A discussion on democracy and accountability

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Oh so the definition of kidnap now includes beheading and broadcasting on CNN does it? Look the european versiuon of CNN international shows things that the US CNN light wont show. the exact same coverage can be "slanted" by adding or changing the titling scrolling on the screen.

also US TV is loathe to show dead american soldiers. A nipple at the superbowl became a natinal issue for Gods sake!

So your "what aboutery" slant that "The US is kidnapping but others are doing worse" just doesn't gel! Two wrongs do not make a right and it is not for the civilised state to copy the methods of terrorists and barbarians!

Does anyone know how many people are involved in total?You are right a civilised state should not be legalising kidnap.
I think the point mick86 is making though is that the democratic governments that do this are accountable.You and I may rightly be of the view that they are wrong to do it and that its the pot copy catting the kettle,however...
We do have the ultimate sanction to be able to protest against unjust laws.
Thats what distinguishes a democracy from outright terrorists.
In a democracy,you do have the right to kick up a hell of a stink and ultimately reverse what your leaders are doing, whereas the corollary applies to the likes of AlQueda-they,like any non accountable terrorist will do what they like.

A Dub in Glasgo

Tristrame wrote:

Does anyone know how many people are involved in total?You are right a civilised state should not be legalising kidnap.
I think the point mick86 is making though is that the democratic governments that do this are accountable.You and I may rightly be of the view that they are wrong to do it and that its the pot copy catting the kettle,however...
We do have the ultimate sanction to be able to protest against unjust laws.
Thats what distinguishes a democracy from outright terrorists.
In a democracy,you do have the right to kick up a hell of a stink and ultimately reverse what your leaders are doing, whereas the corollary applies to the likes of AlQueda-they,like any non accountable terrorist will do what they like.

We do have the right to be ignored as well?

What if the majority of people want their government to involve themselves in kidnapping & torture? What if the majority want their governments to invade other countries and kill thousands of civilians. Does the fact that it is a majority make it lawful? Does it make it right? Should there be some standards a country should behave to?

Dirk Gently

Tristrame wrote:

In a democracy,you do have the right to kick up a hell of a stink and ultimately reverse what your leaders are doing.

Nice theory earthman but how much of that is true in reality.

America is not France. Protesting and public opinion doesn't seem to have any affect. Perhaps the problem is that protesting and public opinion about reversing policy is mainly outside the U.S. and as such can't influence the Government. The problem there is that the American president affects the World with his polices, but only those living in the United States can vote him out of power. Not really very democratic or accountable when you think of those affected by decisions versus those theoretically able to influence and reverse those decisions. The process of reversing leaders decisions is not as straight forward as you suggest, especially in a very nationalist nation where any protesters are called "un-american", "terrorist sympathisers" and are viewed as being un patriotic if they speak out and criticise the government.

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

Does anyone know how many people are involved in total?

I dodnt think the EU courts or the US or Irish supreme court makes decisions based on how many people are tortured. I mean they say if something is torture it is torture and not define it based on how many people were tortured.

We do have the ultimate sanction to be able to protest against unjust laws.
Thats what distinguishes a democracy from outright terrorists.

If you think that voting every five years is a remedy for injustice then you have a very simplistic view of justice.

In a democracy,you do have the right to kick up a hell of a stink and ultimately reverse what your leaders are doing,

so what? In a dictatorship you have no such rights but may still "kick up a hell of a stink" and "ultimately reverse what the leader is doing" for example by deposing them. And do not forget "tyranny of the majority" which is one reason why I called you analysis "simplistic"

whereas the corollary applies to the likes of AlQueda-they,like any non accountable terrorist will do what they like.

You really have dug a hole for yourself with this one. The propaganda must be working on you. Look at my other thread on linking Iraq with AL Khyda for move reference. The point is

What had AL Khyda to do with Iraq and removing a dictator like Saddam from power?

clown bag

clown bag wrote:

Nice theory earthman but how much of that is true in reality.

America is not France. Protesting and public opinion doesn't seem to have any affect.

Frankly I'd disagree with you.Clinton wouldnt have went into Iraq and with the depth the Republicans/neocons ratings are in the pooper right now,I'd not be expecting them back bar a miracle.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

We do have the right to be ignored as well?

What if the majority of people want their government to involve themselves in kidnapping & torture? What if the majority want their governments to invade other countries and kill thousands of civilians. Does the fact that it is a majority make it lawful? Does it make it right?

Of course not...

Should there be some standards a country should behave to?

Well when the day comes that humans uniformly behave themselves in the way that you want them to,I'll be happy.
But because this utopia has never and more than likely will never exist because large cohorts of humans either dont care or actually agree with the lack of the kind of standards you want,you and I will never see it.
So you may get used to complaining if its utopia you want.

ISAW wrote:

If you think that voting every five years is a remedy for injustice then you have a very simplistic view of justice.

You're putting words into my mouth that I havent said.
As per what I said to ADIG just now, we could have the Utopia that you want,if only humans were perfect.
They're not so I'm afraid,like ADIG,you'll have to continue complaining I'm afraid-but I hear you-Cant do much about it though untill voting time.I can do absolutely nothing about Al Q'ueda.

Hobbes

The end of the day though the simple fact is there are no more checks and balances in the USA when it comes to the president. Even when the SCJ overrules him he has basically ignored them and is in the process of getting laws passed to overrule them.

Even now hes said that these secret prisons will remain open, just moved the prisoners out of them for the time being.

It appears there is no way to actually question the president or his actions unless he does the cardinal sin and screws an intern and even then I doubt it very much.

Dirk Gently

Tristrame wrote:

with the depth the Republicans/neocons ratings are in the pooper right now,I'd not be expecting them back bar a miracle.

That’s what I thought during their first term but they were indeed "elected" again. Propaganda, fear and nationalism have a way of subverting logic. As well as the one day of democracy every 4 years there should also be a mechanism for reversing policy should that policy be proved illegal / against the wishes of the people / against international law and so on. Unfortunately such a mechanism seems not to exist and the reality of the situation is once a government is in power it is in fact a dictatorship for the duration of its term and no amount of illegal activities on behalf of that government will bring it down. I actually feel sorry for poor Clinton, all he done was get a blow job and all hell broke loose.

I posted in the Al Gore thread a couple of days ago and I mentioned another Democrat by the name of Mike Gravel who is running for the 08 presidential elections. Mike seems to have a few good ideas, one of which is to increase direct democracy and to give Americans the right to vote on important national issues such as when deciding to go to war. I think this approach is far more democratic and accountable than four year unaccountable dictatorships where the Government can more or less do anything which it pleases irrespective of public support or legality.

Hobbes,You're preaching to the converted(even moriarty I'd say) as regards Bush Something has gone rotten in [STRIKE]Camelot[/STRIKE] the whitehouse.
We can only hope they're turfed out of there.

clown bag

clown bag wrote:

That’s what I thought during their first term but they were indeed "elected" again. Propaganda, fear and nationalism have a way of subverting logic.

aye but not indefinitely

As well as the one day of democracy every 4 years there should also be a mechanism for reversing policy should that policy be proved illegal / against the wishes of the people / against international law and so on. Unfortunately such a mechanism seems not to exist

To an extent it does actually-just observe what elected governments do as election time draws close-they listen more.As for whether the public buy that,well we're back to human nature again.

I posted in the Al Gore thread a couple of days ago and I mentioned another Democrat by the name of Mike Gravel who is running for the 08 presidential elections. Mike seems to have a few good ideas, one of which is to increase direct democracy and to give Americans the right to vote on important national issues such as when deciding to go to war. I think this approach is far more democratic and accountable than four year unaccountable dictatorships where the Government can more or less do anything which it pleases irrespective of public support or legality.

You know I spoke to another person here in Ireland yesterday that doesnt vote and says she couldnt be bothered.
Thats a large part of the problem in democracies everywhere.

Dirk Gently

Tristrame wrote:

.You know I spoke to another person here in Ireland yesterday that doesnt vote and says she couldnt be bothered.
Thats a large part of the problem in democracies everywhere.

That is of course true and apathy is a huge problem, however in matters of huge importance I think people would be more likely to vote as opposed to what they might see as an abstract election of a government and then there is of course the issue of those who do want to vote on important national issues but who are denied the right to have their say. I think direct democracy is a good idea, and can be practical when dealing with such important issues such as pre emptive wars and reversing a foreign policy which is counter productive.

The main question is......

With a government not willing to act according to public opinion, implementing policy damaging to the nation and not willing to work within the law, without a direct democracy safeguard such as is suggested by Mr. Gravel, how does that government remain accountable and democratic?

clown bag

clown bag wrote:

The main question is......

With a government not willing to act according to public opinion, implementing policy damaging to the nation and not willing to work within the law, without a direct democracy safeguard such as is suggested by Mr. Gravel, how does that government remain accountable and democratic?

I think you should get together with sparks on that one and start a movement but yeah essentially you have a valid point-its only when people are bothered enough to want what you want, that you'll see it through though.I guess democracy isnt as direct in that way as it could/should be ironically.

Dirk Gently

Tristrame wrote:

I think you should get together with sparks on that one and start a movement

* As you are well aware, the oath we both took prevents any such movements springing up in our beloved Camelot however I look forward to discussing such hypothetical scenarios over some ales and fine wine in one of our many taverns at some future gathering of the table.



*I realise this post makes no sense to 99% of you people reading it but I don't care.

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

You're putting words into my mouth that I havent said.
Oh really? Please clarify then.
What did you mean by

We do have the ultimate sanction to be able to protest against unjust laws. Thats what distinguishes a democracy from outright terrorists.

I suggested it meant we can vote in someone else every five years and that that was a simplistic view. you claim I was putting words in your mouth. then you go on to state

Cant do much about it though untill voting time.I can do absolutely nothing about Al Q'ueda.

In which, oddly, you use EXACTLY the words you claim I was putting in your mouth!

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

In which, oddly, you use EXACTLY the words you claim I was putting in your mouth!

No.You were putting the words in my mouth out of context.

If you read my surrounding posts,you'll see that I'm of the view that theres not enough people using their opposition when they vote... in other words,they are factoring in a lot of other factors which make one issue that may be big on its own less important to them.
Voters can turf out a government on a single issue if its important enough to them.
Then of course there are the myriads of people that dont vote yet compain.

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

No.You were putting the words in my mouth out of context.

that is a differennt issue (and one with which I also disagree).
You yourself used the words you claim I put in your mouth. I didnt! YOU actually used them!

If you read my surrounding posts,you'll see that I'm of the view that theres not enough people using their opposition when they vote... in other words,they are factoring in a lot of other factors which make one issue that may be big on its own less important to them.
Voters can turf out a government on a single issue if its important enough to them.
Then of course there are the myriads of people that dont vote yet compain.

And if you read my post you will note I called this analysis simplistic. It is simplistic because in a healthy democracy people dont just vote every five years and walk away from doing things in the meantime. Also, government is only one pillar of a healthy democracy. It is simplistic to say people can only wait and vote in someone else.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

that is a differennt issue (and one with which I also disagree).
You yourself used the words you claim I put in your mouth. I didnt! YOU actually used them!

I didnt use them when you said I used them...I used them afterwards but only in the context of my before and after posts.

And if you read my post you will note I called this analysis simplistic. It is simplistic because in a healthy democracy people dont just vote every five years and walk away from doing things in the meantime. Also, government is only one pillar of a healthy democracy. It is simplistic to say people can only wait and vote in someone else.

Again I never said that voting was the only option people have in a democracy(it is probably the most powerfull tool people have though).
You are either deliberately mis interpreting me or making assumptions.

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

I didnt use them when you said I used them...I used them afterwards but only in the context of my before and after posts.

I didnt use them in a direct quote.
Since then I have asked you what was meant by

We do have the ultimate sanction to be able to protest against unjust laws. Thats what distinguishes a democracy from outright terrorists.

Before I posted this quote I claimed what you were saying meant that

If you think that voting every five years is a remedy for injustice then you have a very simplistic view of justice.

you claimed this was "putting words in you mouth"

and then went on several times to state

Cant do much about it though untill voting time.

Again I never said that voting was the only option people have in a democracy(it is probably the most powerfull tool people have though).
You are either deliberately mis interpreting me or making assumptions.

Which is only validating my original interpretation. Okay you dont believe all one can do is vote every five years but I think iti s simplistic to claim that voting every five years is

probably the most powerfull tool people have

in a democracy. there are many many more ways to influence political leaders. I accept the Ed Burke theory that when elected no one should be able to change their representative until the next election but look what happened to him!

Dirk Gently

ISAW wrote:

when elected no one should be able to change their representative until the next election

Why not?

This is the problem with representative democracy, the weakest form of democracy in my opinion. You essentially vote for who you want to give your voice to at the expense of your own right to have a vote on issues. That essentially takes away the voice of the community and puts it in the hands of one representative. That's a big responsibility and one which should be fully accountable to those who elected that representative, including re-elections mid-term if that representative is not fulfilling his/her duties.

It would indeed be impractical to recall representatives on a whim but what happens when the representative elected neglects their original stance on issues which got them elected, or when they switch parties, or when an independent suddenly decides to join a party who his voters didn't endorse, or when they have been involved in voting against the best interests of the community they represent? When such things happen the representative is no longer representing the people who elected him/her on a specific set of issues/promises and should be made stand again in a re-election. I would hate to vote for an independent only for him half way through his term to defect to someone like FF. He no longer represents me once he does that and I am left to internal FF party discipline to correct any matters only they see fit to correct with regards to my once independent TD.

It’s about accountability to the people who elected you and simply accepting that democracy failed and your vote was wasted until the next election is very weak democracy.

ISAW

clown bag wrote:

Why not?

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/LFBooks/Burke/brkSWv4c1.html

You chuse a Member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not Member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament. If the local Constituent should have an Interest, or should form an hasty Opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the Community, the Member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it Effect.

....

People are elected for their judgement and conscience and not for the temporary whims of constituents.

This is the problem with representative democracy, the weakest form of democracy in my opinion. You essentially vote for who you want to give your voice to at the expense of your own right to have a vote on issues. That essentially takes away the voice of the community and puts it in the hands of one representative.

No it doesnt. there are other ways to influence to legislature. Media. courts. other representatives. It only takes away any right to remove a particular representative for a while once you vote for him.

That's a big responsibility and one which should be fully accountable to those who elected that representative, including re-elections mid-term if that representative is not fulfilling his/her duties.

If they were convicted of a crime or went bankrupt then they would have to leave the Oireachtas.

It would indeed be impractical to recall representatives on a whim but what happens when the representative elected neglects their original stance on issues which got them elected, or when they switch parties, or when an independent suddenly decides to join a party who his voters didn't endorse, or when they have been involved in voting against the best interests of the community they represent?

they are not members of a constituency they are members of parliament!

When such things happen the representative is no longer representing the people who elected him/her on a specific set of issues/promises and should be made stand again in a re-election.

He will. AT THE NEXT ELECTION

I would hate to vote for an independent only for him half way through his term to defect to someone like FF. He no longer represents me once he does that and I am left to internal FF party discipline to correct any matters only they see fit to correct with regards to my once independent TD.

So what about him has changed? Is he entirely a different person than the day before he joined FF? Luckily you are not in donegal north east.

It’s about accountability to the people who elected you and simply accepting that democracy failed and your vote was wasted until the next election is very weak democracy.

But I have already explained that you do not have the sole recourse just to wait till the next election. except in the election of the member for that constituency. there are plenty of things you can do but you cant de elect the person.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

I didnt use them in a direct quote.
Since then I have asked you what was meant by


Before I posted this quote I claimed what you were saying meant that



you claimed this was "putting words in you mouth"

and then went on several times to state



Which is only validating my original interpretation. Okay you dont believe all one can do is vote every five years but I think iti s simplistic to claim that voting every five years is

No I'd say,your post is argumentative and pedantic born of a lack of understanding of my own posts or more likely an unwillingness to accept that someone has a different and equally as valid an opinion to your own.

Dirk Gently

ISAW wrote:

http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/LFBooks/Burke/brkSWv4c1.html

You chuse a Member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not Member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament. If the local Constituent should have an Interest, or should form an hasty Opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the Community, the Member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it Effect

Did you not give out to someone else earlier about arguing from authority when Karl Marx was mentioned?

ISAW wrote:

People are elected for their judgement and conscience and not for the temporary whims of constituents.

Yes I know, that's my point!
I disagree with how this system works as it basically amounts to blind faith in one person not to change their views. If I wanted to be dictated to by someone who was undemocratic I would blindly follow religion. What you arrogantly call "temporary whims" other people call a democratic voice in times of controversy.

ISAW wrote:

No it doesnt. there are other ways to influence to legislature. Media. courts. other representatives. It only takes away any right to remove a particular representative for a while once you vote for him. .

Yes I know, that’s my point!
If I vote for someone I expect that person not to deviate from their manifesto which got them elected. Once they deviate from what won them the election they are no longer representing the wishes of those who elected them.

ISAW wrote:

If they were convicted of a crime or went bankrupt then they would have to leave the Oireachtas..

What has that got to do with anything I raised?

ISAW wrote:

they are not members of a constituency they are members of parliament!..

Again I am aware of that and that is my point.
You seem intent on arguing with me by telling me how things work now. My whole argument is that the current system is undemocratic as I find representative democracy weak and favour participatory democracy or at least more of a gel between the two as representative democracy is unaccountable to the electorate except for the one day they have a voice. What you are saying is, elect someone and if they then decide to do everything contrary to what they said they would do well then that’s tough ****. You should join FF, I'm sure they'd like your thinking. This is where we differ. I am not debating the realities of the current system, I'm saying I don't think the current system is as democratic as it could be and is open to misrepresentative democracy.

ISAW wrote:

He will. AT THE NEXT ELECTION!..

and once again...YES I KNOW, THAT'S MY POINT.
My whole point is that people shouldn't have to wait until the next election to have the representative they want, which could up to five years away. If a representative does as he says he would pre-election then there shouldn't be a problem, it's only when they deviate, shift positions or shift parties when a re-election should be called in that constituency. I believe the politician in question should stand against his nearest rivals who did not get elected in such a case, to give the public their true voice back again and elect the person who best represents them after the fact that their original choice deviated from their election pledges.

ISAW wrote:

So what about him has changed? Is he entirely a different person than the day before he joined FF? Luckily you are not in donegal north east.

Frankly yes. If I wanted to vote FF, someone would have got me drunk and/or held my family hostage and forced me against my will to vote FF. If I elect someone else I elect them in good faith that they are either independent or because I have faith in their party ideology. When that person then jumps ship he ends up supporting people who I don't want to support.
Notice how much faith a person needs with representative democracy. I say replace faith with a real democratic mechanism to reclaim your vote when it has been robbed from you.

ISAW wrote:

But I have already explained that you do not have the sole recourse just to wait till the next election. except in the election of the member for that constituency. there are plenty of things you can do but you cant de elect the person.

Yes I know you cannot de-elect a person, that's the point I'm making as I feel a community should be able to de-elect a person. Understand?
I know we can't do it now, I am suggesting we change that.


p.s. I'll just take this quote of yours out of context and re-work it a bit,
you said to earthman.....
"If you think that voting every five years is a remedy for injustice then you have a very simplistic view of justice"

I say to you.....
If you think that voting every five years is a remedy for undemocratic practice in public representitives then you have a very undemocratic view of democracy.

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

No I'd say,your post is argumentative and pedantic born of a lack of understanding of my own posts or more likely an unwillingness to accept that someone has a different and equally as valid an opinion to your own.

therefore MY opinion is a valid as yours! You accept that do you? When it comes to matters of fact you did state as a fact that voting in a general eclection was probably the most effective way to influence politicians and that we can usually do this only every five years or so. I think you are wrong. I do not think tony o reilly thinks his vote is his greatest influence. I do not think that my vote has more influence than my words as a member of the national executive of a party or a chairman of a union or a columnist in the irish Times.

ISAW

clown bag wrote:

Did you not give out to someone else earlier about arguing from authority when Karl Marx was mentioned?

Please read what i wrote and do not lecture me on "argument for authority" when I just explained what it was in that example . I didnt claim "Ed Burke claimed it therefore it must be right". I cited Burke to support my argument and rephrased the argument in my own words.

What you arrogantly call "temporary whims" other people call a democratic voice in times of controversy.

and nothing stops them for bringing these whims to the politiicians. If you think the taxi drivers have a valid case based on their behaviour then I happen to disagree with you.

If I vote for someone I expect that person not to deviate from their manifesto which got them elected. Once they deviate from what won them the election they are no longer representing the wishes of those who elected them.

this is plainly silly! Politics is about compromise! If you think the PD's policy in government is 100% the PD manifesto then you are sorely mistaken. Neill Blaney who if I am correct served longer as a minister than anyone else stated that a Dail of independents would be a very inefficient government.

My whole argument is that the current system is undemocratic as I find representative democracy weak and favour participatory democracy or at least more of a gel between the two as representative democracy is unaccountable to the electorate except for the one day they have a voice.

and I am telling you you are wrong! We have a "particapatory" democracy. TDs and senators are very close to the people. But one can also approach civil servants. today I met several official. The elected representatives observing told me that the people with the real power were the officials. All their motions and pressure were construed as to push those officials to find and implement budgets. I got several committments from officials. None required a VOTE or an election. In the chamber I attended I am un elected.

What you are saying is, elect someone and if they then decide to do everything contrary to what they said they would do well then that’s tough ****.

Yes that is what ed Burke said. And I agree with him 100 per cent. And what happened to him the next election? He lost his seat! the idea that a TD can do contrary to the electorate and expect to be continually elected is plainly silly. Even in Fianna Fail you can now see fringe local issues coming to bear on the next election. But government is not about local issues. It is mainly about the country.

You should join FF, I'm sure they'd like your thinking.

On most issues FG and Labour are no different.

My whole point is that people shouldn't have to wait until the next election to have the representative they want, which could up to five years away. If a representative does as he says he would pre-election then there shouldn't be a problem, it's only when they deviate, shift positions or shift parties when a re-election should be called in that constituency.

I completely disagree! If a candidate runs for FF or FG or whoever and then find the Labour party say is now in favour of abortion and now thinks that he is better off in Fianna Fail because thay are totally against abortion then he has every right to change. thisis in spite of the fact that the candidate signed a pledge to whartever party they were in. their concscience and judgement is paramount and not the opinion of their party , the whims of constituents ot whatever. That si the argument made by Burke but it is not arguement form authority!

I believe the politician in question should stand against his nearest rivals who did not get elected in such a case, to give the public their true voice back again and elect the person who best represents them after the fact that their original choice deviated from their election pledges.

I think that is bullsh1te

Frankly yes. If I wanted to vote FF, someone would have got me drunk and/or held my family hostage and forced me against my will to vote FF.

in other wiords you are biased by you opinion of the largest party in the state. No wonder then you oppose parties existing.

Notice how much faith a person needs with representative democracy. I say replace faith with a real democratic mechanism to reclaim your vote when it has been robbed from you.

the vote has not been robbed. you just dont vote on every decision and you leave it to those who are elected.

Yes I know you cannot de-elect a person, that's the point I'm making as I feel a community should be able to de-elect a person. Understand?
I know we can't do it now, I am suggesting we change that.

well start a referendum campaign and see if the people support you. My guess you would not even get a half percent of the vote in support.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

therefore MY opinion is a valid as yours! You accept that do you? When it comes to matters of fact you did state as a fact that voting in a general eclection was probably the most effective way to influence politicians and that we can usually do this only every five years or so. I think you are wrong. I do not think tony o reilly thinks his vote is his greatest influence. I do not think that my vote has more influence than my words as a member of the national executive of a party or a chairman of a union or a columnist in the irish Times.

Where did I say it was a fact? I can tell you that it is a fact that if enough people vote in an election for the governments opposition,thegovernment get turfed out usually*

You appear to be deliberately making the assumption that I am talking about one vote for the sake of making another hostile argumentative post.
One vote rarely makes a difference,but lots of them of the same mind when a government does unpopular things does make a difference.
The difference cant be made without the vote in that instance.
Any other i you'd like dotted there or t crossed ?

* The only offhand exception that I can think of there is the famous FF/Lab coalition

Dirk Gently

ISAW wrote:

Please read what i wrote

How Ironic that you should post that statement.

ISAW wrote:

and nothing stops them for bringing these whims to the politiicians. If you think the taxi drivers have a valid case based on their behaviour then I happen to disagree with you.

how is this relevant to my point about democratic elections in cases where a TD is no longer the same political entity who was elected in a popular vote to best represent the people who voted for him.

ISAW wrote:

this is plainly silly! Politics is about compromise! If you think the PD's policy in government is 100% the PD manifesto then you are sorely mistaken. Neill Blaney who if I am correct served longer as a minister than anyone else stated that a Dail of independents would be a very inefficient government.

Seriously, you have an uncanny ability to misinterpret points and reply with purple monkey dishwasher. My point is about democratic elections. It is not about slight shifting and working out of problems, it is about when gross misrepresentation of the democratic will of the people occurs. Taxi drivers? at least it wasn't your lord Jesus christ and personal loving relationships you threw into the mix this time. In conclusion Liverpool aren't playing great at the moment but U2 are still going strong.

This whole debate sprung from my approval of a Democrat candidate in the US 08 presidential elections who suggested people should have more of a say in big decisions such as important national policy and when deciding on whether or not to start a pre-emptive war. He says his proposal is a response to the gross misconduct of the Bush administration, misleading the public and acting contrary to international law. This is a democratic mechanism designed to prevent and also reverse bad policy decisions through a national vote. The discussion then moved onto Irish politics from American politics and I suggested the same type of mechanism to address misconduct by our government or by single TD's. It is not about having a Dail of independents or 100% party policy. It is simply about accountability. What I suggested barely even scratches the surface of Participatory democracy, it is simply a small safeguard against the pitfalls of representative democracy. I'm not a fan of representative democracy but my suggestion here is basically representative democracy with a safe guard to keep it representative. I would like a full overhaul of the system but I don't think this small suggestion goes anywhere near that far and I fail to see how it is not a good thing, even for those fans of representative democracy.

ISAW wrote:

and I am telling you you are wrong! We have a "particapatory" democracy.

Particapatory democracy
Representitive democracy

Funnily enough in the definition of Representitive democracy it states: "A representative democracy may provide for recall of elected representatives that voters become dissatisfied with" <----this is what you are opposed to.

Seriously, why can't you understand that I am suggesting a change to what I see as an unaccountable and undemocratic system, a change which I feel will make that system more democratic and accountable and less elitist. You cannot rebuke me by saying "that’s not how it is". If it was how it is I wouldn't be suggestion A CHANGE. A very small change at that. It's only a safe guard which would remain dormant unless someone abused their position.

ISAW wrote:

Yes that is what ed Burke said. And I agree with him 100 per cent. And what happened to him the next election? He lost his seat! the idea that a TD can do contrary to the electorate and expect to be continually elected is plainly silly. Even in Fianna Fail you can now see fringe local issues coming to bear on the next election. But government is not about local issues. It is mainly about the country.

why O why can you not understand that I am saying that waiting 5 years is something which I disagree with when we could make a change and allow re-elections in times of contraversy. local issues or national issues, it makes no differance if an elected representitive deviates from what s/he said to the people who voted for him/her.

ISAW wrote:

On most issues FG and Labour are no different.

so what? I just used FF as an example. It's not a party political suggestion, its a cross party universial democratic system suggestion.

ISAW wrote:

I completely disagree! If a candidate runs for FF or FG or whoever and then find the Labour party say is now in favour of abortion and now thinks that he is better off in Fianna Fail because thay are totally against abortion then he has every right to change. thisis in spite of the fact that the candidate signed a pledge to whartever party they were in. their concscience and judgement is paramount and not the opinion of their party , the whims of constituents ot whatever. That si the argument made by Burke but it is not arguement form authority!

So you basically believe the elected representative has the absolute right to do as they please, above the rights of ordinary people to have their views accurately represented. He is supposed to Represent the people, not misrepresent them. Why do you dismiss genuine concerns as "whims of constituents", it is very arrogant and shows your true colours on the democratic question. What if a person got elected based on their opposition to the use of Shannon by the us military and by promising to oppose building in sensitive heritage areas and then once elected changed their mind and supported the use of Shannon and supported building a road through the local historical conservation area? Is that democratic? Are the people who elected him being represented? Should they wait until the road is built and vote him out in 5 years time or should they have the option of getting him out straight away and electing someone who better represents their views.

ISAW wrote:

in other wiords you are biased by you opinion of the largest party in the state. No wonder then you oppose parties existing.

I don't oppose political parties existing. I simply want to increase democracy and accountability in elected representatives, something you seem to furiously oppose. FF is just an example I used again but yes I do have a healthy dislike for them. If it makes you feel any better I don't care much for the PD's or the blueshirts either. Please don't feel like I'm picking on your lot.

ISAW wrote:

the vote has not been robbed. you just dont vote on every decision and you leave it to those who are elected.

Those elected indicate to the people where they stand on the issues and this is what gets them elected. When they vote contrary to how they said they were going to vote this amounts to robbing the vote and misrepresentation.

Why is it called representitive democracy if the people are not represented but instead as you say, the "judgement rests soley with the person elected".
When such things happen representitive democracy becomes misrepresentative democracy.

ISAW wrote:

I think that is bullsh1te

TBH your opinion doesn't sway me much because I see your posts generally across many threads and fora as being irrelevant to the topics in hand.

I also have a not dis-similar view of people who constantly fudge arguments and introduce a new straw man into every sentence they type. (not you of course, just people generally who do that)

I'm pondering giving you the honour of being the first person on my ignore list as I fail to see any further point in responding to purple monkey dishwasher. Feel free to highlight my every word and then reply by talking about the price of a pint but if I don't reply assume I have you on ignore.

Have a pleasant evening

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

Where did I say it was a fact?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52044790&postcount=16
wher you stated

Again I never said that voting was the only option people have in a democracy(it is probably the most powerfull tool people have though).

and what I stated was: When it comes to matters of fact you did state as a fact that voting in a general eclection was probably the most effective way to influence politicians and that we can usually do this only every five years or so.

i.e it is a fact that you make the above claim. Now if you are claiming that claims are not facts but just you opinion then you present a very weak position. My opinion is that politics and politicians can be affected by much more than the threat to vote for someone else. I claim this is a fact. If you care to name three politicians we can ask them and see. then it will be a documented fact.

You appear to be deliberately making the assumption that I am talking about one vote for the sake of making another hostile argumentative post.

this is simple ad hominem. If you are losing the argument do you always resort to attacking the person. I find it personally offensive that you suggest that I am in the business of making a hostile post and that I attack the person and not the argumentative. As regards making an argumentative post what do you expect in a political discussion group? Did do you not know that in such groups people are wont to argue?

So chill the idea that I am out to attack you and deal with where I attack your argument.

One vote rarely makes a difference,but lots of them of the same mind when a government does unpopular things does make a difference.

Not my point. It is not the ONLY way to change things not is it necessarily probably the best way, as you have claimed.

democrates

ISAW wrote:

Tristrame wrote:

Where did I say it was a fact?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52044790&postcount=16
wher you stated


and what I stated was: When it comes to matters of fact you did state as a fact that voting in a general eclection was probably the most effective way to influence politicians and that we can usually do this only every five years or so.

i.e it is a fact that you make the above claim. Now if you are claiming that claims are not facts but just you opinion then you present a very weak position. My opinion is that politics and politicians can be affected by much more than the threat to vote for someone else. I claim this is a fact. If you care to name three politicians we can ask them and see. then it will be a documented fact.



this is simple ad hominem. If you are losing the argument do you always resort to attacking the person. I find it personally offensive that you suggest that I am in the business of making a hostile post and that I attack the person and not the argumentative. As regards making an argumentative post what do you expect in a political discussion group? Did do you not know that in such groups people are wont to argue?

So chill the idea that I am out to attack you and deal with where I attack your argument.


Not my point. It is not the ONLY way to change things not is it necessarily probably the best way, as you have claimed.

ISAW, is it your position that the current representative democracy system is fine and should not be changed?

ISAW

democrates wrote:

ISAW, is it your position that the current representative democracy system is fine and should not be changed?

that is not my ststed position.

Should ireland introduce recall elections? - NO
Should they offer "reopen nominations" or "none of the above" on a ballot paper? - YES
Should representative democracy be abolished in favour of everyone voting on every issue - NO.
I do not think radical reform of the Dail is nessessary or justified. I believe a reform of the Senate is warranted.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Where did I say it was a fact?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52044790&postcount=16
wher you stated


and what I stated was: When it comes to matters of fact you did state as a fact that voting in a general eclection was probably the most effective way to influence politicians and that we can usually do this only every five years or so.

And you ran away with my comment misinterpreting it as if I was talking about the one voter.

i.e it is a fact that you make the above claim. Now if you are claiming that claims are not facts but just you opinion then you present a very weak position.

You've an uncanny nack of stating your own opinion about other peoples opinions and then running off to something else.

My opinion is that politics and politicians can be affected by much more than the threat to vote for someone else. I claim this is a fact. If you care to name three politicians we can ask them and see. then it will be a documented fact.

Well now I'll have to moderate you and ask you not to claim opinion as fact.You've not made a case that my opinion regarding the one voter earlier in this thread was opinion stated as fact.

this is simple ad hominem. If you are losing the argument do you always resort to attacking the person. I find it personally offensive that you suggest that I am in the business of making a hostile post and that I attack the person and not the argumentative. As regards making an argumentative post what do you expect in a political discussion group? Did do you not know that in such groups people are wont to argue?

I suggest you read the charter.This is a discussion board,its not for ignoring or pretending pieces wrote by posters doesnt exist.

So chill the idea that I am out to attack you and deal with where I attack your argument.[

I'm very chilled thanks.That said,you carry on the way you are going and your tenure on this board will be short lived.

oscarBravo

ISAW wrote:

...you did state as a fact that voting in a general eclection was probably the most effective way to influence politicians and that we can usually do this only every five years or so.

ISAW, cop on. When someone says something is "probably" the case, it's just asinine to claim they're stating it as a fact. You're simply being argumentative for the sake of it.

ISAW wrote:

As regards making an argumentative post what do you expect in a political discussion group? Did do you not know that in such groups people are wont to argue?

There's a difference between argument and discussion.