7 ms·

That would be direct democracy. No "democracy" on Earth is actually a direct democracy, but a representative democracy, which seems more in line to what this st

by mtgx 8y ago

That would be direct democracy. No "democracy" on Earth is actually a direct democracy, but a representative democracy, which seems more in line to what this study proposes, no? A small group of elected officials to "debate" issues.

Askolein 8y ago
Switzerland is close to a direct democracy with a model based on: representative democracy by default but direct as soon and anytime the people feels the subject should be handled so. That system has proven very stable.
- hobofan 8y ago
  > That system has proven very stable. Caveat: with a small, well-educated population. Try and apply the same system elsewhere and your mileage may vary.
  - GarvielLoken 8y ago
    Then the obvious solution is to divide nation states down to small, well-educated populations no?
    - arethuza 8y ago
      Say about 6 million people? On average? [I'm a Scot - though that's not where I got the number from]
- vidarh 8y ago
  It has proven stable in the sense that it's still there, sure. It has also proven prepared to continue oppressing substantial parts of the population for much longer than most of the rest of Europe (e.g. only giving suffrage to women on a federal level in the early 70's). To me the Swiss system is a demonstration of the fundamental flaw of straight majority decisions. Democracy is ultimately defined best not in terms of the expression of the wishes of a majority of the franchised, but how well protected the wishes of the minority and the disenfranchised are. Most other places this has taken the form of e.g. bicameral systems and strong forms of legal oversight (to be fair the Swiss system was reformed substantially in constitutional reforms in the 90's), and other forms of expressly diluting the power of the majority to impose change.
EliRivers 8y ago
And then every so often a referendum with only two polar-opposite options is presented to the electorate, reminding us why we have representative democracy instead of direct. I'm looking at you, Brexit... :)
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. There is quite a fundamental 'scope creep' going on in the EU, combined with unpopular views among the elite, which is causes massive tension that would not be there otherwise. A properly elected executive, more consensus WRT voters, and possibly more direct participation would be better not worse. All of the EU's many crises are self-inflicted, it's in permanent 'put out the fire mode' - which is consistent with pre-revolutionary situations. I'm not sure how well the paper applies to democracy.
  - switch007 8y ago
    > If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. Possibly. I think you're assuming people were interested enough in the EU to partake in such referenda, and that big influential campaigns would not have existed, and that had certain treated been voted down that people would still be content with the EU, and so on. And excluding other issues that possibly led to Brexit like nearly a decade of manufactured austerity. That seems too much of a leap to conclude that Brexit wouldn't have happened.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      You're right in that nobody cares about the EU. But they care about things like migration. Folks would vote en masse on clearly articulated issues, and if leaders took note of it, there'd be less calamity. Right now the Executive doesn't really care what Europeans think, because they assume they know best, it's appallingly clear. It happens everywhere there aren't proper checks and balances. FYI the treaty of Lisbon was shot down in a few referendums, and the leaders decided to go forward with some rather fundamental, 'constitutional' issues anyhow. As a result of failed referendums in some countries, they decided to skip referendums in the remaining countries because of the high likelihood of failure. Instead of truly reconsidering the legislation, they just went ahead and passed it. And now they are paying the price.

by mtgx 8y ago

Askolein 8y ago

Switzerland is close to a direct democracy with a model based on: representative democracy by default but direct as soon and anytime the people feels the subject should be handled so. That system has proven very stable.

hobofan 8y ago
> That system has proven very stable. Caveat: with a small, well-educated population. Try and apply the same system elsewhere and your mileage may vary.
- GarvielLoken 8y ago
  Then the obvious solution is to divide nation states down to small, well-educated populations no?
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Say about 6 million people? On average? [I'm a Scot - though that's not where I got the number from]
vidarh 8y ago
It has proven stable in the sense that it's still there, sure. It has also proven prepared to continue oppressing substantial parts of the population for much longer than most of the rest of Europe (e.g. only giving suffrage to women on a federal level in the early 70's). To me the Swiss system is a demonstration of the fundamental flaw of straight majority decisions. Democracy is ultimately defined best not in terms of the expression of the wishes of a majority of the franchised, but how well protected the wishes of the minority and the disenfranchised are. Most other places this has taken the form of e.g. bicameral systems and strong forms of legal oversight (to be fair the Swiss system was reformed substantially in constitutional reforms in the 90's), and other forms of expressly diluting the power of the majority to impose change.

EliRivers 8y ago

And then every so often a referendum with only two polar-opposite options is presented to the electorate, reminding us why we have representative democracy instead of direct. I'm looking at you, Brexit... :)

sonnyblarney 8y ago
If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. There is quite a fundamental 'scope creep' going on in the EU, combined with unpopular views among the elite, which is causes massive tension that would not be there otherwise. A properly elected executive, more consensus WRT voters, and possibly more direct participation would be better not worse. All of the EU's many crises are self-inflicted, it's in permanent 'put out the fire mode' - which is consistent with pre-revolutionary situations. I'm not sure how well the paper applies to democracy.
- switch007 8y ago
  > If there were more such votes, especially in the EU with regard to policy - then Brexit would have never happened. Possibly. I think you're assuming people were interested enough in the EU to partake in such referenda, and that big influential campaigns would not have existed, and that had certain treated been voted down that people would still be content with the EU, and so on. And excluding other issues that possibly led to Brexit like nearly a decade of manufactured austerity. That seems too much of a leap to conclude that Brexit wouldn't have happened.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    You're right in that nobody cares about the EU. But they care about things like migration. Folks would vote en masse on clearly articulated issues, and if leaders took note of it, there'd be less calamity. Right now the Executive doesn't really care what Europeans think, because they assume they know best, it's appallingly clear. It happens everywhere there aren't proper checks and balances. FYI the treaty of Lisbon was shot down in a few referendums, and the leaders decided to go forward with some rather fundamental, 'constitutional' issues anyhow. As a result of failed referendums in some countries, they decided to skip referendums in the remaining countries because of the high likelihood of failure. Instead of truly reconsidering the legislation, they just went ahead and passed it. And now they are paying the price.