Can the public force a referendum in this country?

Sparks

bonkey,
Sign me up as interested.

Nice to know it's so simple. Well. It might be nicer if we were ever going to have something similar for ourselves

PHB,
Ask a single mom about childcare or benefits or childrearing. I think you'll get an intelligent reply from the majority. Ask a driver about road tax or the NCT or penalty points. You'll get a reasonably informed opinion (maybe wildly silly, but reasonably informed). Ask most OAPs or expectant mothers about the health system.
See, we know about what affects us. To say that one person would be able to adaquately represent us on all those topics is just plain silly. And besides, with representative democracy, what you get is a choice of predetermined options. What if you don't like any of those options? Currently, the answer is "tough".
Not too fair to my mind.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
They are manned by volunteers - just like in Ireland - supervised by some local civil authority type.

Election staff here tend to be local autority staff, local autorities being the controlling agencies for all voting.

Originally posted by bonkey
The reason it works is because voting fraud is relatively unheard of over here....probably aided by the fact that the postal system is so good in terms of tracking people (its illegal not to have your current fixed address registered with both state and post-office, and quite difficult to work around without losing all benefits and rights that the state offers you).

I'd love to see that work here, but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

Originally posted by bonkey
(trucks are already banned from motorwys on allSundays, and cant drive on the other roads).

How do they get from motorway to factory?

ciderandhavoc

Originally posted by Victor
But there are only 166 TDs (165 voting + CC) so you only need 83 TDs + 30 senators

Sorry my mistake, I meant 83 rather than 133.

You only need 83 and 30 if you are the government, the speakers always cast their votes in favour of the government if there is no majority for yay or nay. The opposition would need one more vote in each house to pass an act.

ciderandhavoc

Originally posted by Victor
How do they get from motorway to factory?

I assume he means that they don't! Not on a Sunday!

Imposter

A system such as that might actually encourage people to turn out to vote! Recent turnouts for referendums and even the last general election were shameful especially seeing the amount of whinging Irish people do about certain issues.

The stumbling blocks that I see to ever seeing such a system in Ireland is the need to have everyone registered at a primary address. Imagine trying to do this especially considering the complaining that was heard about carrying driving licences while driving! People in Ireland don't want to be accountable for their actions and so would not like the idea of the authorities knowing where they actually live. I feel it would get reactions similar to that of the British when their government suggested the ID card system.

A second problem would be that the government would have to agree to it which is highly unlikely as they would lose some of the power they enjoy with the current system.

And finally such a system would have to be put online in this day and age. When (if ever) has an Irish government ever managed to get a computerised system that ,in most cases, makes life easier for people, working satisfactorily, within budget and time constraints and without those who have to use it complaining or striking because they don't want to change their work practices or just use it as an excuse to get more money?

Sparks

Imposter,
I wonder how much of the lack of desire to have the government know where you are is tied to the sense that the government isn't answerable to anyone at the moment?
And while the swiss system is neat, I think we could get the same effect with town halls as an available alternative to the postal system. The electronic voting would be nice - but given that the current electronic voting system is distinctly dodgy (an FOI request to see the design and code for the system turned up the fact that the government hasn't got either and has never seen either), I think it won't happen for a while. That's not to say it's impossible - but it's hard to put in an honest system in a corrupt country.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
Imposter,
I wonder how much of the lack of desire to have the government know where you are is tied to the sense that the government isn't answerable to anyone at the moment?

Do you mean they can't be voted out at the next election?

PHB

PHB,
Ask a single mom about childcare or benefits or childrearing. I think you'll get an intelligent reply from the majority. Ask a driver about road tax or the NCT or penalty points. You'll get a reasonably informed opinion (maybe wildly silly, but reasonably informed). Ask most OAPs or expectant mothers about the health system.
See, we know about what affects us. To say that one person would be able to adaquately represent us on all those topics is just plain silly.

I agree you will, people care about things that affect them. They don't care too much about things that don't affect them.
Direct democracy would give people a say on things which don't affect them massivly.

Imagine the U.S. are considering signing the anti-proliferation of nucleor weapons treaty.
You can't honastly expect the citizens to take the time to fully comprehend the implications of this treaty, hence why it doesnt go to the public.

And besides, with representative democracy, what you get is a choice of predetermined options. What if you don't like any of those options? Currently, the answer is "tough".
Not too fair to my mind.

The anwser is not tough. The anwser if you can't find someone who agrees with your views, is that you yourself run for office and represent your views.

Sparks

SkepticOne,
Yes we can vote them out - in four years time. Meanwhile, they can amend the FOI act, back the US in a war the majority of us disagree with, castrate local government, increase gardai powers without putting checks in place, run the economy into the ground, or do any one of a hundred other things that we may not be able to rectify after we vote them out.

PHB,

I agree you will, people care about things that affect them. They don't care too much about things that don't affect them.
Direct democracy would give people a say on things which don't affect them massivly.

Yes, if they care enough to vote. Voter apathy in this country is a serious problem, remember. It's the cost of giving everyone a fair voice. And the same problem shows up with representative democracy as well. Why should a TD from kerry get to vote on things that affect only counties near dublin, for example?
Besides, do you think that bertie&co have any serious insight into childcare? the medical system from the point of OAPs? Road tax? Penalty points?
Remember, this election saw a lot of single-issue independents elected or come very, very close (John dennehy's seat in cork for example). This, to me, shows that people accept the idea of voting on a single issue rather than voting for a general representative with a range of policies.

Imagine the U.S. are considering signing the anti-proliferation of nucleor weapons treaty.
You can't honastly expect the citizens to take the time to fully comprehend the implications of this treaty, hence why it doesnt go to the public.

I can't expect them to honestly understand every nuance immediately. That's why referenda are announced in advance, that's why even direct democracy retains an administration and an executive and professional diplomats, and that's why we have education programs. To accept that people are just stupid and can't ever change is to ignore the reality that people today have a great deal more education on average than even fifty years ago.

The anwser is not tough. The anwser if you can't find someone who agrees with your views, is that you yourself run for office and represent your views.

Nope, that's not an answer for me. See, here's the thing. I enjoy my job. I worked hard for nearly twenty years to get to where I am. My family made a lot of sacrifices to give me the chance to get to where I am. And I'm not unique - most people under 30 can say similar things. And since there's another alternative option that gives me a vote without giving up my life (not just my job, but my personal privacy, my professional career, in short, my life) to politics. And even if I do run for political office, if elected I am bound to represent the views of other people even if they conflict with mine, that's why it's called representative democracy.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
SkepticOne,
Yes we can vote them out - in four years time. Meanwhile, they can amend the FOI act, back the US in a war the majority of us disagree with, castrate local government, increase gardai powers without putting checks in place, run the economy into the ground, or do any one of a hundred other things that we may not be able to rectify after we vote them out.

Yet they got elected. People, knowing they would be ruled by whoever they elected for five years, put the current Government in power. And, guess what, they will probably be elected for another five years after that.

The reason we are moaning about current Government policy is because we didn't take the last election seriously. We listed to party propaganda and did not ask hard questions. In the end, we elected those who told us what we wanted to hear.

I'm very much in favour of more direct democracy, but the learning curve will be very steep.

Sparks

The reason we are moaning about current Government policy is because we didn't take the last election seriously. We listed to party propaganda and did not ask hard questions. In the end, we elected those who told us what we wanted to hear.

*sigh* I hate it when that arguement is made - mainly because it's right
Mind you, it's not so much the lack of hard questions as the serious amount of lying that bothers me the most.

Sparks

From RTE:

CSO's General Election figures released
(13:03) Only half of the electorate under the age of 25 voted in last year's General Election, according to the results of a survey just published by the Central Statistics Office.
The survey of 24,000 adults found that turnout among the elderly was much higher, with 90% going to the polls.
The study also showed that only a third of those who voted think politicians are honest.
Nearly 40% said they thought politicians did not care about the opinions of ordinary people.
Males and female voter participation rates were similar.
But when the figures were analysed according to the Principal Economic Status of the respondent, there were significant differences.
Just over 75% of those employed voted in the General Election, compared with 58.8% of those unemployed.

The report is here. Shows just how serious voter apathy is in this country. The participation rate didn't hit 80% until after the age 44 mark - and the bulk of the population are under 44 years of age according to the CSO.

Table 8 is interesting - 72.7% of people asked were "Not at all", "Not very" or just "Fairly" satisfied with the democratic system we have.

sceptre

The study also showed that only a third of those who voted think politicians are honest.

These are people I'd be interested in meeting. There are honest politicians. I've probably even met some. But "Are politicians honest?" Heck, no. We're talking people who would fail a lie detector test if they told the truth while being examined.

Sparks

sceptre, I suspect you should be kept away from such people - you'd wind up selling them a bridge