Are you interested in a new Political Movement/Party?

Sand

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.

You dont see that as a problem? Populist party representitives will be arguing for something one week in the Dail, and then when the next weeks polls come in theyll be arguing for the exact opposite? Theyll never be taken seriously as a party to form a government with for that exact reason so theyll never have a chance to influence public policy.

To be honest, the system where by idealogy defines a party and the voters choose which parties idealogy is most agreeable to them is more attractive to me than a party without idelogy, whose views are unpredictable, whose long term goals are defined by last weeks polls and go only as far as next weeks poll.

I think your goal of making political parties more attentive to public mood is a decent goal - I just think youre throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

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.

Well thats my point demonstrated - parties are doing their best to chase public opinion by chasing every single poll they can - hence the difficulty in telling parties apart because theyre all so desperate to appeal to the swing voter and god forbid their views offend anyone. If FF is the most successful party in Ireland its because its achieved the admirable goal of disposing of cumbersome idealogy or principles in favour of whatever the polls say. Also public opinion regarding politicians has never been lower in Ireland, and that is true across most of the devloped world - Id reckon that the public are basically disgusted by political parties grovelling at the altar of public opinion. Ask yousrself if you respect someone who speaks their own mind, or someone who always ask you what they should say? Why should other people be any different?

the Populist Party would state its opinions on those 50 issues.

And those opinions would last only until the next poll. The Labour party on the other hand can say - These are the core principles of what we believe, they will attract candidates, party workers and core supporters who can agree with those principles and slowly, over time, as the governmening membership "recycles" so will their manifesto.

If politics has begun to lose the publics faith over the past few decades its got a lot to do with the abandonment of core principles in favour of whatever it takes to get elected - i.e. populism.

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.

Well, every time theres a EU treaty to be accepted or rejected by direct democracy the government spends a large amount of money on distributing information about the treaty to everyone - and yet most people still claim not to have a rashers what the whole thing was about.

I feel most people elected politicians to represent them on these issues, much as the might hire a lawyer to represent them legally, or an accountant to prepare their taxes.

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?

Oh yeah - The Sun and co can whip up a frenzy of blind unreasoning outrage and hatred against perpatrators of terrible crimes quite easily.

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

Perhaps, but the democratic decision making process is removed from the public mood and often involves discussion, debate and compromise between political parties to reach a common agreeable position. As such the manipulation is less likely to affect the government. The hatred of paedophiles exists now - its just we dont ask people what should be done with those crinimals - we ask their elected representitives and legislators.

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.

Definitly not - Judges must be appointed and must not be in any shape or form elected or be concerned with public opinion in carrying out their tasks. Democracy is merely a device to achieve good government, it must not be confused with good government itself.

In March 1895, Vienna democratically elected Karl Leuger as its mayor. Leuger was an ultranationalist christian-socialist, likened Jews to locusts, and demanded they be ground into the earth like fertiliser or packed onto ships and drowned at sea. Franz Joseph I, the Hapsburg emperor, decided that Leugers election was a threat to the civil liberties of Viennas citizens - and I doubt many would disagree - and refused to accept or honour it. The other non democratic, authoritarian force in Vienna, the Catholic Church also came out against Leugers election.

Who was acting to achieve best government for Vienna? The democratic system which produced a louse like Leuger or the anti-democratic forces of Emperor and Church which rejected the democratic outcome as it threatened the liberties of the people?

California is an example of the harm direct democracy can do to something as delicate as an economy. Proposition 13 in 1978 was a direct democratic action which instructed policy makers to cut taxes to a certain level, and set limits on how much they could be raised. To give you an idea of how much the politicians thought of it, a younger Ronald Reagan thought the measure was too extreme! It passed with 65% of the vote. Reagan, and the Republican party became convinced that direct democracy was a way to cut taxes without bothering with something as bothersome as debate, discussion or compromise with opposing views - populist tax cutting referendums became all the rage.

In the 1950s and 60s Californias government was hailed as a posterchild for other American states to emulate. Now its suffering from electricty blackouts,its struggling from one fiscal crises to another, its infrastructure is decaying ( California spent 22% of its budget on infrastructure in the 1950s, now it spends 5% ), its education system is ranked towards the wrong end of the table when comparing spending and test scores, The states population has doubled but the University of California has not built a new campus for 3 decades but the state has had to build 20 new prisons in the past 2 decades.

Proposition 13 was followed by other direct democratic measures by which the public instructed the state government on how much money they could spend, how much money they had to spend, and how much they raise taxes. Today 85% (!) of the states budget is beyond the control of the state legislature or the state governer. People there are electing representitives to achieve good government, but theyve taken away most if not all of their representitives influence to achieve good government. When only 15% of the budget is up for debate then does it really matter which party you vote for? Is it any wonder the state government cant govern effectively?

My point from all that is that democracy does not lead to good government as some sort of rule. It is only a check against bad government, by removing governments that have lost the confidence of the people. It is not a effective way to determine economic or social policies.

redspider

Sand wrote:

Populist party representitives will be arguing for something one week in the Dail, and then when the next weeks polls come in theyll be arguing for the exact opposite?

You are presuming that the voters will continuously flip-flop. There is no indication that they will do so. Yes, voters can and do change their opinions but these normally take place over appreciable lengths of time. It wont be a case of one week, lets say 90%, are in favour of privatising state bodies and the next week 90% are against privatising state bodies. Voters can and should have the option of changing their opinions when there are changing circumstances. And given that we are in a dynamic world, opinions will change for changing times.

It is true that there will be occasions when the new party will be arguing for one point, and then at some point change its stance, but like I’ve said before, there are many positions of importance where a 50% + 1 vote does not constitute a “proper” majority and the New Democratic Party or whatever its called in that case would leave the situation in its current position until the voter changing stance is more clear.

To be honest, the system where by idealogy defines a party and the voters choose which parties idealogy is most agreeable to them is more attractive to me than a party without idelogy, whose views are unpredictable

I think that the party could start off with 30 issues defined according to say an opinion poll of 10,000 voters. I agree that to get people to vote for a new party that advocates a new system, there would need to be at least some starting point of thoughts rather than a blank sheet. That would make it more palatable, and although the 30 issues wouldn’t cover the full gamut it’s a start. The views of the party wouldn’t be so unpredictable.

parties are doing their best to chase public opinion by chasing every single poll they can, etc

Again, this is a good reason that the new party/new system will be fairer. If the current parties are putting in place policies to catch the swing voters, because they think that core voters wont move no matter what, then the representative system is better as it will cater for all voters.

If FF is the most successful party in Ireland its because its achieved the admirable goal of disposing of cumbersome idealogy or principles in favour of whatever the polls say.

Yes, FF will be the first to admit that they try to adopt policies that are broad based, that appeal to many types of voters, and there is both left and right in the party. Dermot Ahern re-iterated it during the week. They try to be all things to all people, and they have been quite successful at it. That of course makes sense, the more you appeal to the more successful you will be. What they don’t have and what the new party proposes is a new system that puts structure and formalises the opinion gathering of the voters, in a public way. It’s a powerful mechanism, as in a way, current parties don’t really want full democracy. They would be afraid of that to some extent.

Also public opinion regarding politicians has never been lower in Ireland, and that is true across most of the devloped world,etc,etc.

I agree that there is a lot disillusionment with politics but there are other reasons than “grovelling at the altar of public opinion”. That is probably the lowest reason on the list. There is dishonesty, politicians looking after interest groups, not listening, and not acting on what the people want. People don’t vote because they are dissatisfied with the system, with the lack of their voice being heard and they feel powerless. They vote with their feet by not voting. How many times have we heard “politicians are all the same”?

The Labour party on the other hand can say - These are the core principles of what we believe, they will attract candidates, party workers and core supporters who can agree with those principles and slowly, over time, as the governmening membership "recycles" so will their manifesto.

I understand your point, state your policies, stick by them and let the voters move around. The problem is that the Labour Party (and other parties) do not state their policies in detail, do not implement them when elected and in the intervening 5 years if things change, the voters have no say. They can only do protest voting. For example, suppose with the current FF/PD government, say you could distill what they are doing to 10 issues. Lets say they are getting a majority support in 9 of those issues (this is a scenario!) but not in 1 issue. Now, the only choice the voter has is to put in an opposing government say of FG/Lab/GP. But the voters don’t want that. They vote in FF/PD again but they don’t get their issue resolved. That’s the problem with the current system and parties. They do not represent the views of people accurately.

Well, every time theres a EU treaty the government spends a large amount distributing information yet most people still claim not to have a rashers. I feel most people elected politicians to represent them on these issues, much hiring a lawyer.

Well, in terms of referendum, they are usually constitutional issues and as such are legally terse in many respects and are usually major issues. They are not the day-to-day issues that people can deal with and relate to. Eg: decide if we should expand the EU from 15 states to 26, or decide whether petrol should be taxed at 40% a litre, 50% a lire of 60% a litre

Democracy is merely a device to achieve good government, it must not be confused with good government itself.

And there was I thinking that governments were supposed to be public representatives of people! If democracy is just about getting a government established, you could go down the American route, party D or party R. It doesn’t really matter which way you vote anyway, your vote is just a means of getting the politicians selected. Once they are selected they can ignore you, well, just enough so that they can still get back in. Can you see for example how some people would judge that the US is less democratic than say Ireland, or Switzerland, or the Netherlands? Can you see why people think that PR is a better system for representation than first-past-the-post as in UK? These reasons are put forward because they produce better representation. Good government is very much subjective.

In March 1895, Vienna democratically elected Karl Leuger as its mayor ..

This is an 1895 example. A lot has happened in the world since then. Did Women even have a vote? Was this really a democratic representation or was it poor democracy? I think the latter.

California is an example of the harm direct democracy can do to something as delicate as an economy, etc, etc.

There’s a number of points here but its not clear that any of these were caused by direct democracy reducing taxes and reducing government spending as a result (isn’t this the policy that the current FF/PD have employed and even FG/Lab/GP) and the result is the Celtic Tiger?

For one thing, the energy problems in California had nothing to do with Proposition 13. That was a problem in deregulating the energy market and running it, nothing to do with direct democracy. Enron and other companies manipulated the market. In fact did you know that many of those blackouts were in fact planned? In terms of level of spending on infrastructure, 22% sounds high, although I haven’t looked up any figures or studies. In terms of new prisons, yeah, I went to an old one at Alcatraz and it was empty! The point I’m making is that prisons get rebuilt. I’m not sure where you are getting your info from but I can assure you that UCLA has had lots of rebuilding taking place in the last 30 years. Lots!

People there are electing representitives to achieve good government, but theyve taken away most if not all of their representitives influence to achieve good government. When only 15% of the budget is up for debate then does it really matter which party you vote for? Is it any wonder the state government cant govern effectively?

If the people have set the taxes, and they vote representatives to manage how those taxes are spent, then what is wrong with that? They pick the best people to do the job. (OK, I will admit that if Californians are voting in Arnie there is something seriously wrong).

My point from all that is that democracy does not lead to good government as some sort of rule. It is only a check against bad government, by removing governments that have lost the confidence of the people. It is not a effective way to determine economic or social policies.

I do agree with you, that direct or better democracy does not in itself necessarily lead to good government. But there is no reason that it shouldn’t do any worse than democracy which just takes place on a less granular level and with less control. The latter cant lead to good government either. If the only point of democracy is to throw out a bad government every 5 years, then what happens after two cycles in a country where there are only effectively two choices of government, as we have in Ireland, ie: FF (on their own or with support) or FG/Lab (on their own or with their support)? We have been through a number of iterations of those governments, we have thrown them out but they keep coming back, even passing down the right to represent from father to son/daughter.

I don’t know about you, but I think there has to be a better way than that, a better way to be more democratic, and perhaps a better way to govern – no guarantees I admit.

dahamsta

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?

Sorry for lifting this again, but just in case it was driving anyone else mad, the movie was "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer", with Peter Cook (not Peter Sellers). And the voting thing came from the fact that he worked for a polling agency. On TG4 now.

adam