

It seems like it.

Sand

It looks like I am the *only* board member really interested in discussing how a new political party/movement could work !!

So, is everybody satisfied with the status quo of parties on offer?

It seems like it.

I dont think youve presented a compelling alternative. Your party has no central tenet , message or philosophy beyond "Were for whatever the polls say!!!" Thats a pretty hard sell to make to people whose politics are guided by their own philosophy and experiences.

If I am a moderate socialist, and Ive the option between voting for say....Labour and your Populist Party Im going to vote Labour every time, because Im socialist, and I want a socialist government. If I vote for the populist party, then all I have is the option to vote in further party polls that might result in socialist party policy - or might not. A party needs a message, a confident road to utopia that it can sell to voters.

If FF/PDs decision to open Shannon to the US was so disagreeable, then dont vote for them in the next election.

Now, if you want to advocate direct democracy as a *system* rather than as a party, thats fair enough but that has its own problems. The vast majority of people are not versed in various disciplines to make educated decisions about the wide variety of policy areas that modern governments are responsible for. Voter turnout is pretty low, people are either turned off by politics these days or are just not interested in it - theres nothing to say theyre going to welcome the opportunity to turn out far more often. People as a whole can be manipulated and tend to be quite illiberal- give direct democracy 10 years running the justice department and well have paedophiles being drawn and quartered on O Connell Bridge. Democracy is not the same as liberty - whilst juries democratically decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty, they are restricted, instructed and guided by anti-democratic forces such as judges and lawyers. Germany has anti-democratic legislation designed to prevent a threat to its citizens liberties.

DublinWriter

Just to ligthen things up (no pun intended) I was seriously considering starting up a Smoking Party.

I think the manifesto would be pretty obvious!

As about 30% of the population are smokers, I think it would be safe to say that their attitude to FF would be such that most wouldn't use their brakes if they saw Micheal Martin crossing the road in front of them.

redspider

Sand wrote:

I dont think youve presented a compelling alternative. Etc ….

Its true a solid alternative is not ready yet and has to be developed, but this will take time, discussion and trialling. But it is not a party/movement without themes. One proposed central tenet is better representation and a real voice for the people in the halls of power. Granted it is a voice that can be changed as the people determine. An initial set of philosophies could be determined from the initial set of polls, on some major issues, but nothing is cast is stone and the advantage is that policies can change when there is a significant majority to do so.

Your argument that “Were for whatever the polls say" being a weak stance does not hold water as the current parties do follow what the 5-year polls do. The problem is that the polls are not granular enough, that there is no onus on the parties to be clear and made stand by their policies, etc. So it ends up in media representation and personalties where it is difficult to tell political direction between the parties. The oft-used phrase “politicians are all the same” is used frequently because there is some truth in the matter. The aim therefore is to provide a party where many people’s philosophies and experiences can be put forward into policies, perhaps not all the time for each individual, but most of the time for most individuals.

> If I am a moderate socialist, and Ive the option between voting for say....
> Labour and your Populist Party Im going to vote Labour every time, because
> Im socialist, and I want a socialist government.

Well this is what the Populist/Democratic (or whatever it could be called) Party will attempt to rectify. In your example a moderate socialist will vote Labour. But where is it written that say on 50 issues that the Labour party agrees exactly with their opinions? With such a broad brush as moderate socialism you will likely find that on 50 issues the Labour Party would agree on less than the majority.

One problem that the current political parties have is that they want to be all things to all people, and for now we don’t know what the exact answers are for the Labour Party, but the Populist Party would state its opinions on those 50 issues.

> If I vote for the populist party, then all I have is the option to vote in further party polls that
> might result in socialist party policy or might not.

Yes, its true that if the Populist Party was a non-socialist party as decided by its followers, then a socialist voter would not vote for it in an election. This would be the same for all unpopular policies. The party wouldn’t change its policy on a daily basis, but as the central tenet is direct democracy, it should have a system whereby all policies are challengeable at regular intervals.


> A party needs a message, a confident road to utopia that it can sell to voters.

The messages could be established at the start, say on a basis of a poll of 10,000 voters, before going into any elections. I’m not too sure if any party portrays a utopia though!


> If FF/PDs decision to open Shannon to the US was so disagreeable, then dont vote
> for them in the next election.

Well, that’s the problem with the current parties. They produce a manifesto but it doesn’t go into any details. I don’t think any party mentioned preventing the US from using Shannon in the event of a war.


> Now, if you want to advocate direct democracy as a *system* rather than as a party,
> thats fair enough but that has its own problems. The vast majority of people are not
> versed in various disciplines to make educated decisions about the wide variety of
> policy areas that modern governments are responsible for. Voter turnout is pretty
> low, people are either turned off by politics these days or are just not interested in it
> - theres nothing to say theyre going to welcome the opportunity to turn out far more often.

Most parties have positions on systems, such as the Labour Party in the UK which has tentative plans to bring in PR, when it suits it. So, a party can espouse a system and be the forerunner for it.

I agree that all people cannot be experts in all topics all of the time, but we shouldn’t underestimate the skills of the electorate. If you are stating that they are not smart enough to know the issues when they are spelled out say into 50 questions, then surely it is much more difficult for them to decide between parties when those same 50 questions are just barely hinted at in manifesto’s and central tenets and where there is no control of which way the parties will actually implement on those 50 issues. Giving voters direct democracy actually allows them to participate and decide, and if people don’t think they have an opinion on a question/issue they can ignore it.

> People as a whole can be manipulated and tend to be quite illiberal- give direct
> democracy 10 years running the justice department and well have paedophiles
> being drawn and quartered on O Connell Bridge.

Your main argument against direct democracy is that the voters do not have the skills to decide on issues in a popular way. Do you think that the majority of people (lets say the level for justice issues is set at 66.7%) would want the described punishment for Paedophiles? I do think that a settling in period would be needed, and this would be facilitate via the years/decades(?) it would take for a Populist Party to gain a foothold.

As for people being manipulated, that holds for the current parties and system.

> Democracy is not the same as liberty - whilst juries democratically decide whether
> someone is guilty or not guilty, they are restricted, instructed and guided by anti-democratic
> forces such as judges and lawyers. Germany has anti-democratic legislation designed to
> prevent a threat to its citizens liberties.

Juries can ignore judges guidance. However, it is true that in many countries (ours!) judges are appointed by political forces as well as the head of police. That is anti-democratic and should be changed. The Populist/Democratic party could espouse that policy if the majority of its followers/voters choose to do so. Ireland is slowly taking some steps to break down the barriers in the system in terms of Judges as well as the Kings-Inn monopoly and artificial limits.

Justin Barrett

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I personally feel very strongly that we need more free-market parties in the Dail.

Thank you for your help and support in the past . We are very very much alive and shall be competing strongly in the next Genral election .

JB

---

http://www.justinbarrett.org/

daveirl

This post has been deleted.