Vote yes, sure you can trust all politicians..

RandomName2

conchubhar1 wrote: »

anything that has power, should be elected

it has to responsible and made accountable for the laws they create, discuss, pass etc to the people they affect

no?

you like some democracy and fill in the gaps?

You are right that you can't arbitrarily pick and choose with democracy.

However not all 'powerful' positions should be based on election - within the military for instance, or even in terms of powerful commercial enterprises based on open market competition.

As I said before though, all legislatives must be elected to be legitimate.

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

anything that has power, should be elected

School principals? CEOs? Judges?

RandomName2 wrote: »

As I said before though, all legislatives must be elected to be legitimate.

By whose standards of legitimacy?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

By whose standards of legitimacy?

Anybody who advocates democracy.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Anybody who advocates democracy.

As long as they advocate it in a form and to an extent that you approve of?

conchubhar1

clearly, and you must have got this, i meant political bodies

not my supermarket checkout assistant etc

conchubhar1

oscarBravo wrote: »

As long as they advocate it in a form and to an extent that you approve of?

form is open to debate and opinion - yes.



full democracy and not picking and choosing - no basis for argument there really

sink

Some people seem to treat democracy as a sort of sacred cow. Democracy is only a tool, a tool whose original purpose was to provide better and fairer governance. The original purpose of democracy seems to have been lost to many. Holding elections for every position of power in society or even in government does not guarantee a better and fairer society because as we all know getting elected often has little to do with a persons qualifications and aptitude and everything to do with their personality and image.

If democracy was truly the best way to select the best candidate for the job, why don't private organisations outside of the political sphere allow all their members to elect their leaders? I'd be pretty interested to see who Microsoft's 80,000 employees would elect as their leader. I severely doubt they would elect the person who promises to perform massive cost cutting and restructuring in order to gain competitive advantage even though if they don't their jobs in the long term are in doubt.

oscarBravo

conchubhar1 wrote: »

full democracy and not picking and choosing - no basis for argument there really

That's not an argument, it's empty rhetoric.

Do you believe that the USA is undemocratic, because its executive is almost entirely unelected?

Tony EH

sink wrote: »

Some people seem to treat democracy as a sort of sacred cow. Democracy is only a tool, a tool whose original purpose was to provide better and fairer governance. The original purpose of democracy seems to have been lost to many. Holding elections for every position of power in society or even in government does not guarantee a better and fairer society because as we all know getting elected often has little to do with a persons qualifications and aptitude and everything to do with their personality and image.

If democracy was truly the best way to select the best candidate for the job, why don't private organisations outside of the political sphere allow all their members to elect their leaders? I'd be pretty interested to see who Microsoft's 80,000 employees would elect as their leader. I severely doubt they would elect the person who promises to perform massive cost cutting and restructuring in order to gain competitive advantage even though if they don't their jobs in the long term are in doubt.

That's a ridiculous comparison. Microsoft does not make policy that effects millions of people in a given Country. Yes, they make company policy, but even that has to follow the laws of the land...and if an employee doesn't like Microsoft's house rules they can move job.

Electing the leaders of a Country is a whole different kettle of fish.

RandomName2

sink wrote: »

Some people seem to treat democracy as a sort of sacred cow. Democracy is only a tool, a tool whose original purpose was to provide better and fairer governance. The original purpose of democracy seems to have been lost to many.

I don't think democracy is a sacred cow. It is just the worst form of government until you try any other.

sink wrote: »

Holding elections for every position of power in society or even in government does not guarantee a better and fairer society because as we all know getting elected often has little to do with a persons qualifications and aptitude and everything to do with their personality and image.

This is Plato's argument against democracy. What you are missing is the ingredient of accountability.

sink wrote: »

If democracy was truly the best way to select the best candidate for the job, why don't private organisations outside of the political sphere allow all their members to elect their leaders? I'd be pretty interested to see who Microsoft's 80,000 employees would elect as their leader. I severely doubt they would elect the person who promises to perform massive cost cutting and restructuring in order to gain competitive advantage even though if they don't their jobs in the long term are in doubt.

You are using an inappropriate analogy. If I am unhappy in a job because the company is directed by a maniac, I can simply leave. Companies fall under the heading of private ownership. The state is not something that should be 'owned' by an individual, or group of individuals.

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not an argument, it's empty rhetoric.

Do you believe that the USA is undemocratic, because its executive is almost entirely unelected?

Yes, but none of the legislative.

Imagine if Obama appointed Congress...

conchubhar1

sink wrote: »

Some people seem to treat democracy as a sort of sacred cow. Democracy is only a tool, a tool whose original purpose was to provide better and fairer governance. The original purpose of democracy seems to have been lost to many. Holding elections for every position of power in society or even in government does not guarantee a better and fairer society because as we all know getting elected often has little to do with a persons qualifications and aptitude and everything to do with their personality and image.

If democracy was truly the best way to select the best candidate for the job, why don't private organisations outside of the political sphere allow all their members to elect their leaders? I'd be pretty interested to see who Microsoft's 80,000 employees would elect as their leader. I severely doubt they would elect the person who promises to perform massive cost cutting and restructuring in order to gain competitive advantage even though if they don't their jobs in the long term are in doubt.

first underlined part? so get rid of them all - otherwise not relevant

as in we do elect people, not always for the right reasons - no reason not to extend the range of the elected

tony eh summed it up pretty well

company and business is not the same and should not be run the same as as the eu or any ''government''

----

oscarbravo - empty rhetoric okay - i am getting sick of you non helpful comments

expalain why or add a useful opinion instead of just picking at others coments or i will ignore you from now on


is this or is this not a discussion on politics/elections in EUROPE - not america they run their country

unwyse

for what died the sons of roisin? was it greed? whatever it was, it wasnt for the populace to be sold down the river by this current cabal of gombeen men masqueradng as our "leaders" and telling us what they know is better for us. the irish people have already spoken on this issue . how to tell when a pliticion i lying? his/her lips ae moving.:mad::mad:

BlitzKrieg

RandomName2 wrote: »

I don't think democracy is a sacred cow. It is just the worst form of government until you try any other.

whoot for churchill quote.

K-9

Tony EH wrote: »

Either way, the vast majority of people I spoke to about voting 'No', did so because they are suspicious about the way Lisbon is being pushed through. They saw the way is wasn't put to the people it was actually going to effect and they felt it was extremely un-democratic, regardless of what was in the treaty.

The red herrings of "Abortion" and "Neutrality" were just that, red herrings and have been mentioned MORE by the 'Yes' side, as a way of negating the 'No' vote, than they were mentioned as reasons by the 'No' side for voting 'No'. In fact, the ONLY person I saw mention anything about "Abortion" & "Neutrality" was some spinster in Carlo. It was a non-issue to the vast majority of 'No' voters.

However, the salient point still remains the fact that a great number of people are uncomfortable about how this treaty is being pushed through.

At the end of the day, however, the voter will still be as uninformed as they were the first time round. Most people will vote 'Yes', because it's their party's position and most people will vote 'No', because they are uncomfortable with the mechanisation.

Have to agree with the above, which doesn't show democracy in a great light though.

RandomName2 wrote:

A legislative body which is not directly elected has no legitimacy

As Tony EH pointed out, I don't know if making it more democratic would make it better.

conchubhar1

''The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.''

the best argument against that is without it the strong will dominate the weak unfairly and we will descend into utter chaos.

gizmo555

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah - well, if you intended to make a moderating/courtesy point rather than a political one, you should perhaps have reported the post.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The issue is much broader than a simple matter of discourtesy by one poster towards another. The Pope's comment is typical of a widely held attitude among many Yes supporters that it is impossible to have come to a considered and thoughtful decision to vote No.

In the Irish Times today (June 22) we had yet another example of this attitude, from Peter Murtagh this time:

No vote groups do not represent majority Irish view about EU

WE ARE, it seems, on the last lap of the tiresome – but extraordinarily important – saga that is the Lisbon Treaty’s circuitous route to ratification by Ireland.

What must our EU partners make of us? It’s difficult not to conclude that we’ve made a spectacle of ourselves. Some of them must see us like a spoilt child who they thought had grown into a mature, clever and successful adult – only to watch us lurch back into brat mode

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0622/1224249263985.html

In the first sentence, we have the most brazen denial of facts - No voters do, as of now and at least until the outcome of the next referendum, represent the majority Irish view about the EU (or the Lisbon treaty at any rate).

Mr Murtagh goes on to inform those of us who had the temerity to vote No last time that we're spoiled, childish, brats. Is this supposed to be a reasoned argument? What an extraordinary rant for what used to be a quality newspaper . . .

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, but none of the legislative.

So the executive branch of the US government has no role whatsoever in lawmaking?

You're a self-styled advocate of democracy: do you feel the US executive would be better if it was directly elected? Also, do you feel that Irish judges should be elected?

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

From an ethical point of view people who make laws must be accountable to those whom the laws affect.

True, but direct election isn't the only method of democratic accountability.

RandomName2 wrote: »

From a practical point of view there isn't any democracy with a legislative body which is not directly elected.

Hm. There's the US Presidency, which is not directly elected. The Seanad largely isn't elected, nor is the UK House of Lords, or indeed a variety of upper houses. A wide variety of unelected bodies have the power to pass regulations of varying scope and power depending on their remit - there is usually an enabling act of some kind, of course.

So, if one wanted to claim that the entire legislative apparatus of democratic countries is invariably directly elected, that would be false. It's only true of unicameral democracies without any appointed regulatory bodies - and I'm not sure there are any such animals.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

So the executive branch of the US government has no role whatsoever in lawmaking?

You're a self-styled advocate of democracy: do you feel the US executive would be better if it was directly elected? Also, do you feel that Irish judges should be elected?

1. The US executive does not make laws - it is primarily an extension of Presidency in terms of the competancy of that office. The executive can be held accountable by the public via the president.
2. Not self-styled (unless reading Rousseau is termed self-styling)
3. It doesn't make any difference whether Irish judges are elected or not and besides which, I have already answered this question.


---

Many of the arguments in favour of lisbon, and some in favour of the eu are bound by a single binding invective against democracy

Some advocate their position by proclaiming 'It is democratic. It just looks undemocratic'. This is doublethink.

Others, more honestly admit that the eu as it is currently positioned probably wouldn't work as a democracy. I do not believe that dictatorship is a suitable solution. If a superstate is to be created; fine, create it openly, but make it democratic by removing the legislative which overrides democratic aparatuses. If a superstate is not practicable, the solution is not to create it in the first place - and not to instead attempt to hamstring the electorate. The set up, as it stands, makes a mockery of western civilisation.

Mario007

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, but none of the legislative.

Imagine if Obama appointed Congress...

obama was voted in by the house of representatives that was voted in by the people...many people forget that. the americans didnt elect directly, they elected people to elect obama in. just like you elect the ep to vote in the commission...unfortunately, i'll give you this, we dont get a clear vision of the commission before the elections to ep

K-9

RandomName2 wrote: »

1. The US executive does not make laws - it is primarily an extension of Presidency in terms of the competancy of that office. The executive can be held accountable by the public via the president.
2. Not self-styled (unless reading Rousseau is termed self-styling)
3. It doesn't make any difference whether Irish judges are elected or not and besides which, I have already answered this question.


---

Many of the arguments in favour of lisbon, and some in favour of the eu are bound by a single binding invective against democracy

Some advocate their position by proclaiming 'It is democratic. It just looks undemocratic'. This is doublethink.

Others, more honestly admit that the eu as it is currently positioned probably wouldn't work as a democracy. I do not believe that dictatorship is a suitable solution. If a superstate is to be created; fine, create it openly, but make it democratic by removing the legislative which overrides democratic aparatuses. If a superstate is not practicable, the solution is not to create it in the first place - and not to instead attempt to hamstring the electorate. The set up, as it stands, makes a mockery of western civilisation.

It could also be said it was never intended to be democratic at the beginning. It is evolving to be more democratic.

I think an election for the EU President would be good, but undemocratic as smaller countries would suffer!

One person, one vote would favour bigger countries.

RandomName2

Scofflaw wrote: »

True, but direct election isn't the only method of democratic accountability.



Hm. There's the US Presidency, which is not directly elected. The Seanad largely isn't elected, nor is the UK House of Lords, or indeed a variety of upper houses. A wide variety of unelected bodies have the power to pass regulations of varying scope and power depending on their remit - there is usually an enabling act of some kind, of course.

So, if one wanted to claim that the entire legislative apparatus of democratic countries is invariably directly elected, that would be false. It's only true of unicameral democracies without any appointed regulatory bodies - and I'm not sure there are any such animals.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The US President is directly elected. You needn't bother quoting the preceeding line with a tangent about the Electoral College and then my re-replying picking obvious holes in your reply.

Upper Houses such as The Seanad and House of Lords do not create laws. Nor does the Irish President for that matter, nor English monarchy. The purpose of the Upper Houses is to provide a safeguard on the capacities of the Lower House - but such a role is in many ways redundant. The purpose of the Irish and Czech Presidencies and English monarchy is the vested power of veto (even if the Irish and English heads of state in practice are generally unable to use this ability).

As such it wouldn't really matter whether or not the EU Parliament was elected or not. In fact, as an Upper House it might be preferable if it wasn't subject to direct election. But, as I said, Upper Houses aren't terribly important.

Scofflaw

gizmo555 wrote: »

The issue is much broader than a simple matter of discourtesy by one poster towards another. The Pope's comment is typical of a widely held attitude among many Yes supporters that it is impossible to have come a considered and thoughtful decision to vote No.

That was essentially why I made the point about political activists and politicians.

The perceived assumption of stupidity by Yes voters about No voters is matched by equal assumptions (of stupidity or cupidity) the other way. It's hardly surprising, given that we believe each other to be wrong - there has to be some explanation, and, regrettably, 'ignorant' has a double meaning, while 'uneducated' is usually taken as a comment on either intelligence or class.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

The US President is directly elected. You needn't bother quoting the preceeding line with a tangent about the Electoral College and then my re-replying picking obvious holes in your reply.

Upper Houses such as The Seanad and House of Lords do not create laws. Nor does the Irish President for that matter, nor English monarchy. The purpose of the Upper Houses is to provide a safeguard on the capacities of the Lower House - but such a role is in many ways redundant. The purpose of the Irish and Czech Presidencies and English monarchy is the vested power of veto (even if the Irish and English heads of state in practice are generally unable to use this ability).

As such it wouldn't really matter whether or not the EU Parliament was elected or not. In fact, as an Upper House it might be preferable if it wasn't subject to direct election. But, as I said, Upper Houses aren't terribly important.

So, in other words, you're actually talking (again) about the right of legislative initiative, rather than just involvement in the making of legislation?

For the moment, I won't take issue with you dismissing any bits of the parliamentary system you don't want to consider (upper houses in other countries are often a lot less supine than our Seanad, including the House of Lords), but we may come back to it yet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

K-9 wrote: »

I think an election for the EU President would be good, but undemocratic as smaller countries would suffer!

True. People who want democracy for the EU are generally just using at as an excuse for the Euroskepticism. But true democracy would be disastrous.

cooperguy

Am I missing something here. Before Lisbon the Commissioners were unelected by the people, after Lisbon the Commissioners will still be unelected by the people so what has it to do with Lisbon?

Scofflaw

cooperguy wrote: »

Am I missing something here. Before Lisbon the Commissioners were unelected by the people, after Lisbon the Commissioners will still be unelected by the people so what has it to do with Lisbon?

Nothing - but then neither does corporate tax, neutrality, abortion, the EDA, Euratom, the CFP, CAP, Irish referendums, other referendums, Fianna Fáil, conscription, battlegroups, Irish fish, the death penalty, or 90% of everything else that gets dragged into the Lisbon debate.

It would nearly make you think that some people are anti-EU as well as anti-Lisbon!

cordially,
Scofflaw

netron

cooperguy wrote: »

Am I missing something here. Before Lisbon the Commissioners were unelected by the people, after Lisbon the Commissioners will still be unelected by the people so what has it to do with Lisbon?

because the Lisbon Treaty reorganises the European Union, which includes the EU Commission.

As well as an unelected EU Commission, Lisbon introduces an unelected EU Foreign Minister and an unelected EU President. The unelected EU Foreign Minister will have an army of EU civil servants in EU Embassies worldwide.

P. Breathnach

RandomName2 wrote: »

The US President is directly elected. You needn't bother quoting the preceeding line with a tangent about the Electoral College and then my re-replying picking obvious holes in your reply.

So you know the facts and deny them in the one paragraph! The US President is not directly elected and can in fact be elected with a minority of the popular vote, even in a two-candidate contest.