The people of Ireland have spoken.

SkepticOne

is_that_so wrote: »

A free vote is also one that should be wisely exercised with due respect to the civic duty , in my view, we all have as citizens. To me there is an onus on all of us to inform ourselves, whether it be for election, referendum or any other purpose and then make our decision on how we have informed ourselves. In effect we need to be able to say to ourselves that "this is a serious and important decision and I have done my best to inform myself in order to make my choice".

It would be nice if every one did their civic duty. There would be no theft among other things. But at the end of the day, as the cliché goes, politics is the art of the possible. Enough whinging. Lets get down to the nitty gritty: what sort of policies should be adopted to ensure a better quality of voting?

SimpleSam06

auerillo wrote: »

More especially so when one realises that our Dáil no longer has any say in the majority of laws whice we now implement. It is the same for every other government in the 26 member states of the EU.

Doesn't make the Norwegian "legislation by fax" situation look too bad, all things considered.

is_that_so

SkepticOne wrote: »

It would be nice if every one did their civic duty. There would be no theft among other things. But at the end of the day, as the cliché goes, politics is the art of the possible. Enough whinging. Lets get down to the nitty gritty: what sort of policies should be adopted to ensure a better quality of voting?

Like everything else this has to start early. I suspect that public campaigns to target the adult population could prove costly but are desirable nonetheless. In my view much of the problem exists due the lack of two way communication which is part of the mandate of our representatives.

I think there is also a need to recognise that many of the public do not engage at all with politics and only see its more unpleasant self-serving side.

I would suggest that the following areas should be targeted and in the main through the education system

Primary/Secondary

Assuming this is not done already and judging from posts I've read around here it appears that it is not.

Civic duties- importance of politics (Get 'em young)
Our political system and how it works
Youth parliaments
Open sessions of local/national government
The EU
The Constitution

Public Campaigns

Local/National government- what it means to you
STF- has to be done
How our local government works
How national government works - judiciary etc.
How the EU works -Parliament, commission and other institutions
Very detailed and extensive information on whatever we are voting on in simple English - not just FAQs on a website . This should be done a minimum of 6 months before any vote and I'd even suggest making that a legal requirement for government.

Public meetings

TV/Radio/Internet

A public information series done in the same way as the excellent RTE series teaching people basic literacy skills or even that Ardal O'Hanlon series. Look at what Des Bishop appears to have done for Irish.

Even if half of this could be done it would be a very good start.

Scofflaw

More especially so when one realises that our Dáil no longer has any say in the majority of laws whice we now implement. It is the same for every other government in the 26 member states of the EU.

That would be really rather amazing if it were true. Unsurprisingly, it isn't true. The Commission initiates legislation, and the Council (which consists of the governments of the member states) both amends the legislation and has to pass the legislation - which is to say that the governments of the member states have to agree all EU legislation. That is actually the opposite of the claim above.

regards,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

auerillo wrote: »

To say “the EU doesn’t do things without the consent of its citizens (nor should it…)” seems an unusual claim to make, especially in light that only 4 out or 500 million of its citizens were allowed to vote on, for example, the Lisbon treaty.

How many times do we have to go through this? Certain countries don't legally allow referenda at all, certain countries don't allow them for treaty ratifications. If anyone in Europe was unhappy about this they could challenge it in court. With the exception of the UK none of them did. So noone made any attempt to seek a referendum on the continent. In fact if you take the French for example, they elected someone who told them that if elected he would ratify the Treaty without a referendum, so some people in the EU chose not to have a vote on this.

auerillo wrote: »

Although distinct from Irish legislation, EC laws become part of Irish law by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972. EC law also takes precedence over existing Irish law, which must be amended if it is found to conflict with EC law. To say that the EU is merely a collection of states forgets that most of our law, through statutory instruments which originate in Brussels, bypass our Dáil completely.

What you fail to mention (or realise) is that any new legislation is required to be passed by both the Council and the Parliament. The Council consists of our national ministers and the Parliament consists of domestically democratically elected MEPs. So while it may bypass the Dail, it doesn't bypass the Government we have elected to the Dail or our representatives in the EU. Additionally one of the measures that Lisbon was looking to introduce was the inclusion of a period of time for each members states Parliaments to review legislation and provide feedback. So I fail to see what the problem is here.

auerillo wrote: »

To imply that the EU is merely a collection of states with no legislative powers simply flies in the face of the facts. More especially so when one realises that our Dáil no longer has any say in the majority of laws whice we now implement. It is the same for every other government in the 26 member states of the EU.

Ask the fishermen of Ireland whether or not the EU does things without their consent, or the farmers, or the people who have cut turf for generations. I am not arguing whether what the EU has done for these groups is good or bad, but what they have done is certainly without their consent.[/quote]

Again see the point re the Council and the Parliament. Not everybody gets looked after all the time. The farmers and fishermen had as much say as anyone else in the election of our Government and our MEPs. Additionally the fishing sacrifice was something our Government and us as a nation (including the fishermen) both voted in favour of. Again I fail to see the problem.

auerillo wrote: »

Well said, and I agree that more and more people are becoming uneasy with both the direction or the EU and that democracy is being compromised to get there.

How is democracy being compromised? Where has the will of the people been ignored or overruled? Is the policy of unanimity democratic?

K4t

Ulyanov wrote: »

This was not democracy in action. The very fact that there was such a poor voter turnout proves the people didnt know what they wanted. The people have not spoken, they didnt turn up.

That is the victory for the no camp. They scared people away. To say Irish people have spoken for the people of Europe is a remark grossly wide of the mark. How can this be proven? Have millions of Europeans took to the streets in protest. Have governments fallen throughout Europe because they have not been afforded a referendum?

The answer is No they havent. To say it is a good day for Europeans?
No basis for this comment.

The reason they didn't turn up is because the YES side were so blatantly arrogant that they didn't feel it necessary to explain the treaty. Hopefully they will now understand that the people still have the power in a democracy.

I think you'll find that most 'Ordinary Citizens' in Britain and eastern Europe would vote NO if given the chance.

The only people who want change work in the EU or are in power in their respective governments. Power hungry scum.

Scofflaw

K4t wrote: »

The reason they didn't turn up is because the YES side were so blatantly arrogant that they didn't feel it necessary to explain the treaty. Hopefully they will now understand that the people still have the power in a democracy.

I think you'll find that most 'Ordinary Citizens' in Britain and eastern Europe would vote NO if given the chance.

I think we'll find you can't back up that assertion.

K4t wrote: »

The only people who want change work in the EU or are in power in their respective governments. Power hungry scum.

Gosh. 750,000 people (sorry, "power hungry scum") working for the EU in Ireland alone. Who knew?

slight regards,
Scofflaw

K-9

K4t wrote: »

The only people who want change work in the EU or are in power in their respective governments. Power hungry scum.

And the other 820,000 [In Ireland alone] agree with you?

Actually scrap that:

The only people who want change work in the EU

Explain?

THEHEDGEHOG

Ulyanov wrote: »

This was not democracy in action. The very fact that there was such a poor voter turnout proves the people didnt know what they wanted. The people have not spoken, they didnt turn up.

That is the victory for the no camp. They scared people away. To say Irish people have spoken for the people of Europe is a remark grossly wide of the mark. How can this be proven? Have millions of Europeans took to the streets in protest. Have governments fallen throughout Europe because they have not been afforded a referendum?

The answer is No they havent. To say it is a good day for Europeans?
No basis for this comment.

Actually, the turn out was excellent.

How about you compare the turn out to previous European votes.

Every major newspaper, political party, trade union, business organisation says vote yes, and yet people still see through the propaganda. Tells me all I need to know.

Everyone not on the payroll is against this tyrrany.

molloyjh

K4t wrote: »

The reason they didn't turn up is because the YES side were so blatantly arrogant that they didn't feel it necessary to explain the treaty. Hopefully they will now understand that the people still have the power in a democracy.

While it is true that the political parties campaign was woeful you also have to remember that it was the Government who set up and funded the Referendum Commission which sent explanations and further sources of information to every voter in the country. And can I ask when could the people not have the power in a democracy? Surely if they didn't it wouldn't be, by definition, a democracy?

K4t wrote: »

I think you'll find that most 'Ordinary Citizens' in Britain and eastern Europe would vote NO if given the chance.

Now unless these"Ordinary Citizens" you refer to are a specific group of people within member states (why the caps?) then I think you'll find that this is a nonsense point as you have nothing to back that up with. In fact given that every other country is ratifying the treaty and there has to date been no major campaigning or protesting against it in the other member states, what little evidence we do have points in the opposite direction. As I've said to this point dozens of times already, if you have evidence to the contrary then please share it....

K4t wrote: »

The only people who want change work in the EU or are in power in their respective governments. Power hungry scum.

Given that the previous point was totally baseless then this one must also be.

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

Every major newspaper, political party, trade union, business organisation says vote yes, and yet people still see through the propaganda. Tells me all I need to know.

Yes my prickly friend. Pretty much every lobby group in the country have conspired against the people regardless of the fact that they all have differing agendas and represent different groups. Its the same all over the EU, the people are being conned by almost everyone that they have elected and chosen to represent them in any and every way.

If that isn't extreme paranoia I'm not sure what is. From my perspective if anyone got a conspiracy to work amoung such diverse groups across such a wide area then I'd nearly allow them away with it, because an achievement of that magnitude would be tremendous.

I think its far more likely however that the poor Yes campaign lost to the twisted No campaign because the No guys were more convincing. That doesn't make them more right. It would after all be a sad day when the only people looking after our interests are the Shinners and the Socialist party together with some bloke that supplies the US military and has no background in Irish, let alone European, politics.

THEHEDGEHOG wrote: »

Everyone not on the payroll is against this tyrrany.

:D:D Oh the tyranny. They give us between 35 and 40 billion euro in direct investment and allow us a low corporation tax along with free access to the EU markets so that we can get bucket loads of foreign investment into the country. They get us to elect the members of the EU parliament and allow our directly elected ministers vote on and help formulate policy. They give us opt outs on a number of areas that we request opt outs for and have given us a greater weight in voting than our population alone allows. Lisbon wanted to open the voting on the Council up to the public so that we could see exactly who was voting for what and wanted to set up an EU wide petition system so that the people themselves could get a direct say in EU policy. I feel so cheated! :D:D :rolleyes:

LostinBlanch

molloyjh wrote: »

wanted to set up an EU wide petition system so that the people themselves could get a direct say in EU policy. I feel so cheated! :D:D :rolleyes:

Come on I have to take issue with this. You and I both know the EU commission are under no obligation to take any action if the result of such an excercise is not to their liking. Other than to consider the result of such a petition. Much like you could tell a taxi driver to take one particular route to your destination and he could consider it and take another. Yes I know you can make a complaint to the taxi regulator, but if the commission ignores the wishes of such a petition, who can the petitioners complain to? The Commission?

molloyjh wrote: »

While it is true that the political parties campaign was woeful you also have to remember that it was the Government who set up and funded the Referendum Commission which sent explanations and further sources of information to every voter in the country.

So that was purely out of the governments conviction that voters should have as much information on any issue put to a referendum as possible before they voted? Or was it as a result of the McKenna judgement?*

molloyjh wrote: »

And can I ask when could the people not have the power in a democracy? Surely if they didn't it wouldn't be, by definition, a democracy?

I agree with you 100% here. You'll have to excuse me if I haven't posted on here for a while, but I feel that a proportion of no voters would also agree with you, hence their calls for an EU wide plebiscite to properly guage the feelings of all EU citizens. These claims have been matched by those on the yes side who have outlined the reasons for not doing so due to history and the realpolitik of representative democracy.
So I'd be interested to find out the current thinking on posters who campaigned for a yes vote on this article by Gene Kerrigan highlighting the fact that the [paper of record] Irish Times [/paper of record]seems to be calling for the Dail to ignore the stated wishes of the electorate. The fact that it is in reference to Lisbon is neither here nor there for me. More the fact that this is even being considered. I can't remember any such thing being proposed in any irish newspaper. How do posters who advocated a yes vote feel about such claims, if true? Kerrigan is smart pulling up the last divorce referendum as an example.It was divisive, but the result was accepted by all sides.

Of course, if Stephen Collins in his role as political editor of the Times was on a solo run, how would the same posters feel if his views accurately reflected the views of the "establishment"?

* The McKenna judgement is not perfect. Articles 2 & 3 referendum springs to mind, where equal time and resources had to be given to the extreme repubuicans . But the electorate were well able to see through their arguments. Personally speaking, it's a price I'd pay for democracy - giving people all the facts and letting them make up their own minds.

molloyjh

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Come on I have to take issue with this. You and I both know the EU commission are under no obligation to take any action if the result of such an excercise is not to their liking. Other than to consider the result of such a petition. Much like you could tell a taxi driver to take one particular route to your destination and he could consider it and take another. Yes I know you can make a complaint to the taxi regulator, but if the commission ignores the wishes of such a petition, who can the petitioners complain to? The Commission?

The problem with this view is that we in Ireland have no experience of petitions or how effective they are or are not. Many EU countries, however, do have legislation in place regarding petitions and, AFAIK, it was a petition itself that led to the Citizens Initiative being included in the Treaty. I wouldn't think that the Commission not being forced to act on a petition is anything but logical anyway. After all you just need 1 million people to have it considered. Thats approx 0.2% of the population of the entire EU. No way should such a small number of people automatically have the right to dictate policy.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

So that was purely out of the governments conviction that voters should have as much information on any issue put to a referendum as possible before they voted? Or was it as a result of the McKenna judgement?*

In terms of the point I was making it doesn't matter why it was done, just that it was. Believe me I have very little faith in our politicians and I really think they reckoned that if they asked us to vote Yes we would. As I've said before their campaign proves there is a huge disconnect between us and them.

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I agree with you 100% here. You'll have to excuse me if I haven't posted on here for a while, but I feel that a proportion of no voters would also agree with you, hence their calls for an EU wide plebiscite to properly guage the feelings of all EU citizens. These claims have been matched by those on the yes side who have outlined the reasons for not doing so due to history and the realpolitik of representative democracy.
So I'd be interested to find out the current thinking on posters who campaigned for a yes vote on this article by Gene Kerrigan highlighting the fact that the [paper of record] Irish Times [/paper of record]seems to be calling for the Dail to ignore the stated wishes of the electorate. The fact that it is in reference to Lisbon is neither here nor there for me. More the fact that this is even being considered. I can't remember any such thing being proposed in any irish newspaper. How do posters who advocated a yes vote feel about such claims, if true? Kerrigan is smart pulling up the last divorce referendum as an example.It was divisive, but the result was accepted by all sides.

Of course, if Stephen Collins in his role as political editor of the Times was on a solo run, how would the same posters feel if his views accurately reflected the views of the "establishment"?

As I'm sure (or at least would hope) most Yes voters would have serious issues with an idea like this, if in fact it were being seriously considered. I've stated my position on this myself a number of times, but its probably well buried at this stage so I'll try and make it clear again:
1. I support the current (official) position of our Government, i.e. that no decision should be made or fully considered until the study into the result that is currently being carried out has been completed and presented (due next month). I always feel a little dirty when I support FF in any way!
2. I believe that should the study find that ignorance played a significant part in the referendum (significant meaning that the proportion of people voting through ignorance is roughly equal to or greater than the winning margin) then a campaign to educate the people must be run followed by another referendum. I think the people need to know what they are voting on for their opinion to count. However if they don't they should be informed, not ignored.
3. If another referendum is run I feel it would be vital to hold another study regardless of the result to ensure that ignorance didn't factor into the second referendum, at least not significantly.
4. If it turns out that ignorance did not plat a significant role in the result then another referendum will be pointless unless there are changes to the Treaty.

By ignorance I mean the blatant "I didn't understand it" voters and the voters who mis-understood the Treaty - that example of the woman believing that young men would be conscripted into an EU army being an exaggerated, but none-the-less perfect example.

dresden8

Is the study considering why people voted "yes" and how they should be re-educated?

molloyjh

dresden8 wrote: »

Is the study considering why people voted "yes" and how they should be re-educated?

Sorry, I didn't state it above and probably should have, but there was most certainly ignorance on the Yes side also and this should be factored in. I don't know the details of the study so can't tell you with any great certainty what the remit for it is, but I would imagine it would have to include a general cross-section of the population and in so doing cover both Yes and No voters as well as abstainees.

However it is entirely possible that the study will look solely at No voters. I would imagine the logic for this is that a Yes vote is a fairly obvious "This is what we want to do" vote which doesn't need explanation where-as a No vote is a "This is what we don't want" vote that needs to be examined to see what the electorate does want. I'm not sure how good an idea that would be or how much faith we can place in the Yes vote overall either.

Either way my general point is that the electorate as a whole need to know the details of what they are voting on. Once/assuming they do/did then I'll accept the results of a referendum regardless of my personal opinion. I just don't believe I should respect a result that was formed from ignorance, and if this one was then I won't respect it. If not then No it is.

I will gladly support the democratic decision of the people when they have their say on a topic, but if - wildly (???) exaggerated figure for illustrative purposes - 60% of all voters (Yes & No) didn't understand what they were voting for can we really say that their input reflects their real wishes on the matter?

dresden8

Yes

oscarBravo

Strikes me as a classic example of "democratic fundamentalism". If all individuals are fallible, what makes a given group of individuals infallible?

molloyjh

Ok, that was a response I suppose!

I just feel that if I turned something away that I didn't understand or wasn't sure of how could I tell if I was better or worse off for it?

If I handed you a cardboard box filled with money and you told me you didn't want it because you were under the impression there was an explosive device in it, would you rather continue on in ignorance or would you like to be told what was in it and be given another chance to answer? Would the No answer really mean you didn't want the money? And if not then how could it possibly be your opinion on a box of money? Surely it is your opinion of a bomb, which is totally irrelevant. In this case your will regarding a bomb has been done but not your will regarding money.

I'm not saying that Lisbon is a box of money or making any judgement in the above paragraph, but the analogy is appropriate. How can anyones opinion on something be considered their "real" opinion if it was based on something that, well, wasn't real? I want to see the people's will being done, but IF the referendum results were overly affected by ignorance then I don't think we can say that the people will has been done at all, at least not regarding the Treaty.

If you disagree, and by all means do, then lets hear your reasons for it, because to be fair that last post was a bit.....empty.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Strikes me as a classic example of "democratic fundamentalism". If all individuals are fallible, what makes a given group of individuals infallible?

Not sure I follow OB. Do you mean who judges and how do they judge who is or is not ignorant in the case of the referendum?

oscarBravo

molloyjh wrote: »

Not sure I follow OB. Do you mean who judges and how do they judge who is or is not ignorant in the case of the referendum?

I suppose it was a sort of flippant response to dresden's flippant response.

"Democratic fundamentalism" is a phrase I've come across lately, describing people who have a quasi-religious belief in the infallibility and perfection of democracy; the belief that it is heretical to question the perfect wisdom expressed by the people at the ballot box.

I'm at a place where I'm quite disillusioned with democracy. Unfortunately, I don't have any better ideas at the moment, but I don't think that means I should stop questioning the validity of democratic fundamentalism.

molloyjh

oscarBravo wrote: »

I suppose it was a sort of flippant response to dresden's flippant response.

"Democratic fundamentalism" is a phrase I've come across lately, describing people who have a quasi-religious belief in the infallibility and perfection of democracy; the belief that it is heretical to question the perfect wisdom expressed by the people at the ballot box.

I'm at a place where I'm quite disillusioned with democracy. Unfortunately, I don't have any better ideas at the moment, but I don't think that means I should stop questioning the validity of democratic fundamentalism.

Hmm...must remember that one. I like it. The idea in itself isn't all that crazy, but it depends so much on the electorate that should apathy and/or ignorance become widespread it has the potential to derail democracy completely. Its probably more suited to the Political Theory forum, but it has the potential to be the first political system (that I'm aware of) to be derailed by the peoples mis-use of it and not the "ruling classes". And its not solely limited to Lisbon.....

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote:

"Democratic fundamentalism" is a phrase I've come across lately, describing people who have a quasi-religious belief in the infallibility and perfection of democracy; the belief that it is heretical to question the perfect wisdom expressed by the people at the ballot box.

Like "market fundamentalism" it is also often used by those who substitute such unthinking veneration for any form of critical analysis - any idea that democracy has options.

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm at a place where I'm quite disillusioned with democracy. Unfortunately, I don't have any better ideas at the moment, but I don't think that means I should stop questioning the validity of democratic fundamentalism.

I think that's fair - "the worst possible system, except for those other systems which have been tried from time to time". There really isn't a better system overall, I'm afraid - but there are ways of tempering the problems.

molloyjh wrote: »

Hmm...must remember that one. I like it. The idea in itself isn't all that crazy, but it depends so much on the electorate that should apathy and/or ignorance become widespread it has the potential to derail democracy completely. Its probably more suited to the Political Theory forum, but it has the potential to be the first political system (that I'm aware of) to be derailed by the peoples mis-use of it and not the "ruling classes". And its not solely limited to Lisbon.....

History contains quite a few examples of both republics and democracies that have voted to "dissolve the people".

cordially,
Scofflaw

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Democratic fundamentalism" is a phrase I've come across lately, describing people who have a quasi-religious belief in the infallibility and perfection of democracy; the belief that it is heretical to question the perfect wisdom expressed by the people at the ballot box.

Can you give an example of someone who holds this view?

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm at a place where I'm quite disillusioned with democracy. Unfortunately, I don't have any better ideas at the moment

Would you prefer if this country was run like the politics forum of boards.ie?

molloyjh

O'Morris wrote: »

Can you give an example of someone who holds this view?

Some people believe that a referendum result is right because the majority voted on it and for no other reason. They ignore there how's and the why's and the possibility that maybe the people didn't understand. None of it seems to matter to some people. Any vote is a valid vote as it is an exercise in democracy and should always be heeded.

I recently asked someone here on boards that if someone voted No to Lisbon because they were told that the Wicked Witch of the East would turn us all to stone if they didn't, should we respect that vote? Should that vote be considered valid, and should we allow a vote like that shape the way we progress. I was told that yes we should. Because a vote is a vote and who are we to qualify its validity.

Now while that point may be true for some cases, I think its fair to say that the wicked witch of the east does not exist and even if she did, she'd be doing fairly well to turn us all to stone. Like a lot of fundamentalisms it is the abandonment of reason for a totalitarian belief in the infallibility of, in this case, a system (there were even people saying that individuals with severe mental disabilities should also be allowed to vote even though they may not even be able to take care of themselves on a daily basis!).

There is also the belief among people (and I've seen plenty of it here) that because the people voted No, then No was obviously the right answer. Yet people voted for Hitler. He, democratically, had the largest party in Germany from 1930. There are plenty of cases that show us that democracy is deeply flawed and that the "people" are very capable of making a complete hash of things..

O'Morris wrote: »

Would you prefer if this country was run like the politics forum of boards.ie?

I think you'll find OB said he can't think of a better system. Ultimately the problem with democracy is that it requires full and complete participation by the people of the country to be successful. As soon as people stop caring and stop bothering to inform themselves etc it is bound to start having undesirable affects. Yet what better system is there? Given that all systems require human interaction of some description to function every political system we develop is going to be flawed.

bugler

Ultimately the problem with democracy is that it requires full and complete participation by the people of the country to be successful.

What, 100% turnouts? You could force people to vote I suppose.

I don't particular like the habit of Irish people voting FF into power continually, or how they turn a blind eye to very obviously dodgy/corrupt/immoral people come election time. It's not easy being a democrat, you know. Shock horror - you don't always get your own way.

But then how you react to losing is what actually defines you as a democrat. Anyone can be a democrat when the majority is making the choices they want. Respecting other peoples opinions, even when they're dumb, or founded on horse****, or just plain wrong is democracy.

Democracy doesn't need full participation of the electorate. It doesn't need massive sophistication on the part of the electorate. What it needs is a political culture that respects the choices made by the electorate. That is Democracy. If you don't like it, that's fine. Neither do I. But if you're going to argue against it, at least have the courage to admit that you are not a democrat.

oscarBravo

bugler wrote: »

It's not easy being a democrat, you know. Shock horror - you don't always get your own way.

It is possible to have other problems with democracy besides not getting your own way.

But then how you react to losing is what actually defines you as a democrat. Anyone can be a democrat when the majority is making the choices they want. Respecting other peoples opinions, even when they're dumb, or founded on horse****, or just plain wrong is democracy.

O'Morris, you wanted an example of democratic fundamentalism? I have one here for you.

I respect the right of other people to have opinions that are dumb, founded on horse****, or just plain wrong. I refuse point-blank to respect those opinions themselves. Does that make me anti-democratic? I don't think so. Does it make me anti-democratic-fundamentalism? Probably.

Democracy doesn't need full participation of the electorate. It doesn't need massive sophistication on the part of the electorate. What it needs is a political culture that respects the choices made by the electorate. That is Democracy. If you don't like it, that's fine. Neither do I. But if you're going to argue against it, at least have the courage to admit that you are not a democrat.

My respect for democratic decisions is tempered by the quality of those decisions. We voted "no" to the Lisbon treaty: fair enough. But do we have anything more substantial to offer than "no means no"?

I'll call your attention once again to the etymology of the word "democracy" - the Greek word "kratos" meaning "rule". Ruling implies a lot more work than merely answering a yes-or-no question with an uninformed reply, and then refusing to be drawn on the implications of that reply.

O'Morris

molloyjh wrote:

They ignore there how's and the why's and the possibility that maybe the people didn't understand. None of it seems to matter to some people.

I think people are more likely to overlook the how's and why's when the result of a referendum is in their favour but when the result is not in their favour they're more likely to complain about it.

For example, how many of the people who are now questioning the validity of the Lisbon Treaty result questioned the validity of the second Nice Treaty result a few years ago? I don't know if there were any post-referendum polls in the aftermath of that referendum but considering that it was mostly the same population voting on the two treaties I'm willing to bet that ignorance played a role in that referendum result as well.

molloyjh wrote:

Any vote is a valid vote as it is an exercise in democracy and should always be heeded.

I would say a vote is a valid vote it meets the conditions set in advance of casting that vote.

molloyjh wrote:

I recently asked someone here on boards that if someone voted No to Lisbon because they were told that the Wicked Witch of the East would turn us all to stone if they didn't, should we respect that vote?

I don't think it should be respected. If someone voted yes to the Lisbon treaty because they were told that Ireland's voice in the EU was being strengthened then I wouldn't respect that vote either.

molloyjh wrote:

Should that vote be considered valid

Yes, it should be considered valid because the validity of a vote is something that is decided in advance of the vote being cast.

molloyjh wrote:

I was told that yes we should. Because a vote is a vote and who are we to qualify its validity.

Would you not agree that the best time to qualify the validity of a vote is in advance of that vote rather than afterwards?

molloyjh wrote:

There is also the belief among people (and I've seen plenty of it here) that because the people voted No, then No was obviously the right answer.

I don't think so. I don't consider the result of the second Nice Treaty referendum to have been the right one even though the majority voted in favour of it.

molloyjh wrote:

Yet people voted for Hitler. He, democratically, had the largest party in Germany from 1930. There are plenty of cases that show us that democracy is deeply flawed and that the "people" are very capable of making a complete hash of things..

I agree, I think democracy is flawed as well and I'm opposed to the idea of one man one vote. I don't believe that everyone is informed enough to make judgments in the best interests of the country. I think every adult should have at least one vote but I think the more educated and knowledgeable people should be given more than one vote, the number being determined by their score in a test of general knowledge, economics, the constitution and history.

Mark Twain wrote a good short story on this subject called the Curious Republic of Gondour
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/gondour.php

oscarBravo wrote:

I respect the right of other people to have opinions that are dumb, founded on horse****, or just plain wrong. I refuse point-blank to respect those opinions themselves. Does that make me anti-democratic? I don't think so. Does it make me anti-democratic-fundamentalism? Probably.

Well then in that case everyone is anti-democratic-fundamentalism as everyone would agree with that statement. What is there to argue about?

oscarBravo wrote:

My respect for democratic decisions is tempered by the quality of those decisions. We voted "no" to the Lisbon treaty: fair enough. But do we have anything more substantial to offer than "no means no"?

What would you consider to be more substantial? People could only vote yes or no to the Lisbon Treaty and they voted no. Why is that a problem?

oscarBravo wrote:

I'll call your attention once again to the etymology of the word "democracy" - the Greek word "kratos" meaning "rule". Ruling implies a lot more work than merely answering a yes-or-no question with an uninformed reply, and then refusing to be drawn on the implications of that reply.

I don't understand what you mean about refusing to be drawn on the implications of the reply. What exactly does that mean?

Scofflaw

bugler wrote: »

What, 100% turnouts? You could force people to vote I suppose.

I don't particular like the habit of Irish people voting FF into power continually, or how they turn a blind eye to very obviously dodgy/corrupt/immoral people come election time. It's not easy being a democrat, you know. Shock horror - you don't always get your own way.

But then how you react to losing is what actually defines you as a democrat. Anyone can be a democrat when the majority is making the choices they want. Respecting other peoples opinions, even when they're dumb, or founded on horse****, or just plain wrong is democracy.

Democracy doesn't need full participation of the electorate. It doesn't need massive sophistication on the part of the electorate. What it needs is a political culture that respects the choices made by the electorate. That is Democracy. If you don't like it, that's fine. Neither do I. But if you're going to argue against it, at least have the courage to admit that you are not a democrat.

Actually that's populism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

O'Morris wrote: »

I think people are more likely to overlook the how's and why's when the result of a referendum is in their favour but when the result is not in their favour they're more likely to complain about it.

I'm unclear why you think this is an insightful observation.

Well then in that case everyone is anti-democratic-fundamentalism as everyone would agree with that statement. What is there to argue about?

Perhaps you missed the post I was replying to, where bugler said: "Respecting other peoples opinions, even when they're dumb, or founded on horse****, or just plain wrong is democracy." Obviously there's at least one person who doesn't agree with my statement.

What would you consider to be more substantial? People could only vote yes or no to the Lisbon Treaty and they voted no. Why is that a problem?

My problem (in this case) isn't with the result, but with the trenchant refusal in certain quarters to entertain any discussion about the result. Slogans like "no means no" represent an abdication of the responsibility inherent in democracy.

I don't understand what you mean about refusing to be drawn on the implications of the reply. What exactly does that mean?

See above.

turgon

oscarBravo wrote: »

Slogans like "no means no" represent an abdication of the responsibility inherent in democracy.

Well if the context is that the ignoramus carrying the banner never wants to hear sight or sound of the Lisbon Treaty ever again, then obviously your right. However I would imagine these banners are simply representative of peoples desire not to be simply handed the same referendum again and asked to vote again.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Slogans like "no means no" represent an abdication of the responsibility inherent in democracy.

Well if the context is that the ignoramus carrying the banner never wants to hear sight or sound of the Lisbon Treaty ever again, then obviously your right. However I would imagine these banners are simply representative of peoples desire not to be simply handed the same referendum again and asked to vote again.

Would that that were the case - however, it does usually seem to be a more blanket rejection than that. People say things like "we rejected Lisbon, and that means all of Lisbon" - which suggests that "No means No" is more like "Ulster says No!" - no discussion, no negotiation, no progress.

Certainly I haven't seen those using the slogan actually suggest that any part of Lisbon is open to negotiation - and the position that every part of Lisbon is equally anathema is not a negotiating position.

cordially,
Scofflaw

molloyjh

O'Morris wrote: »

I think people are more likely to overlook the how's and why's when the result of a referendum is in their favour but when the result is not in their favour they're more likely to complain about it.

Like referees in a football match I suppose! As for Nice I can't really comment as my interest in politics has really only extended back about two or three years.

O'Morris wrote: »

I would say a vote is a valid vote it meets the conditions set in advance of casting that vote.

I suppose valid is a poor choice of word. But you get the point anyway re being led by dubious views.[/quote]

O'Morris wrote: »

I agree, I think democracy is flawed as well and I'm opposed to the idea of one man one vote. I don't believe that everyone is informed enough to make judgments in the best interests of the country. I think every adult should have at least one vote but I think the more educated and knowledgeable people should be given more than one vote, the number being determined by their score in a test of general knowledge, economics, the constitution and history.

Mark Twain wrote a good short story on this subject called the Curious Republic of Gondour
http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/gondour.php

For as much as I understand and sympathise with this view I still cannot bring myself to agree with it. I strongly believe that the one man one vote system can work. It just requires people taking an interest and living up to their end of the bargain as it were. I think education plays a part, i.e. there should be a strong emphasis on the whole subject of democracy and the responsibility of voters in secondary schools for example.

As soon as we start elevating certain members of society in such a way we will end up, IMO, with a disenfranchised (sp?) and enraged remainder, which has never worked out well before!