Lessions from the Eurovision - total democracy not a good idea

ixtlan

I despair sometimes at the gaggle of anti-Lisbon voices crying out for more democracy, without understanding why we operate a representative system.

Maybe the Eurovision debacle should be used to explain this a bit more clearly. Since the mid-nineties when televoting became widely adopted almost all the winners have been from Eastern Europe. This is IMHO because 1/ There are more of them and 2/ Because they are somewhat poorer, there are large numbers of Eastern Europeans living and working in Western Europe who then naturally vote for their home countries. I don't blame them for this. I'm sure the Irish in the UK vote for Ireland and so on.

What is interesting though is that complaints from Western countries about so-called block voting forced the EBU to change it's voting system. Now it's 50% chosen jury and 50% televote. http://www.eurovision.tv/page/moscow2009/voting Unfortunately this was not implemented this year in the semi-finals, but I suspect it may be in the future.

Everyone seems to think this is a good idea, the logic being that a specialist jury will be "fairer" than a televote where national loyalties rather than merit decide the result. This is however a retrenchment from this experiment in total democracy (yes I'm aware that people can vote multiple times but the point remains valid).

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to compare this to arguments against the EU and Lisbon. For example the question of the "non-elected president of Europe". Putting aside the fact that this post has little direct power, if there were a Europe wide election, what do you think the odds of an Irish politican being elected? Pretty darn small I think. In this case it strongly favours small countries to have a system where the elected representatives of each state come to a consensus on the winner. Of course part of that debate will be who is acceptable to every state, but a good portion of it will also be who is best qualified. Put to a common EU-wide vote, the only question would be who is most popular.

This logic holds true for most EU power. We as a small state do not want a truly "democratic EU". We want one that one is responsible to it's citizens via elected representatives and that operates in a large way in the common good, and not to always placate the majority view.

This is not a rant against democracy, it's simply a comment that one should be careful what one wishes for. Democracy is an ugly messy system, but the best of the choices. However the goal is not to create a perfect democracy, but just to keep the system as sensible, fair, honest and responsible as possible.

The honest truth is that those who clamour for full democracy either don't understand what that might mean, or more likely they use this as a shield to hide their real view, which is that they don't want any EU president, and they don't want any EU decision-making affecting their own states.

Ix.

turgon

100% true. You see Declan Ganley etc etc campaigning for (and getting support for) increased democracy in Europe etc. But if there was full democracy was in the EU we would have like a 0.5% say. Thats Libertas' idea of fair? Malta would have 0.05% of a say btw.

But more important is the EU President. When the topic came up I also drew the similarities between the prospect of a directly elected President and the Eurovision. In this kind of election I would say 80-90% would vote solely on the basis of nationality. Given that it is my view that one of the major failings of democracy is people not giving a thought about the power they are given, I think a directly elected President of the EU is a distinctly bad thing.

As people were saying in the other thread, the EU is not a state but a federation of states. Fortunately the average voter is too clueless to realize this.

markopantelic

Good point about president Turgon. I don't think Europe is ready, and probably wouldn't be for a long time to elect a European Union president.

Scofflaw

markopantelic wrote: »

Good point about president Turgon. I don't think Europe is ready, and probably wouldn't be for a long time to elect a European Union president.

I sometimes wonder does the bauld Declan see himself as a natural contender...? Does he see it as his destiny to 'lead Europe'?

musingly,
Scofflaw

TheInquisitor

Total democracy is pointless, everyone gets emotional about something and they make the wrong decision. We should have a eurovision choice like how its done in britain's got talent. Only the best should get through. No bull.

towel401

People know nothing, let the world be run by a shower of bald men with grey hair who belong to the political party your father voted for. It's for your own good!

Democracy: Its srs biznis loike!

Also, don't change the oil in your own car. Only a trained professional should be allowed to look under the bonnet.

ixtlan

towel401 wrote: »

People know nothing, let the world be run by a shower of bald men with grey hair who belong to the political party your father voted for. It's for your own good!

Democracy: Its srs biznis loike!

Also, don't change the oil in your own car. Only a trained professional should be allowed to look under the bonnet.

Thanks for the sarcasm! If people vote in those bald men (and I hope you aren't casting asperations on the folically challenged) then let then get on with the business of running the country, until the next election. Or vote in hippie long-haired communists, and let them get on with it until the next election.

Change your oil sure... but don't go rewiring your house... or meddling with your gas piping... or treating your own cancer... or a million other things that are better done by experts. And if you are unhappy with the experts you chose fine, find some more experts. No need to just say you are going completely DIY from now on.

Ix.

conchubhar1

you use the eurovision as an example when talking about democracy?

christ sake..

towel401

ixtlan wrote: »

Thanks for the sarcasm! If people vote in those bald men (and I hope you aren't casting asperations on the folically challenged) then let then get on with the business of running the country, until the next election. Or vote in hippie long-haired communists, and let them get on with it until the next election.

Change your oil sure... but don't go rewiring your house... or meddling with your gas piping... or treating your own cancer... or a million other things that are better done by experts. And if you are unhappy with the experts you chose fine, find some more experts. No need to just say you are going completely DIY from now on.

Ix.

rewiring your house is not nearly as bad as people let on, just use a bit of common sense - read up on it before you start and everything should be grand. i for one cant stand this modern attitude of cluelesness and the idea that everything should be done by paid 'experts' who supposedly know better. many of these lads don't even care about the job they are doing and maybe even hope to make money on future repair jobs on shoddy jobs they did themselves. the same goes for politicians

the system where by you elect a bunch of cowboys who may or may not do what you want them to do for 4 years is fundamentally flawed. and giving these cowboys the power to hand-pick another shower of lads that have even more control over our lives is worse.

i'd say ordinary folk are not as stupid as you might think and should have the ability to vote down every law the government wants to pass but most people couldn't be bothered with that level of involvement. so we have the 4 year system and everyone gets on with their (mostly boring) lives.

people should just shut up and do what the government tells them to do? i dont think so

View

towel401 wrote: »

rewiring your house is not nearly as bad as people let on, just use a bit of common sense - read up on it before you start and everything should be grand. i for one cant stand this modern attitude of cluelesness and the idea that everything should be done by paid 'experts' who supposedly know better. many of these lads don't even care about the job they are doing and maybe even hope to make money on future repair jobs on shoddy jobs they did themselves. the same goes for politicians

While I have some sympathy for your point of view, unfortunately Bunreacht na hEireann explicitly reserves the right to negotiate international treaties to the Government. As such, the general population can't engage in DIY international treaty negotiation, which is arguably a pity as the results would no doubt be amusing on occasion.

ionix5891

turgon wrote: »

100% true. You see Declan Ganley etc etc campaigning for (and getting support for) increased democracy in Europe etc. But if there was full democracy was in the EU we would have like a 0.5% say. Thats Libertas' idea of fair? Malta would have 0.05% of a say btw.

But more important is the EU President. When the topic came up I also drew the similarities between the prospect of a directly elected President and the Eurovision. In this kind of election I would say 80-90% would vote solely on the basis of nationality. Given that it is my view that one of the major failings of democracy is people not giving a thought about the power they are given, I think a directly elected President of the EU is a distinctly bad thing.

As people were saying in the other thread, the EU is not a state but a federation of states. Fortunately the average voter is too clueless to realize this.

Libertas aim is not "democracy" or anything else they claim

its power they (ahem: HE the Chairman Ganley :cool:) want and theres not depth that they will sink or pay to attain this

as everyone with half a brain realizes Ireland would be screwed if there was direct democracy system in EU, the existing form of representative democracy is as good as it gets for us and we did milk EU for decades now thanks to it.

but thats the thing, Libertas are so far right wing that this newfound inferiority in a new "democratic" EU would just give them an excuse (and their SF buddies) to call for a withdrawal from EU altogether

ionix5891

towel401 wrote: »

rewiring your house is not nearly as bad as people let on, just use a bit of common sense - read up on it before you start and everything should be grand. i for one cant stand this modern attitude of cluelesness and the idea that everything should be done by paid 'experts' who supposedly know better. many of these lads don't even care about the job they are doing and maybe even hope to make money on future repair jobs on shoddy jobs they did themselves. the same goes for politicians

the system where by you elect a bunch of cowboys who may or may not do what you want them to do for 4 years is fundamentally flawed. and giving these cowboys the power to hand-pick another shower of lads that have even more control over our lives is worse.

i'd say ordinary folk are not as stupid as you might think and should have the ability to vote down every law the government wants to pass but most people couldn't be bothered with that level of involvement. so we have the 4 year system and everyone gets on with their (mostly boring) lives.

people should just shut up and do what the government tells them to do? i dont think so

just read this, do you really honestly think a direct democracy system would work in ireland? hahahahahaaaaa

does everyone else find it ironic that the main argument against the lisbon treaty 2.0 is "we're being asked to vote again?!" and then we have the same people proposing we vote on every single LAW!


can someone please post the number of laws/directives that are passed each year in Dail and in Brussels? i just want to calculate a back of the napkin number for the number of referenda that would mean holding every year

Scofflaw

ionix5891 wrote: »

just read this, do you really honestly think a direct democracy system would work in ireland? hahahahahaaaaa

does everyone else find it ironic that the main argument against the lisbon treaty 2.0 is "we're being asked to vote again?!" and then we have the same people proposing we vote on every single LAW!


can someone please post the number of laws/directives that are passed each year in Dail and in Brussels? i just want to calculate a back of the napkin number for the number of referenda that would mean holding every year

Well...from 1992 to 2009, the EU produced 6998 Regulations and 1485 Directives, while the Oireactas over the same period produced 10,752 Statutory Instruments and 588 Acts.

So, that's an average of 667 pieces of Irish legislation every year...I suppose if we just voted on the Acts? That would only be 34 referendums a year.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well...from 1992 to 2009, the EU produced 6998 Regulations and 1485 Directives, while the Oireactas over the same period produced 10,752 Statutory Instruments and 588 Acts.

So, that's an average of 667 pieces of Irish legislation every year...I suppose if we just voted on the Acts? That would only be 34 referendums a year.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Altough, I suspect getting the budget (i.e. Finance Act) through each year might boost the number a bit. The old "Vote No or your baby will be micro-chipped and served on a skewer" brigade would be out in force for the budget referendum for sure.

P. Breathnach

View wrote: »

Altough, I suspect getting the budget (i.e. Finance Act) through each year might boost the number a bit. The old "Vote No or your baby will be micro-chipped and served on a skewer" brigade would be out in force for the budget referendum for sure.

And what's wrong with micro-chipping babies? [The serving on a skewer bit might bother me: it would waste a good micro-chip.]

ixtlan

conchubhar1 wrote: »

you use the eurovision as an example when talking about democracy?

christ sake..

Why not? Analogies often work well and the Eurovision is something that the mass of the Irish public understand. In particular they now understand the dangers of populist voting blocks.

I think it may be very useful to draw the parallel when the Lisbon no-side harps on about wanting everything to be put to the people everywhere. In particular the European council president.

In fact, I think the Eurovision results on Saturday show that the new 50/50 (jury/televote) system did seem to be fairer, Norway winner... Iceland second... UK in the top 10.

Ix.

ixtlan

towel401 wrote: »

people should just shut up and do what the government tells them to do? i dont think so

Did anyone say that? By all means vote in a new government.

If you can't wait until the next election, organise massive (but non-violent) street protests to force an election sooner. If you can't get enough people to do that then you don't have a mandate to force the change.

towel401 wrote: »

i'd say ordinary folk are not as stupid as you might think and should have the ability to vote down every law the government wants to pass but most people couldn't be bothered with that level of involvement. so we have the 4 year system and everyone gets on with their (mostly boring) lives.

I think you are making my point here. If ordinary people really really are interested in understanding politics, and running the country, they should indeed have the ability to vote on laws. And what might we call this obviously very small group of dedicated individuals? Why don't we call them politicians?!

Those who are not bothered to get involved should generally let the politicans get on with the job. Those who are bothered should become politicans. I don't dismiss the concept of non-violent protest in extreme circumstances, but if that ever happens I want the leaders to be/become politicans so that I can vote them in and out.

Ix

ionix5891

ixtlan wrote: »

Those who are not bothered to get involved should generally let the politicans get on with the job. Those who are bothered should become politicans. I don't dismiss the concept of non-violent protest in extreme circumstances, but if that ever happens I want the leaders to be/become politicans so that I can vote them in and out.

Ix

spot on, an average person simply can not get involved in EVERYTHING theres simply not enough hours in a day, i have an interest in politics and economics but i have a job to do running servers and coding which i enjoy more and it puts bread on table

should we all have to decide on new laws and the budget (oh boy that would be something !) ?

should we all grow our wheat and potatoes?

should we all make own bread?

should we all construct own houses, computers and mobiles?

i mean its only fair
seriously this dude needs to learn a word "specialization"

representative democracy is no more or no less democratic than direct democracy


Unfortunately Libertas are playing on peoples lack of understanding of the above 2 and we end up with results like the wise guy calling for a referendum every week

towel401

ixtlan wrote: »

Did anyone say that? By all means vote in a new government.

If you can't wait until the next election, organise massive (but non-violent) street protests to force an election sooner. If you can't get enough people to do that then you don't have a mandate to force the change.



I think you are making my point here. If ordinary people really really are interested in understanding politics, and running the country, they should indeed have the ability to vote on laws. And what might we call this obviously very small group of dedicated individuals? Why don't we call them politicians?!

Those who are not bothered to get involved should generally let the politicans get on with the job. Those who are bothered should become politicans. I don't dismiss the concept of non-violent protest in extreme circumstances, but if that ever happens I want the leaders to be/become politicans so that I can vote them in and out.

Ix

except they are not dedicated specialised individuals, maybe there are a few but they are probably not in government. it sounds great in theory but it doesn't really work. these guys have the ability to pass 'unpopular' laws for their own good or for special interest groups. it should be easier to vote these things down. 4 years also seems too long, too much of the bad **** they do over that time gets forgotten by the next election.

if you organise a protest you get harassed by police, all your communications monitored and if you're unlucky you get the **** kicked out of you and thrown in jail.
democracy is long dead, i'm really surprised to find that people still believe in the system we have now. and this idea that ordinary people cant make decisions and need a bunch of politicians to do it for them is fairly patronising.

the old saying that it doesn't matter who you vote for it's always the government that gets in is still true. these guys who claim to represent us go off and do their own thing, become supporters of the system because its what gets them paid and therefore the system itself is impossible to change

towel401

and eurovision is a farce, sure let them eastern european countries all vote for themselves. and let them delude themselves into thinking they are a more important part of europe because they threw the most money at a silly song contest. i don't care, most people dont care. if they did care they'd pick up the phone and dial whatever premium rate number it is you use to vote for western european countries.

the only crowd that still cares about eurovision are the eastern european lads and i say let them have it. nothing of value will be lost

ionix5891

towel401 wrote: »

and eurovision is a farce, sure let them eastern european countries all vote for themselves. and let them delude themselves into thinking they are a more important part of europe because they threw the most money at a silly song contest. i don't care, most people dont care. if they did care they'd pick up the phone and dial whatever premium rate number it is you use to vote for western european countries.

the only crowd that still cares about eurovision are the eastern european lads and i say let them have it. nothing of value will be lost

he was using it as an example you seem to have missed the point of the thread and haven't addressed the representative vs direct democracy posts

ixtlan

towel401 wrote: »

except they are not dedicated specialised individuals, maybe there are a few but they are probably not in government. it sounds great in theory but it doesn't really work. these guys have the ability to pass 'unpopular' laws for their own good or for special interest groups. it should be easier to vote these things down. 4 years also seems too long, too much of the bad **** they do over that time gets forgotten by the next election.

if you organise a protest you get harassed by police, all your communications monitored and if you're unlucky you get the **** kicked out of you and thrown in jail.
democracy is long dead, i'm really surprised to find that people still believe in the system we have now. and this idea that ordinary people cant make decisions and need a bunch of politicians to do it for them is fairly patronising.

the old saying that it doesn't matter who you vote for it's always the government that gets in is still true. these guys who claim to represent us go off and do their own thing, become supporters of the system because its what gets them paid and therefore the system itself is impossible to change

I assume what you mean is "representative democracy is dead"? You are calling for what might be called "total democracy"?

Actually representative democracy has been incredibly successful. It's success is demonstrated rather unfortunately by the lack of interest by the public in politics. If it was not successful at giving the average person a reasonably tolerable standard of living, we would have massive street protests and civil unrest, and with all due respect I don't think it's fear of police harrassment that is keeping people off the streets. More like apathy.

Politicians are specialised by their full time focus on the job. Some are better than others. I believe that anyone with good leadership skills and intelligence can go a good job. Possibly you!

It's a typical cop-put to say "the system is bad and corrupt"... and "the system can't be changed"... If it was as bad as you think it would be easy to garner enough support to win an election and change it. The problem is that whatever it's faults the system is tolerable to most people.

I could ask what are you doing to change the system? What party have you joined? What elections have you run in or assisted others in running in?

I'm not telling you the political system is perfect. I'd rather have politicans that were smarter, braver and better at communicating, but throwing away the entire system is folly.

Actually the Irish term is 5 years... too long? Maybe. Go start a campaign to change it. I'll listen. Don't just complain about it.

Ix

ixtlan

I must add that I believe direct democracy would have led us to pretty much the same place we are now.

Can you picture the questions to be asked?

Should Ireland continue policies to promote the building boom?

Yes... developers get rich...decreased taxes... more revenue for public services... more employment....high likelihood of a property crash at an undetermined future point.

No... developers don't get rich.. higher taxes... less public services... less employment... no crash at an undetermined future point.

many many people would have said yes, on the basis that they don't want higher taxes to provide better services. That undetermined future point was several years in the future as it happened, maybe 4-5. Would people really have turned down the boom as unsustainable? It should have been rejected and the reason it wasn't was only partly cozy capitalism. The main reason was lack of leadership leading the government to take the best ultra-short-term decisions, and the alsolute worst medium-long term ones. Would a direct public vote have been different?

Ix.

ionix5891

In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve

Alexis de Tocqueville / Thomas Jefferson

djpbarry

towel401 wrote: »

rewiring your house is not nearly as bad as people let on, just use a bit of common sense…

…and tear up your insurance policy before you start.

towel401 wrote: »

i for one cant stand this modern attitude of cluelesness and the idea that everything should be done by paid 'experts' who supposedly know better.

You going to try and tell me that you can do my job better than I can?

towel401 wrote: »

the system where by you elect a bunch of cowboys who may or may not do what you want them to do for 4 years is fundamentally flawed.

So how do you propose the system should be changed?

towel401 wrote: »

i'd say ordinary folk are not as stupid as you might think and should have the ability to vote down every law the government wants to pass…

You really think that’s a practical system? What’s the point in electing representatives if those representatives are powerless to do anything without the electorate’s permission?

towel401 wrote: »

4 years also seems too long, too much of the bad **** they do over that time gets forgotten by the next election.

Whose fault is that?

towel401 wrote: »

if you organise a protest you get harassed by police, all your communications monitored and if you're unlucky you get the **** kicked out of you and thrown in jail.

Maybe you should organise your protests in Ireland rather than North Korea.

towel401 wrote: »

democracy is long dead, i'm really surprised to find that people still believe in the system we have now.

It’s not a matter of “belief”, it’s a matter of active involvement. Expressing dissatisfaction with a particular politician or party is a far better means of enacting change than completely distancing oneself from the political process.

towel401 wrote: »

… the system itself is impossible to change

So there have been no changes in the system of government at national or EU level in your lifetime?

hatrickpatrick

your argument (TC) assumed that when we say democracy we're talking about a Europe wide democracy. We're not.
Irish issues should be decided by, and ONLY by the Irish people. This is why the EU should not have power over national governments. The parliament of Ireland should have the final say on any law which affects the Irish people.

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

your argument (TC) assumed that when we say democracy we're talking about a Europe wide democracy. We're not.
Irish issues should be decided by, and ONLY by the Irish people. This is why the EU should not have power over national governments. The parliament of Ireland should have the final say on any law which affects the Irish people.

Hmmmm.... long pause...

Your argument is a valid one to propose, and if you really feel that way indeed you have no choice but to oppose Lisbon and other EU issues... but...

The logic of your argument is also that we must withdraw from the EU entirely. Indeed we cannot be members of the EEA either like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, since these countries enact some EU laws without any say in them at all in order to conform to required standards.

The world doesn't work the way you seem to believe. There are few enough "Irish" issues anymore. For better or worse the world is integrated very tightly. Outside the EU we have no influence on the majority of issues that affect us.

Are you happy to let the Lithuanians keep their Chernobyl-class nuclear reactor running? Or are you pleased that the EU is insisting it be closed? Would you like the EU to butt out of their affairs?

Are you happy to have a European wide arrest warrant? Or would you rather every country have their own policies? And let all the polices forces work completely independently? That should keeps the criminal happy.

Would you be happy for any country to decide to allow a chemical company to dispose of it's waste in any manner at all in order to attract them to locate jobs in that country? Or would you rather the EU enforce environmental laws?

Ix.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

your argument (TC) assumed that when we say democracy we're talking about a Europe wide democracy. We're not.
Irish issues should be decided by, and ONLY by the Irish people. This is why the EU should not have power over national governments. The parliament of Ireland should have the final say on any law which affects the Irish people.

I can't say I'm unsympathetic to that argument - the right of total self-determination is very attractive. However, I can't help but feel that it's a bit like arguing for a self-governing Achill. We could go it alone, but we would be a dirt poor and isolated nation of emigrants, providing cheap muscle in the UK - much as we were before the EC. Realistically, I'd find myself moving my family to Scotland, and coming home on holiday.

If, on the other hand, we want to be part of Europe - even a common market - we have to accept that the common rules take precedence, because otherwise they're not common rules.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

But again, there's a difference between politics and economics. The EU's economic policy makes sense for everyone who is part of it. The EU's political policy only makes sense if you accept that you, the people, no longer have total control over your country.

That is why I have always favoured a complete distinction between the political and economic power of the EU. IMO, they should be two separate entities entirely.

For example: I agree with having a single currency and free trade. I do not agree that details of every email I send should be kept. If it was an Irish issue that directive could be overturned by mass opposition from the Irish people. Since it's the EU, even if 100% of the Irish people oppose it we still can't to anything about it if most of the other countries are in favour.

ionix5891

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But again, there's a difference between politics and economics.

so how would you feel if I tell you the political drive to keep interest rates low, political ponying up to construction sector instead of putting in controls, political laws relaxing accounting practices

have led to the current worldwide economic crisis and a depression in this country (directly linked to FF and co policies)

politics and economics are very tightly related so don't dismiss these lightly

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But again, there's a difference between politics and economics. The EU's economic policy makes sense for everyone who is part of it. The EU's political policy only makes sense if you accept that you, the people, no longer have total control over your country.

That is why I have always favoured a complete distinction between the political and economic power of the EU. IMO, they should be two separate entities entirely.

For example: I agree with having a single currency and free trade. I do not agree that details of every email I send should be kept. If it was an Irish issue that directive could be overturned by mass opposition from the Irish people. Since it's the EU, even if 100% of the Irish people oppose it we still can't to anything about it if most of the other countries are in favour.

Funnily enough, we can actually test that particular "might have been", since McDowell introduced a Data Retention Act here before Europe did. His was more draconian than that introduced by Europe, contains none of the safeguards that the EU introduced in respect of rights to privacy and oversight mechanisms, was for longer and allowed more detailed capture,
and there is no basis whatsoever on which to challenge it, whereas the European one can almost certainly be challenged under the Charter of Fundamental Rights if that gets passed.

There was no argument in the Dáil, which rubber-stamped the Act as it always does, and either there was no opposition from the Irish people, or it had no effect.

cordially,
Scofflaw