6 ms·

> It's a tragic topic to put to a referendum though How one can reach such conclusion is beyond me. People will discuss the question, and democratically decide

by wazoox 11y ago

> It's a tragic topic to put to a referendum though How one can reach such conclusion is beyond me. People will discuss the question, and democratically decide. You'd be surprise the fierce debates that erupts among citizens when a serious question is on the table, and how everyone makes oneself enlightened before vote. This is what actual democracy is. This is how it should work everywhere for any serious issue. Designating a cherry-picked representative who carries exactly zero obligation to hold his promises is NOT democracy, but elective oligarchy. Almost all countries calling themselves democracies certainly don't deserve the name.

atmosx 11y ago
> How one can reach such conclusion is beyond me. Actually, if you don't trust democracy, labeling topics for a referendum as tragic or awful goes without saying.
- reinhardt 11y ago
  I trust democracy to decide on complex financial issues as much as I trust it to design a chemical factory or offer medical advice: not at all.
golergka 11y ago
> everyone makes oneself enlightened Really.
jeffdavis 11y ago
"makes oneself enlightened before vote" How long does it take for someone to be competent to vote on monetary policy? It's ridiculous to expect a voter to spend that amount of time on every issue.
- wazoox 11y ago
  It may take a long time, but the debate is 18 months long, more than enough for everybody to get on board on the issue. It's ridiculous to believe that citizens have no business in important matters. If you're not deciding, you're not acting, and your voice doesn't matter at all.
  - reinhardt 11y ago
    In case you're not just trolling, I'm wondering if your argument would change in case of matters that require medical or nuclear engineering expertise.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Why shouldn't voters get a say in these matters? If it is so important that experts make the calls, then convince the voters to vote for allowing the experts to make the calls. If the voters don't trust the experts to such an extent they rather risk screwing everything up, then that is what we will have to live with. For a interesting thought, what about matters of brain development and ability to reason? Why should voters get to decide on matters such as when we are considered adults or when consenting to contracts or sex is possible. For nuclear or medical expertise, there is at least expertise. For matters of brain development, the science is still very young and limited. Or even on a greater extent, why should a voter be given power in matters that require ethical expertise? Matters that require legal expertise?
  - jeffdavis 11y ago
    I've spent more than that amount of time casually trying to make sense of monetary policy, simply out of interest. I do not feel competent to take part in a decision about the reserve requirement. I guess you could set up a system where you delegate your vote to a third party on an issue-by-issue basis. An interesting thought experiment, but quite a few things to work out. My guess is, at the end, it would be similar to the system we have.
mattlutze 11y ago
I'm curious to which country you're assigning these noble ideals. In no place I've lived would the average person walking into the voting box have spent time studying the history of banking law and policy to make a well-informed rational decision. They'd at most have read the opinions of some journalists or listened to a news reporter, and would make their decision after discussions between similar poorly informed friends/colleagues. Fierce debates != well-informed debates. We elect representatives because it's known that the body politic, once it reaches a large size, doesn't have the time to be well-informed on all decisions they'd need to make as a pure democracy. To suggest so exposes a serious need for a second look at the situation. Representative democracy isn't elective oligarchy.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  Switzerland, actually, is bloody good at this referendum thing. They do it all the time, and because of that the level of debate is relatively high and the populace make far better choices than you would see in a country without the same situation.
  - _delirium 11y ago
    Can you point to a Swiss referendum campaign with a high level of debate? I've only closely followed one referendum campaign in Switzerland, I'll admit, but the level of debate in that one was quite low, even by the standards of a typical European election campaign. That was the 2014 referendum on whether to put quotas on Schengen-zone immigration [1]. It was basically the usual shouting match over immigration you'd expect anywhere, full of a lot of vitriol and not much in the way of rational debate or accurate statistics. The outcome was also what you'd expect anywhere else too, predictable more by demographics than argumentation: rural areas and less-educated people voted to restrict immigration, cities and the highly educated voted not to, so the final outcome depended mainly on voter turnout among each of those groups. Since getting your base as riled up as possible is a better way of getting turnout than rational debate, that's what both sides did. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_February_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...
  - 11y ago
kbart 11y ago
In my experience, most people simply vote for the opinion shouted loudest and the one their relatives/friends vote. Only a very few investigates the topic independently, but their votes are lost in the noise. I would not trust decisions, that require specific knowledge and that can't be explained in layman terms, to the masses.
- wsc981 11y ago
  In my experience, most people simply vote for the opinion shouted loudest and the one their relatives/friends vote. Only a very few investigates the topic independently, but their votes are lost in the noise. I would not trust decisions, that require specific knowledge and that can't be explained in layman terms, to the masses. Could you provide some examples? --- Personally I don't trust politicians as much anymore these days to make choices in the benefit of the people. Most often the politicians' votes seem more aligned with business interests compared to the people interests, especially in large powerful constructs like the EU. I've also seen politicians make plenty bad choices in my country. My opinion is that we should get more referenda in the future. The innovation of internet makes it possible to do this very cheap.
  - kbart 11y ago
    I agree that politicians make some terrible and downright malicious decisions (namely TTIP) and citizens should have more power (stop NSA, anyone?), but some decisions are best left to the specialists. Utopian government should be some kind of a mix between democracy and technocracy imho. An anecdote to answer your question: in Lithuania (where I live), few elections ago, the most vote received a party consisting of the local TV and pop stars that, no need to say, had absolutely no clue about politics. Of course, they didn't last long and only caused few months of turmoil.
patatino 11y ago
I'm swiss and you'd be surprised how many don't even know what we voted about after the vote. Less than 50% of all people vote and everytime it is over 50% it's because the right-wing parties shouted really loud and spend a lot of money. It is getting really absourd. Next year we have a vote about if we should enforce a vote back from 2010.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  Would you prefer a nice dictatorship instead? Participatory democracy is the lesser evil from what we know so far, and it's not absurd that only the people interested in the subject at hand go to the voting booth.
  - hackerboos 11y ago
    Poor argument. As if direct democracy or dictatorship are the only choices... Maybe just a representative democracy like the rest of Europe.
    - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
      Representative democracy is terrible. Italy's current prime minister was elected directly by the people only as mayor of Florence. From there he went on being nominated and elected by various representatives. The problem is that representation in politics is not transitive. B might represent A and C might represent B, but this does not mean that C represents A.
snarfy 11y ago
It's a republic not a democracy. The problem with a democracy is the majority rules. If the US were a true democracy the civil rights movement would have never happened. The white majority could have simply out voted the black minority. Pure democracy is mob-rule.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The white majority was in favour of the Civil Right Act and of the Voting Rights Act. http://volokh.com/2010/05/24/public-opinion-anti-discrimination-law-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/ http://volokh.com/2010/05/24/public-opinion-anti-discriminat... http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/voting-rights-act/ http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/voting-rights-act/ The idea that the "republic" part of the system protects minorities despite vast opposition from the majority sounds nice, but it's not supported by reality.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > It's a republic not a democracy. That's like saying that it's an animated film, not a comedy. The republic is a form of government and democracy is a way to involve the people in deciding who governs them. Some republics are democracies, some democracies are republics. > The problem with a democracy is the majority rules. When the minority rules, like in a plutocracy, you've got a bigger problem.

by wazoox 11y ago

atmosx 11y ago

> How one can reach such conclusion is beyond me. Actually, if you don't trust democracy, labeling topics for a referendum as tragic or awful goes without saying.

reinhardt 11y ago
I trust democracy to decide on complex financial issues as much as I trust it to design a chemical factory or offer medical advice: not at all.

golergka 11y ago

> everyone makes oneself enlightened Really.

jeffdavis 11y ago

"makes oneself enlightened before vote" How long does it take for someone to be competent to vote on monetary policy? It's ridiculous to expect a voter to spend that amount of time on every issue.

wazoox 11y ago
It may take a long time, but the debate is 18 months long, more than enough for everybody to get on board on the issue. It's ridiculous to believe that citizens have no business in important matters. If you're not deciding, you're not acting, and your voice doesn't matter at all.
- reinhardt 11y ago
  In case you're not just trolling, I'm wondering if your argument would change in case of matters that require medical or nuclear engineering expertise.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Why shouldn't voters get a say in these matters? If it is so important that experts make the calls, then convince the voters to vote for allowing the experts to make the calls. If the voters don't trust the experts to such an extent they rather risk screwing everything up, then that is what we will have to live with. For a interesting thought, what about matters of brain development and ability to reason? Why should voters get to decide on matters such as when we are considered adults or when consenting to contracts or sex is possible. For nuclear or medical expertise, there is at least expertise. For matters of brain development, the science is still very young and limited. Or even on a greater extent, why should a voter be given power in matters that require ethical expertise? Matters that require legal expertise?
- jeffdavis 11y ago
  I've spent more than that amount of time casually trying to make sense of monetary policy, simply out of interest. I do not feel competent to take part in a decision about the reserve requirement. I guess you could set up a system where you delegate your vote to a third party on an issue-by-issue basis. An interesting thought experiment, but quite a few things to work out. My guess is, at the end, it would be similar to the system we have.

mattlutze 11y ago

I'm curious to which country you're assigning these noble ideals. In no place I've lived would the average person walking into the voting box have spent time studying the history of banking law and policy to make a well-informed rational decision. They'd at most have read the opinions of some journalists or listened to a news reporter, and would make their decision after discussions between similar poorly informed friends/colleagues. Fierce debates != well-informed debates. We elect representatives because it's known that the body politic, once it reaches a large size, doesn't have the time to be well-informed on all decisions they'd need to make as a pure democracy. To suggest so exposes a serious need for a second look at the situation. Representative democracy isn't elective oligarchy.

Ntrails 11y ago
Switzerland, actually, is bloody good at this referendum thing. They do it all the time, and because of that the level of debate is relatively high and the populace make far better choices than you would see in a country without the same situation.
- _delirium 11y ago
  Can you point to a Swiss referendum campaign with a high level of debate? I've only closely followed one referendum campaign in Switzerland, I'll admit, but the level of debate in that one was quite low, even by the standards of a typical European election campaign. That was the 2014 referendum on whether to put quotas on Schengen-zone immigration [1]. It was basically the usual shouting match over immigration you'd expect anywhere, full of a lot of vitriol and not much in the way of rational debate or accurate statistics. The outcome was also what you'd expect anywhere else too, predictable more by demographics than argumentation: rural areas and less-educated people voted to restrict immigration, cities and the highly educated voted not to, so the final outcome depended mainly on voter turnout among each of those groups. Since getting your base as riled up as possible is a better way of getting turnout than rational debate, that's what both sides did. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_February_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_immigration_referendum,_...
- 11y ago

kbart 11y ago

In my experience, most people simply vote for the opinion shouted loudest and the one their relatives/friends vote. Only a very few investigates the topic independently, but their votes are lost in the noise. I would not trust decisions, that require specific knowledge and that can't be explained in layman terms, to the masses.

wsc981 11y ago
In my experience, most people simply vote for the opinion shouted loudest and the one their relatives/friends vote. Only a very few investigates the topic independently, but their votes are lost in the noise. I would not trust decisions, that require specific knowledge and that can't be explained in layman terms, to the masses. Could you provide some examples? --- Personally I don't trust politicians as much anymore these days to make choices in the benefit of the people. Most often the politicians' votes seem more aligned with business interests compared to the people interests, especially in large powerful constructs like the EU. I've also seen politicians make plenty bad choices in my country. My opinion is that we should get more referenda in the future. The innovation of internet makes it possible to do this very cheap.
- kbart 11y ago
  I agree that politicians make some terrible and downright malicious decisions (namely TTIP) and citizens should have more power (stop NSA, anyone?), but some decisions are best left to the specialists. Utopian government should be some kind of a mix between democracy and technocracy imho. An anecdote to answer your question: in Lithuania (where I live), few elections ago, the most vote received a party consisting of the local TV and pop stars that, no need to say, had absolutely no clue about politics. Of course, they didn't last long and only caused few months of turmoil.

patatino 11y ago

I'm swiss and you'd be surprised how many don't even know what we voted about after the vote. Less than 50% of all people vote and everytime it is over 50% it's because the right-wing parties shouted really loud and spend a lot of money. It is getting really absourd. Next year we have a vote about if we should enforce a vote back from 2010.

stefantalpalaru 11y ago
Would you prefer a nice dictatorship instead? Participatory democracy is the lesser evil from what we know so far, and it's not absurd that only the people interested in the subject at hand go to the voting booth.
- hackerboos 11y ago
  Poor argument. As if direct democracy or dictatorship are the only choices... Maybe just a representative democracy like the rest of Europe.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    Representative democracy is terrible. Italy's current prime minister was elected directly by the people only as mayor of Florence. From there he went on being nominated and elected by various representatives. The problem is that representation in politics is not transitive. B might represent A and C might represent B, but this does not mean that C represents A.

snarfy 11y ago

It's a republic not a democracy. The problem with a democracy is the majority rules. If the US were a true democracy the civil rights movement would have never happened. The white majority could have simply out voted the black minority. Pure democracy is mob-rule.

icebraining 11y ago
The white majority was in favour of the Civil Right Act and of the Voting Rights Act. http://volokh.com/2010/05/24/public-opinion-anti-discrimination-law-and-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/ http://volokh.com/2010/05/24/public-opinion-anti-discriminat... http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/voting-rights-act/ http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/voting-rights-act/ The idea that the "republic" part of the system protects minorities despite vast opposition from the majority sounds nice, but it's not supported by reality.
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> It's a republic not a democracy. That's like saying that it's an animated film, not a comedy. The republic is a form of government and democracy is a way to involve the people in deciding who governs them. Some republics are democracies, some democracies are republics. > The problem with a democracy is the majority rules. When the minority rules, like in a plutocracy, you've got a bigger problem.