Direct Democracy Ireland Launches Today

First off, I am not a member and I don't fully understand what the party represents.

I think it's safe to say it's a left wing party, but other than that, would their stance on all issues be: Put it to the vote!

Where do you stand on abortion? Put it to the Vote!
Drugs? Put it to the Vote!

etc. etc.

I saw from their facebook that they're getting support from Pacub - Protest Against Cuts to Child Benefit. I would be firmly opposed to this as I personally think it should not be paid to high earners. But I suppose you can't like everything that a party stands for, and if it goes to a vote, the people would decide.

I've never belonged to a political party as I never found the right "fit". The closest philosophy that I am drawn to would be Libertarian Socialism.


www.directdemocracyireland.com

How would their TD's act if they got in the Dail? What stances would they take? Would they have to go to the people for every vote they took?

BensonSlide

They have a youtube video of Alex Jones on their homepage.

I give them about 6 months. Plenty of enthusiasm at the start, lots of blog posts, the drawing up of a manifesto that promises everything without worrying about the small detail of how they propose to fund it all.

the groutch

this whole theory of "let the people decide everything" is so unrealistic, they'll do well to even get a name on a ballot in 2014

the groutch

the groutch wrote: »

this whole theory of "let the people decide everything" is so unrealistic, they'll do well to even get a name on a ballot in 2014

Forgive i'm wrong, but does it not work in Iceland and Switzerland?

KyussBishop

Seems a pretty straight-forward movement, looking to bring in petition-based referenda at various levels of government, like in Switzerland; seems a worthwhile movement to support (even if direct democracy can have downsides, like the Switzerland minaret issue).

yore

Let everyone vote on everything? Jesus, what an unworkable and inefficient situation. Sure why would we need TDs and other representatives then?


And this the week after a very important referendum got a very small turnout.

KyussBishop

If you think direct democracy is "let everyone vote on everything", you haven't made even the most basic first efforts to try and read up on it; at least inform yourself about a policy before piddling on it.

Manach

Given that direct democracy was successful in classical times and that there is now the technology to give most people a say on directly how this country should be run, this has positive elements. A more nuance approach however would be to allow more non-constitutional referendums that deal with social matters as per a voter-imitative means - as per various US resolutions in their recent election.
So let the politicians be the executives, but let the people decide and live with the choices for good or ill.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you think direct democracy is "let everyone vote on everything", you haven't made even the most basic first efforts to try and read up on it; at least inform yourself about a policy before piddling on it.

What is it then? A system where we elect officials to represent us and make most decisions on our behalf but where we have referenda on major decisions? Sounds revolutionary if so!

And as for local petitions, that's manna from heaven for all the various NIMBY organisations around the country against various projects. Also leads to mob rule.....for example if a certain community doesn't want black people being given housing in the area....hey let them vote on it and if that's what they vote for, then that's ok :rolleyes:

yore

Manach wrote: »

Given that direct democracy was successful in classical times and that there is now the technology to give most people a say on directly how this country should be run, this has positive elements. A more nuance approach however would be to allow more non-constitutional referendums that deal with social matters as per a voter-imitative means - as per various US resolutions in their recent election.
So let the politicians be the executives, but let the people decide and live with the choices for good or ill.

When were these "classical times" you are referring to?

Peanut2011

Did we not have similar group spring up last election? People before Profit!

Now we learn that they are no different in the Dáil than the next group. They all milk the system dry just as much. Pity there are very few politicians left in Ireland who do it out of love for the country and not the €!

Most of the politicians once they got the cushy seat and the step in to the government went back on most of their promises...

We will never have it better as long as it's party politics and parish politics.

Peanut2011

Peanut2011 wrote: »

Did we not have similar group spring up last election? People before Profit!

Now we learn that they are no different in the Dáil than the next group. They all milk the system dry just as much. Pity there are very few politicians left in Ireland who do it out of love for the country and not the €!

Most of the politicians once they got the cushy seat and the step in to the government went back on most of their promises...

We will never have it better as long as it's party politics and parish politics.

I don't think its fair to paint them all with the same brush otherwise change which is desperately needed won't happen!

The party is less than 90 minutes old!

Peanut2011

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think its fair to paint them all with the same brush otherwise change which is desperately needed won't happen!

The party is less than 90 minutes old!

I agree with you, however the experience so far with the groups leaves me very cynical.

I would love to see them succeed if they will be true to their work and actually go do it for the good of the country and not for any other reason.

Robbo

BensonSlide wrote: »

They have a youtube video of Alex Jones on their homepage.

The also have Freeman on the Land "guru" Ben Gilroy involved, fresh from temporarily postponing evictions by waving his hands about chanting magic words and "firing" receivers.

hatrickpatrick

Why is there such a fear of direct democracy on this forum?
I put it to you that if we'd had direct democracy in September 2008 there's not a chance in hell we'd be repaying senior Anglo bondholders right now...

There's also not a hope in hell that the government would still have such ridiculous policies with regard to social freedom.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

What is it then? A system where we elect officials to represent us and make most decisions on our behalf but where we have referenda on major decisions? Sounds revolutionary if so!

And as for local petitions, that's manna from heaven for all the various NIMBY organisations around the country against various projects. Also leads to mob rule.....for example if a certain community doesn't want black people being given housing in the area....hey let them vote on it and if that's what they vote for, then that's ok :rolleyes:

Here, since you can't read up on it yourself, and I'm not going to spoon-feed you a description since you're too lazy to make the effort to inform yourself, and just look to smear the policy in general, from a position of ignorance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

_Kaiser_

yore wrote: »

Let everyone vote on everything? Jesus, what an unworkable and inefficient situation. Sure why would we need TDs and other representatives then?

I can't resist... sorry!

Do you really believe that given the "calibre" of our elected officials in the last few years (at all levels and parties), that being rid of them would be that big a loss??

yore

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I can't resist... sorry!

Do you really believe that given the "calibre" of our elected officials in the last few years (at all levels and parties), that being rid of them would be that big a loss??

Good man yourself. Sure lets burn The Reichstag Leinster House while we're at it.
If you seriously think it is a good idea to do away with elected officials and hand it over to faceless and unanswerable civil servants then good luck to you. Look at how well they're doing now even with the (however nominal) power the government has over them.

Think about it.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Here, since you can't read up on it yourself, and I'm not going to spoon-feed you a description since you're too lazy to make the effort to inform yourself, and just look to smear the policy in general, from a position of ignorance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Yeah.... I read your link. Nothing I hadn't assumed already.

Unfortunately these crackpot ideas keep resurfacing every few years. Some eejit thinks he's a revolutionary genius and comes along with an "new" idea that he can twist to suit his own personal agenda. He'll present it as a new way of thinking when in reality it has been suggested over and over again previously. There is a reason why it didn't work the last time. Or the time before that. Or the previous time.

hatrickpatrick

yore wrote: »

Yeah.... I read your link. Nothing I hadn't assumed already.

Unfortunately these crackpot ideas keep resurfacing every few years. Some eejit thinks he's a revolutionary genius and comes along with an "new" idea that he can twist to suit his own personal agenda. He'll present it as a new way of thinking when in reality it has been suggested over and over again previously. There is a reason why it didn't work the last time. Or the time before that. Or the previous time.

When was it ever tried in Ireland?
Why are you so afraid of it, exactly? What specifically do you fear the Irish people would do that would lead to the apocalypse?

yore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When was it ever tried in Ireland?
Why are you so afraid of it, exactly? What specifically do you fear the Irish people would do that would lead to the apocalypse?

What are you ****eing on about man. "Afraid" and "apocalypse".

When was it ever tried in Ireland? People voting directly for something? Perhaps if we go back into the mists of time. Way way back. Even back as far as last Saturday. I remember the old-timers talking about it. There was a great idea to give the people the direct choice to make a very important change to the Irish constitution. And people in their droves beat fought against all the odds to make it to the polling stations. Past hoardes of wild animals and Black and Tans and snowstorms and big winds and famines. In spite of all that, about one third of voters managed to make it to the polling station and prevented the evil, almost 1/6th, minority from prevailing.

_Kaiser_

yore wrote: »

Good man yourself. Sure lets burn The Reichstag Leinster House while we're at it.
If you seriously think it is a good idea to do away with elected officials and hand it over to faceless and unanswerable civil servants then good luck to you. Look at how well they're doing now even with the (however nominal) power the government has over them.

Think about it.

Oh I have thought about it.

Just how "answerable" is the current government to the electorate? Or better yet the last one.. run the country into the ground, sell it off to the Troika, and retire in your mid 50s on a full - and immediate - expensive/excessive state pension (or three) without ever having to worry about being answerable to the law, never mind the "people".

Enda and Co for example were elected on a mandate for change (if you discount the "anyone but FF at this stage!" vote). They was elected because he promised to do things differently with Irish interests put first.

What's happened since? They've continued on with the unsustainable "austerity for some, perks for others" policy of their predecessors, we have a health minister accused of stroke politics by his own colleagues, and Enda... a man who's asleep at the wheel and can't even keep his own cabinet in line - being more concerned with being teacher's pet a good European (and getting "awards" for it no less!) than the impact these policies are having on the very people he's supposed to represent!

Then there's the unending incompetence (Phil Hogan and his Household tax for example), claims of corruption (Reilly), interference in matters they have no business in (Hogan AND Kenny), and a situation where even the Ceann Comhairle accused them of behaving 'like gurriers on the street' in our National Parliament last week.

Yea, tell me again how we're better off with them?

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is there such a fear of direct democracy on this forum?

Because most people won't/can't put in the time and effort required. Look at the various referendums most people don't read the Treaty if its about the EU or have the time to sit down and understand the legal impact of minor differences some change in the constitution can have i.e. Children referendum.

Two there's the potential for even more populism or short term thinking. How many people are going to vote themselves a tax rise or to cut any benefits they receive even if in the long term it is for the best.

In theory its ideal but in practice we all don't have time to sit down and tease through every new law or access to the expertise/knowledge to understand the implications.

noelg

BensonSlide wrote: »

They have a youtube video of Alex Jones on their homepage.

I give them about 6 months. Plenty of enthusiasm at the start, lots of blog posts, the drawing up of a manifesto that promises everything without worrying about the small detail of how they propose to fund it all.

We are already in existence for two years, The fact that you are reading a political forum suggests that you have an interest. The time for whinging about our predicament is over. The time for action has arrived.

noelg

noelg wrote: »

We are already in existence for two years, The fact that you are reading a political forum suggests that you have an interest. The time for whinging about our predicament is over. The time for action has arrived.

Hi Noel,
It appears you're a member of the party. Can you answer my questions in the first two posts please?

An Coilean

yore wrote: »

What are you ****eing on about man. "Afraid" and "apocalypse".

When was it ever tried in Ireland? People voting directly for something? Perhaps if we go back into the mists of time. Way way back. Even back as far as last Saturday. I remember the old-timers talking about it. There was a great idea to give the people the direct choice to make a very important change to the Irish constitution. And people in their droves beat fought against all the odds to make it to the polling stations. Past hoardes of wild animals and Black and Tans and snowstorms and big winds and famines. In spite of all that, about one third of voters managed to make it to the polling station and prevented the evil, almost 1/6th, minority from prevailing.

What exactly is your problem, a referendum is not valid if less than half the population of the state dont vote for the wining option?

Not voting is a perfectly valid option, if you don't care enough to vote, you accept that the decision will be made for you by others.

I have no problem with rule by the majority of people who care enough to vote, as long as everyone has the option of deciding when they care enough to vote.

I would see that as a better system than picking who makes your decisions for you at five year intervals.

Godge

Direct democracy?

In an economic boom, with 2% unemployment, a referendum to cut the dole to €50 would probably be passed, even though the country could afford a lot more.

In a recession, with 20% unemployment, and everyone knowing someone affected, a referendum to raise the dole to €300 would probably be passed, even though the country was bankrupt and facing financial Armageddon.

That is why we have representative democracy.

An Coilean

Godge wrote: »

Direct democracy?

In an economic boom, with 2% unemployment, a referendum to cut the dole to €50 would probably be passed, even though the country could afford a lot more.

In a recession, with 20% unemployment, and everyone knowing someone affected, a referendum to raise the dole to €300 would probably be passed, even though the country was bankrupt and facing financial Armageddon.

That is why we have representative democracy.

Firstly I don't think people really are willfully stupid, Secondly you can put a fiscal exemption in place.

Anyway it seems to me that Pure Direct Democracy is not what is aimed at, but just adding elements of Direct Democracy to the representative democracy that we have.

yore

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Oh I have thought about it.

Just how "answerable" is the current government to the electorate? Or better yet the last one.. run the country into the ground, sell it off to the Troika, and retire in your mid 50s on a full - and immediate - expensive/excessive state pension (or three) without ever having to worry about being answerable to the law, never mind the "people".

Enda and Co for example were elected on a mandate for change (if you discount the "anyone but FF at this stage!" vote). They was elected because he promised to do things differently with Irish interests put first.

What's happened since? They've continued on with the unsustainable "austerity for some, perks for others" policy of their predecessors, we have a health minister accused of stroke politics by his own colleagues, and Enda... a man who's asleep at the wheel and can't even keep his own cabinet in line - being more concerned with being teacher's pet a good European (and getting "awards" for it no less!) than the impact these policies are having on the very people he's supposed to represent!

Then there's the unending incompetence (Phil Hogan and his Household tax for example), claims of corruption (Reilly), interference in matters they have no business in (Hogan AND Kenny), and a situation where even the Ceann Comhairle accused them of behaving 'like gurriers on the street' in our National Parliament last week.

Yea, tell me again how we're better off with them?

You obviously didn't get my reference to the burning of the Reichstag. Didn't work out too well that time did it?

yore

An Coilean wrote: »

Firstly I don't think people really are willfully stupid, Secondly you can put a fiscal exemption in place.
.

Grand...and how will we decide this fiscal exemption? Who will be c=in charge of deciding that? The furhrer leader of the movement? Seeing as how people think we'd be better off without TDs.

Or would we decide these exemptions, to prevent eejits voting for stupid stuff, by asking the same eejits to vote on implementing and retaining same exemptions?

yore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I put it to you that if we'd had direct democracy in September 2008 there's not a chance in hell we'd be repaying senior Anglo bondholders right now...

You're dead right. Not a chance in hell.

But mainly because the country could quite possibly be similar to a fucking Mad-Max style wasteland



(not referring to specific Banks)

Cavehill Red

The number of people on this thread afraid of exercising sovereignty over their own lives and who, even after our political class have been proven time and time again to be venally corrupt and spectacularly incompetent, still prefer that option to making the decisions themselves, is quite frightening to me.
Get up off your fcuking knees for once.
Here's something to think about: the richest country on Earth, with no significant natural resources, riven by multiple languages and cultures, surrounded by large states, is the only one using this system on the planet. Coincidence?
Another thing to think about: why is the squabbling of 166 pocket-lining attention-seekers considered at all preferable to the collective wisdom of a nation debating issues nationally?

fasttalkerchat

yore wrote: »

Let everyone vote on everything? Jesus, what an unworkable and inefficient situation. Sure why would we need TDs and other representatives then?


And this the week after a very important referendum got a very small turnout.

TD's can raise local issues and make smaller decisions. Once 40% of people want to have a direct vote then a vote must happen. (The 40% comes from an online poll, vote online by PPS number - doesn't have to be accurate.)
That's how I would like it done.

yore

Could one of the proponents of this crackpot scheme, preferably one who has the opinion that we could/should get rid of the politicians, explain to me how the process would work.

Who would decide what to vote on? Would we all do it through Facebook or boards.ie? Maybe have a "suggest a law" thread and if a suggestion gets 1000 likes we can go to the next stage of setting up a thread with a poll on it and if more than 50% vote yes, it becomes a law :pac:


Or would we have an unelected official who decides what we can and can't vote on? Perhaps as I referred to earlier,the fuhrer leader of the movement?

yore

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

TD's can raise local issues and make smaller decisions. Once 40% of people want to have a direct vote then a vote must happen. (The 40% comes from an online poll, vote online by PPS number - doesn't have to be accurate.)
That's how I would like it done.

Maybe we were a bit hasty in scrapping the e-voting machines after all

yore

Cavehill Red wrote: »

The number of people on this thread afraid of exercising sovereignty over their own lives and who, even after our political class have been proven time and time again to be venally corrupt and spectacularly incompetent, still prefer that option to making the decisions themselves, is quite frightening to me.
Get up off your fcuking knees for once.
Here's something to think about: the richest country on Earth, with no significant natural resources, riven by multiple languages and cultures, surrounded by large states, is the only one using this system on the planet. Coincidence?
Another thing to think about: why is the squabbling of 166 pocket-lining attention-seekers considered at all preferable to the collective wisdom of a nation debating issues nationally?

Please tell what magical country is this?

poeticseraphim

Robbo wrote: »

The also have Freeman on the Land "guru" Ben Gilroy involved, fresh from temporarily postponing evictions by waving his hands about chanting magic words and "firing" receivers.

Oh God!

Nodin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why is there such a fear of direct democracy on this forum?
I put it to you that if we'd had direct democracy in September 2008 there's not a chance in hell we'd be repaying senior Anglo bondholders right now...

There's also not a hope in hell that the government would still have such ridiculous policies with regard to social freedom.

.....and how would you protect minorities?

yore

Good Jesus, I've looked at a few minutes video on their webpage. It's hilarious.

I like his scientific explanation that GDP is directly related to population....I guess one of their policies might be to entice in another 2 million people or so so that we can get back to our economic highs of the 1840s :pac:

Cavehill Red

yore wrote: »

Please tell what magical country is this?

Nothing magical about it. Switzerland is run by its people. The only 'magic' is that their politicians answer to the will of the people and not the other way around. And it's worked indisputably well there for centuries.

yore

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nothing magical about it. Switzerland is run by its people. The only 'magic' is that their politicians answer to the will of the people and not the other way around. And it's worked indisputably well there for centuries.

Good lad. And here was me thinking that Switzerland with a GDP of just under a half a trillion wasn't as wealthy as the USA with a GDP of over 14 trillion.

I'm still listening to this hilarious video. Apparently we can shut down the central banks and everyone will get loads of money in compensation :pac:


Edit: It's nice the way that at the end of the video, after calling for the destruction of the monetary system as we know it, he then advertises his book that's available to purchase from Amazon for 16.99 paperback or 5.99 as a download :pac: :pac:

Cavehill Red

yore wrote: »

Good lad. And here was me thinking that Switzerland with a GDP of just under a half a trillion wasn't as wealthy as the USA with a GDP of over 14 trillion.

Wanna try that per capita?

hatrickpatrick

Nodin wrote: »

.....and how would you protect minorities?

That's pretty simple, before embarking on this process you would have an iron clad bill of rights, for example the European one, which can't be overturned by a simple vote. Basic rights such as freedom of speech, etc.

The problem with the current system is that we have no real control over politicians after we've elected them. It's very obvious especially when you see things in the media like "That issue won't be touched this year as it's an election year", effectively meaning "once the election is over they can do what they want regardless of the people's opinions on it".

It's an incredibly broken system.

dsmythy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's pretty simple, before embarking on this process you would have an iron clad bill of rights, for example the European one, which can't be overturned by a simple vote. Basic rights such as freedom of speech, etc.

The problem with the current system is that we have no real control over politicians after we've elected them. It's very obvious especially when you see things in the media like "That issue won't be touched this year as it's an election year", effectively meaning "once the election is over they can do what they want regardless of the people's opinions on it".

It's an incredibly broken system.

How dare you take away my direct democracy voice. I'm starting a petition right now to be allowed change these ironclad rights.

the_syco

Robbo wrote: »

The also have Freeman on the Land "guru" Ben Gilroy involved, fresh from temporarily postponing evictions by waving his hands about chanting magic words and "firing" receivers.

In that case they can burn in hell!

Robbo

the_syco wrote: »

In that case they can burn in hell!

It's a common curse of groups which pop up in Ireland, seeking to do something differently or presenting a different point of view; they'll inevitably end up hijacked or tainted by those with esoteric agendas and beliefs.

Witness how quickly Occupy Galway went from being about unfair wealth distribution to being a haven the anti-vaxxers, Freemen, etc which ended up at the end with a man of pensionable age shouting at the Gardai about chemtrails and Ulick McEvaddy's plot to rule the world.

For the record, I'd like to see the implementation of some elements of direct democracy, it's just this particular well is completely tainted by having Ben Gilroy as a figurehead.

Fools and opportunists will always bring them down.

yore

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Wanna try that per capita?

Well if you insist

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=14&pr.y=9&sy=2010&ey=2017&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=137%2C142%2C576%2C146%2C532%2C178%2C112%2C111&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=


Just a little selection for you. Including both Ireland and the UK for comparison purposes

Nodin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's pretty simple, before embarking on this process you would have an iron clad bill of rights, for example the European one, which can't be overturned by a simple vote. Basic rights such as freedom of speech, etc.

The problem with the current system is that we have no real control over politicians after we've elected them. It's very obvious especially when you see things in the media like "That issue won't be touched this year as it's an election year", effectively meaning "once the election is over they can do what they want regardless of the people's opinions on it".

It's an incredibly broken system.

So how would such a bill of rights protect single mothers benefit from being overly targeted in cuts, for instance....

Nodin

the_syco wrote: »

In that case they can burn in hell!

They don't recognise hells authority to burn them.

southsiderosie

Manach wrote: »

Given that direct democracy was successful in classical times...

In classical times, there was not universal citizenship.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Seems a pretty straight-forward movement, looking to bring in petition-based referenda at various levels of government, like in Switzerland; seems a worthwhile movement to support (even if direct democracy can have downsides, like the Switzerland minaret issue).

Direct democracy has many downsides.

First, as Nodin mentioned, it is bad for minorities. Switzerland was the last Western country to adopt universal suffrage for women, and allowing a vote on every single aspect of society had a deleterious effect on naturalization processes. Traditionally in some areas, town residents got to vote on citizenship applications, and the outcomes were so discriminatory that this right was taken away.

Second, as California makes clear, direct democracy can put enormous pressure on the state's finances, as people demand fewer taxes and more services. Proposition 13 not only capped property taxes (which in the US fund schools), but also made it difficult for the legislature to pass new tax laws by requiring a 2/3 majority. Given that there is already a strong tendency in Irish politics to kick the can down the road, one can only wonder what direct democracy would actually mean for resolving long-standing problems.

Frankly, I don't think direct democracy is the way to address Ireland's political issues. I've said this before and I'll say it again: if Ireland instated a national list system with proportional representation (like the Netherlands), it would force parties to 1) articulate a clear political position that voters could hold them to, 2) take much of the cute heroism out of politics (because people would be voting for the party not the individual at the national level, and 3) force legislators to focus on national issues rather than parish pump politics. I do think, however, that local governments should be given more control over revenues and spending, and perhaps at that level there is more room for a more direct, participatory form of governance. But direct democracy would be disastrous at the national level.