What's your definition of democracy?

Mr Benevolent

Mine is that everyone gets a say in as much as possible, a la Switzerland - they can even vote on the position of the bus stops.

What we actually have is an elected oligarchy, i.e, moneyed people are in positions of power (an oligarchy) based on their popularity. How specifically is that a democracy in any sense of the word? People who want to be in power are, by definition, the very people you don't want.

My suggestion: 90% of government representatives are chosen at random from the population and given the same wage that were on before being given the role (i.e if you were on the dole you get dole money etc). That way people see the role as a pain rather than free money. The roles only last a year and acceptance of the role is mandatory.

The role comes with a few conditions though. Firstly, everyone is educated in how government works, in theory and practice. Secondly, there are no expenses or perks. Thirdly, online voting is introduced along with petitions that, if enough interest is collected in the form of signatures, automatically generate an online referendum.

That's genuine democracy. Any other ideas?

Ghandee

Sue we live in a democracy OP.

Just look at how Enda and big Phil change the laws, to make sure they don't break the law :rolleyes:

mikemac1

Confab wrote: »

Mine is that everyone gets a say in as much as possible, a la Switzerland - they can even vote on the position of the bus stops.

How do you deal with the NIMBY brigade?

Even when a project is needed and vital there will always be objections

Thirdly, online voting is introduced along with petitions that, if enough interest is collected in the form of signatures, automatically generate an online referendum.

And then everything goes to the cities
How does Clare keep their county hospital if 50,000 people in Limerick outvote them and want the resources in Limerick regional?
Clare never had a chance

Just an example

Confab

Confab wrote: »

Mine is that everyone gets a say in as much as possible, a la Switzerland - they can even vote on the position of the bus stops.

What we actually have is an elected oligarchy, i.e, moneyed people are in positions of power (an oligarchy) based on their popularity. How specifically is that a democracy in any sense of the word? People who want to be in power are, by definition, the very people you don't want.

My suggestion: 90% of government representatives are chosen at random from the population and given the same wage that were on before being given the role (i.e if you were on the dole you get dole money etc). That way people see the role as a pain rather than free money. The roles only last a year and acceptance of the role is mandatory.

The role comes with a few conditions though. Firstly, everyone is educated in how government works, in theory and practice. Secondly, there are no expenses or perks. Thirdly, online voting is introduced along with petitions that, if enough interest is collected in the form of signatures, automatically generate an online referendum.

That's genuine democracy. Any other ideas?

Yeah, cause I want johnno off the dole and into the role of Taoiseach. Makes sense.

We do not have an oligarchy. You can run in the next election if you so wish, but I would imagine that nobody will vote for you if these are your policies

Jester252

Confab wrote: »

Mine is that everyone gets a say in as much as possible, a la Switzerland - they can even vote on the position of the bus stops.

What we actually have is an elected oligarchy, i.e, moneyed people are in positions of power (an oligarchy) based on their popularity. How specifically is that a democracy in any sense of the word? People who want to be in power are, by definition, the very people you don't want.

My suggestion: 90% of government representatives are chosen at random from the population and given the same wage that were on before being given the role (i.e if you were on the dole you get dole money etc). That way people see the role as a pain rather than free money. The roles only last a year and acceptance of the role is mandatory.

The role comes with a few conditions though. Firstly, everyone is educated in how government works, in theory and practice. Secondly, there are no expenses or perks. Thirdly, online voting is introduced along with petitions that, if enough interest is collected in the form of signatures, automatically generate an online referendum.

That's genuine democracy. Any other ideas?

That just seems like to much work for me
I prefer a system where we have one ruler who nobody questions and he makes all the decides without any input from the people.
Also online voting how would you make that secure?

Joshua J

The illusion of choice.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

what's your definition of chair?

Battered Mars Bar

Abortions for some, miniature flags for others.

mikemac1

Jester252 wrote: »

I prefer a system where we have one ruler who nobody questions and he makes all the decides without any input from the people.

Like a King?

Well you'll get a job anyway

Mr Benevolent

mikemac1 wrote: »

How do you deal with the NIMBY brigade?

Even when a project is needed and vital there will always be objections



And then everything goes to the cities
How does Clare keep their county hospital if 50,000 people in Limerick outvote them and want the resources in Limerick regional?
Clare never had a chance

Just an example

Same as Switzerland, you can only vote on issues of national or local importance. If you're in Dublin you can't vote on something that's happening locally in Donegal. A referendum wouldn't involve the same drawn out whiny crap it does here. Local referendums for local decisions, national referendums for national ones. National referendums would be quite rare.

By the way, all of this (bar the mandatory government appointments) happens in Switzerland in practice, it's not just pie in the sky stuff.

the groutch

mikemac1 wrote: »

Like a King?

Well you'll get a job anyway

No.
Like a BOSS!

Confab

Confab wrote: »

Same as Switzerland, you can only vote on issues of national or local importance. If you're in Dublin you can't vote on something that's happening locally in Donegal. A referendum wouldn't involve the same drawn out whiny crap it does here. Local referendums for local decisions, national referendums for national ones. National referendums would be quite rare.

By the way, all of this (bar the mandatory government appointments) happens in Switzerland in practice, it's not just pie in the sky stuff.

So Dublin could vote to keep all of it's money locally then, as opposed to funding the poorer parts of Ireland (i.e. the rest of it)? I'd be for that.

mikemac1

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

So Dublin could vote to keep all of it's money locally then, as opposed to funding the poorer parts of Ireland (i.e. the rest of it)? I'd be for that.

Wicklow could sell the water to Dublin, make a fortune

And if the Dubs want our Shannon water well they will have to pay for that too

mikemac1

mikemac1 wrote: »

Wicklow could sell the water to Dublin, make a fortune

And if the Dubs want our Shannon water well they will have to pay for that too

I vote to invade Wicklow and steal their water! And if that doesn't work, I vote to poison the water supply! Take that, Wicklah!

kneemos

Who votes for tax increases if needed.

kneemos

kneemos wrote: »

Who votes for tax increases if needed.

Eh don't you know that taxes never need to go up? Unless, of course, the oligarchy feel like lining their pockets some more. Pft

Mr Benevolent

kneemos wrote: »

Who votes for tax increases if needed.

The federal government.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

A system of illusion to give the masses the impression that they have freedom.

Confab

Confab wrote: »

The federal government.

You mean, like the Dáil?

Mr Benevolent

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

You mean, like the Dáil?

You didn't read my OP, did you?

Confab

Confab wrote: »

You didn't read my OP, did you?

I sure did. Can you point me towards the part I seem to be missing?

I am a political science student, though. So you'll have to excuse my dimwittedness

Show Time

Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

kneemos

Confab wrote: »

The federal government.

So the people are capable of voting, just not on important issues.

mikemac1

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I am a political science student, though.

You lot will be the first against the wall

kneemos

mikemac1 wrote: »

You lot will be the first against the wall

Think it's a democracy were talking about.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

mikemac1 wrote: »

You lot will be the first against the wall

In fairness, he said "political" science. Politics doesn't automatcially imply democracy. Beyond that, this is a bit like killing the weatheran because it rains too much.

Leftist

love the idea some people have that democracy is removing all government involvement in society

yes because left to our own devices the wealthy will be only happy to share the power.

absolute jokers.

af_thefragile

All the idiots voting for the candidate who makes the biggest claims.

St.Spodo

Voting people into power and having little or no say in most of their decisions.

recylingbin

1. Stick numbers by the names of useless, workshy retards
2. Watch one or more of them get elected
3. Watch as they get a new phone, new suits, new car, attend functions with business leaders where no favours are done.
4. Listen to them talking about subjects that are way above their comprehension.
5. Read in the paper how they have expenses that are almost twice the average industrial wage. That's alot of petrol and steak.
6. Pay more tax.

Suryavarman

kneemos wrote: »

Who votes for tax increases if needed.

Tax increases are never needed.

galgar

How come nothing on this site can evolve into a proper discussion without people slagging everything and everybody off. Confab's post is worth a decent discussion.

Ellis Dee

Once upon a time there was an international seminar devoted to defining the essence of democracy. It started off with a session where speakers were invited to illustrate their conception of democracy in graphical form.:D

The first speaker was a British Tory, who said he saw democracy as rather resembling a pyramid. It consisted of many layers arranged in hierarchical order of height with the greatest masses at the very bottom and each layer becoming smaller as one ascended, until at the very top there was a small apex, which represented the decision-making elite, but owed its elevated position to the layers beneath it.:)

Then came a Swede, who explained that the Nordics see democracy as resembling a wheel. The rim represents the masses, the hub the decision-making elite and the spokes the lines of communication and feedback between the masses and the decision-making elite. This received much applause.;);)

Next came an Irish expert representing the Fianna Gael Synthesis party. He said it was obvious that the best way to describe democracy in his and his party's view was that it resembled a mushroom.:rolleyes:

Cries of astonishment from around the room and shouts of "What do you mean by that?"

"Ah shure," he replied, "all you need do is give them plenty of horseshit and keep them in the dark."

Mickey Dazzler

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Once upon a time there was an international seminar devoted to defining the essence of democracy. It started off with a session where speakers were invited to illustrate their conception of democracy in graphical form.:D

The first speaker was a British Tory, who said he saw democracy as rather resembling a pyramid. It consisted of many layers arranged in hierarchical order of height with the greatest masses at the very bottom and each layer becoming smaller as one ascended, until at the very top there was a small apex, which represented the decision-making elite, but owed its elevated position to the layers beneath it.:)

Then came a Swede, who explained that the Nordics see democracy as resembling a wheel. The rim represents the masses, the hub the decision-making elite and the spokes the lines of communication and feedback between the masses and the decision-making elite. This received much applause.;);)

Next came an Irish expert representing the Fianna Gael Synthesis party. He said it was obvious that the best way to describe democracy in his and his party's view was that it resembled a mushroom.:rolleyes:

Cries of astonishment from around the room and shouts of "What do you mean by that?"

"Ah shure," he replied, "all you need do is give them plenty of horseshit and keep them in the dark."

ba boom...

christmas2012

We as people should be given platform to express our discontent at the government for one,voting should be more open for two,and three,there should be a body of people that represent the people of ireland,that let us decide on what we want to vote for,and we should be given a number of options not just 'this is a referendum the politicians want you to vote on yes or no',there should be more involvement in what we want to vote on.

oppenheimer1

A truly participatory depends on an electorate being able to fully understand the issues being presented to them. If you don't have this you get decisions based on everything but the question being asked. Usually fear, uncertainty and doubt.

http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol-7_2/IMAGES/sheep.jpg

That translates as create security btw. It was a swiss referendum on citizenship.

jimmycrackcorm

We rejected electronic voting machines so I can't see how we can ever arrive at a situation where we can practically vote in a more democratic manner.

I can't understand how we trust electronic banking with our money but can trust voting...

southcentralts

Everyone has access to the internet these days so why are we limited to bitching about our lack of access to decision making in government,
Surely we have the technology to set up some kind of polling system where everyone can have their say on all the issues important to them, for the government to implement or would that just end in the banishment of taxes resulting in a feudal tribal system with each man for himself?

bnt

The UK Govt. already has the e-petition system, which lets people suggest topics for legislation:

e-petitions are an easy, personal way for you to influence government and Parliament in the UK. You can create an e-petition about anything that the government is responsible for and if it gets at least 100,000 signatures, it will be considered for debate in the House of Commons.

The Trending petitions there might give you a flavor of the kinds of things that would interest people here. Childcare, motorcyclists, arts funding ... the price of beer. :cool:

Anyway - the question was about the definition of Democracy, which is simply that everybody votes on the issues of the day, and the majority wins. Which was possible in a small city state like Athens, where it was invented, but doesn't "scale" to the size of a country. So we have "representative democracy", where we appoint representatives to do the voting on your behalf. I don't have "my own" definition: there are standard definitions, which we need to agree on if we're going to have a conversation on the topic. Wikipedia is a good start.

bwatson

A nation that adheres to the wishes of its population, has regular contested elections and freedom of speech. I think its a pretty generally accepted definition and shows what a nonsense it is to say that nations such as Britain, the Netherlands or Denmark aren't democracies simply because they have a monarch.

TheDuke

One of the biggest problems with democracy are the elections - in order to get elected you need to convince the greatest populous that you're going to help which is an impossibility.

Then you arrive in office and have the civil service monolith to contend with to get anything done never mind reform.

An then all input capital is mainly constrained by how much inward investment you can attract and hold and how much you can ship to the rest of the world (GDP).... and the debt we already have to service.

And then there is the term during which everyone tells you what a rubbish job is being done - until someone else gets elected - and it continues.

So in the midst of that don't we have a hybrid of capitalism and socialism with the illusion that we can truly influence it?

I think the real challenge today is that democratic are geographical whilst capitalism knows not state so if we want a certain standard of living you have to dance with the devil and compromise at will.

In my view this is why the "democracy" picked up the "capitalist" banks and last weeks Yes vote was important within the context of presenting ourselves as a (somewhat) stable market to the world.

Anyhow, great topic and just some layman's thoughts based on general observation... so be easy on me

Mr Benevolent

bnt wrote: »

The UK Govt. already has the e-petition system, which lets people suggest topics for legislation

The Swiss have that already, but it goes one steps further - collecting 50,000 signatures automatically triggers a referendum.

bnt wrote: »

Anyway - the question was about the definition of Democracy, which is simply that everybody votes on the issues of the day, and the majority wins. Which was possible in a small city state like Athens, where it was invented, but doesn't "scale" to the size of a country. So we have "representative democracy", where we appoint representatives to do the voting on your behalf.

Again, the Swiss do this and have the most stable country in Europe.

sheesh

Confab wrote: »

Mine is that everyone gets a say in as much as possible, a la Switzerland - they can even vote on the position of the bus stops.

What we actually have is an elected oligarchy, i.e, moneyed people are in positions of power (an oligarchy) based on their popularity. How specifically is that a democracy in any sense of the word? People who want to be in power are, by definition, the very people you don't want.

My suggestion: 90% of government representatives are chosen at random from the population and given the same wage that were on before being given the role (i.e if you were on the dole you get dole money etc). That way people see the role as a pain rather than free money. The roles only last a year and acceptance of the role is mandatory.

The role comes with a few conditions though. Firstly, everyone is educated in how government works, in theory and practice. Secondly, there are no expenses or perks. Thirdly, online voting is introduced along with petitions that, if enough interest is collected in the form of signatures, automatically generate an online referendum.

That's genuine democracy. Any other ideas?

thats not democracy thats a lottery and forced labour. If you do not like the people currently running the country vote for someone else.

Mr Benevolent

thats not democracy thats a lottery and forced labour

Huh?

sheesh wrote: »

If you do not like the people currently running the country vote for someone else.

Since all our parties have essentially the same policies (i.e, 'Do Nothing Coherent') that's not a very productive strategy.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sheesh wrote: »

thats not democracy thats a lottery and forced labour. If you do not like the people currently running the country vote for someone else.

The problem there is the assumption that "someone else" is actually different. Hense my poitn earlier about the illusion of freedom. Or choice, as Mr. Carlin put it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt49DsfKDMc

What was that phrase? "Put the politicians on mimimum wage and watch how fast things change..."

Duggys Housemate

sheesh wrote: »

thats not democracy thats a lottery and forced labour. If you do not like the people currently running the country vote for someone else.

Its no more forced "labour" than a jury system. I agree with the idea of a selected parliament - although I would pay people more than their normal wage and give a certain percentage - the best speakers, or the people who turn up, or are on more committees - a small pension to ensure they try and do well in their year. this idea has a long pedigree, the Greeks not only elected people, they used a lottery system for public office, as all as direct votes, and jury systems with all adult males. We took one idea and called it democracy.

Lets do that for one house of parliament.

Duggys Housemate

The other thing the parliament would be is representative, not in the sense of elected representatives - who, as we can see, are from very few classes, backgrounds, or jobs - but representative of the country. It would be fifty percent male, and fifty percent female. The age demographic would be the same as the country - at least, over the age of majority, the private sector would be sixty percent - compared with zero percent now - , fourteen percent would come into parliament having been unemployed, ten percent would be either of immigrant descent, or immigrants themselves; we would have engineers, not just schoolteachers, lawyers, publicans and professional politicos.

From that, a better parliament and cabinet could be fashioned.

later12

A lot of people are missing the point. They are debating whether or not greater democracy is desirable -- but not examining the extent of our current 'democracy'.

Debate whether Ireland is democratic enough, or too democratic by all means. But please lets not try to promote the pretty ridiculous notion that increasing participation or holding more plebiscites would be anything less than increasingly democratic.

kneemos wrote: »

Who votes for tax increases if needed.

The Swiss. Along with higher bread prices, more speed limits, and fewer annual holidays!

Duggys Housemate

later12 wrote: »

A lot of people are missing the point. They are debating whether or not greater democracy is desirable -- but not examining the extent of our current 'democracy'.

Debate whether Ireland is democratic enough, or too democratic by all means. But please lets not try to promote the pretty ridiculous notion that increasing participation or holding more plebiscites would be anything less than increasingly democratic.

I find that referenda on a lot of stuff doesn't work. American States do it all the time and it serves to merely hamper the work of their state congress. The selected parliament, on the other hand, would consist of people expected to spend a year learning about government, or they would forgo any pension. There could be a stick too, failure to take the job seriously could result in a fine.

later12

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I find that referenda on a lot of stuff doesn't work. American States do it all the time and it serves to merely hamper the work of their state congress

How selfish of the people, obstructing the work of the administration!

I understand some people's concern here; but that's really a question of whether democracy is totally desirable. Not whether the above is democratic.

In my experience, aversion to increased democracy tends to be put forward by those who find that their opinions are not commonly shared amongst the public.

I can understand that sometimes - occasionally there is evidence to suggest that parliaments (not least the Irish parliament) are more "progressive" than the public they serve. But is that actually acceptable? Is there an inherent right for a parliament to institutionalise a system or make legislative provisions that are out of kilter with what most people want? Who gets to decide what these provisions might be, or how far they go?

Duggys Housemate

later12 wrote: »

How selfish of the people, obstructing the work of the administration!

I understand some people's concern here; but that's really a question of whether democracy is totally desirable. Not whether the above is democratic.

In my experience, aversion to increased democracy tends to be put forward by those who find that their opinions are not commonly shared amongst the public.

I can understand that sometimes - occasionally there is evidence to suggest that parliaments (not least the Irish parliament) are more "progressive" than the public they serve. But is that actually acceptable? Is there an inherent right for a parliament to institutionalise a system or make legislative provisions that are out of kilter with what most people want? Who gets to decide what these provisions might be, or how far they go?

Parliaments are more progressive, in fact I think were it not for our constitutional ability to force referenda, we would have abortion now. In fact, since the eighties. Thats not my main point against referenda, or "initiatives" as they are called in the US.

What happens is this, someone puts a initiative stopping the state parliaments from raising property taxes. Who would vote against that? Next year, income tax cant be raised without a sixty percent majority. Who would vote against that? Next year, the teachers union, whose members are losing ground as their pay is not keeping up with inflation, force an an initiative where teachers have to at least get a raise per year to compensate for inflation. Who would vote against that? The fire fighters jump in, and sponsor an an initiative to make sure that - since the death of fire fighter bob last year - the fire fighters never again have to fight a fire without the best of equipment. Who would vote against that?

You end up with a pariliemnt unable to govern, to raise taxes, create deficits, or cut the salaries of the public workers who can manage to get initiatives passed in time before the recession.

The result is chaos.

On the other hand a selected parliament would be cognisant, in their year, of the results of each action, as they would get speeches from the cabinet, or finance minster - we can's afford teacher rises every year because...,; and because that parliament are the ones responsible, with direct democracy nobody really is.

I would make the selected parliament the upper house, rather than remove the Senate, and give it the same power for now, to see how it works.