5 ms·

To make my point a bit clearer: I am almost convinced now that "representative democracy" shouldn't count as a "democracy" just because the population can vote

To make my point a bit clearer: I am almost convinced now that "representative democracy" shouldn't count as a "democracy" just because the population can vote who they get ####ed by. It only works as long as the representatives see it as their duty to represent the will of the voters accurately, which I'm starting to believe is an antithesis to human behavior, and thus will never be the norm. I'm not saying that European society (if such a thing even exists) is inherently undemocratic; just that it's not democratic enough to be called a proper Democracy. And I'm not even asking for direct democracy on everything, but there should be laws in place that force politicians to put decisions up for vote to the public if there's a certain level of resistance from the population. Take for an example the UK referendum to leave the EU. Even though it's overall a complete shitshow, and all sides usually agree on that, nobody can really claim that it wasn't a democratic decision. Was it a smart one? Who knows, I doubt it. But it was democratic, and that's more than I can say about this mess.

yulaow 8y ago
Well it depends on which is your view about "what is the most democratic vote system". For example I am for a "democracy of experts" system, in which any decision must be voted exclusively by those who have expertise on the matter the vote is about. From my point of view the Brexit vote is totally not-democratic because it put an absurdly complex decision on a big part of the population which has not even remotely the competence to decide on the matter. As you see it is not all white or black.
- DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
  > For example I am for a "democracy of experts" system, in which any decision must be voted exclusively by those who have expertise on the matter the vote is about. Isn't that not just a technocracy? I actually think a system like that would make a lot of sense, but I still believe the population should have the power to veto a law that they don't want. As for the brexit vote being undemocratic, I see your point, but I don't think just because the people were uninformed that means the referendum was undemocratic. First of all, I don't think most MEPs who voted for the copyright reform were any more informed, on average. I also think it should ultimately be up to the population of a democratic system to decide things, even if they don't understand the situation entirely. That's the point of democracy.
  - Jommi 8y ago
    So you think the MEPs made a bad decision because they were mis- or uninformed, but then you would trust that the population on average would be more informed?
    - philpem 8y ago
      They were about as well-informed as much of the general public. There's a Youtube video kicking around of someone (I forget who) going round Europarl asking MEPs if they'd actually read Articles 11 and 13. The most common answer, by a country mile, was "no". We elect representatives to read these things and make a reasoned decision on our behalf. Not to do the political equivalent of putting on a blindfold and throwing a dart, hoping to score a bulls-eye.
      - Jommi 8y ago
        Can you link the video?
  - yulaow 8y ago
    > Isn't that not just a technocracy? I actually think a system like that would make a lot of sense, but I still believe the population should have the power to veto a law that they don't want. I think that too, IF they take the time to become experts in the matter of the law they don't want.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    As I also mentioned in another comment, after the facts where on the table (as it became clearer and clearer that the UK will not get a deal), the referendum could have been repeated. Manipulating people and having them vote without all the facts on the table and then denying them that vote after the facts were on the table is not democracy.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > For example I am for a "democracy of experts" system, in which any decision must be voted exclusively by those who have expertise on the matter the vote is about. And who decides who is an expert on what?
  - FiveSquared25 8y ago
    The people, with testing I.e. finished grad school
Angostura 8y ago
> It only works as long as the representatives see it as their duty to represent the will of the voters accurately That's not really the idea behind representative democracy. It's supposed to work that you vote for the person whose values intelligence and approach to policy you agree with, and they use their skill and judgement from there on in - you can of course lobby them on issues.
- moate 8y ago
  Right, but the problem is often the 'lesser of two evils' voting options. There's no choice present for me that I feel represents what I want/need in an elected official. I'm not voting for what I want, I'm just making sure that what I loathe doesn't get into office. This is the problem with representative democracy; it assumes there's a good proxy for my voice, and there increasingly isn't
  - tremon 8y ago
    This is where party-based politics fails representative democracy. There are supposed to be N voices in parliament, so that at least N different voices can be heard. Large parties, party discipline and backroom deals are (imnsho) fundamentally at odds with a well-functioning representative democracy.
    - moate 8y ago
      It's a feature, not a bug. As much as people want strong individuals as representatives, time has shown over and over again that a well oiled machine (party) will be much stronger. Those parties then create rules that reinforce the need for coalitions and weaken individuals. Representative democracy is meant to be a way to mitigate the problem of true democracy, which is the idea that it's easier to build a consensus among a small group than a large one and also that "the unwashed masses don't know what's actually good for them". Bottom line is that it's impossible for 1 person to serve as a uncompromising proxy for a large group of people on multiple issues. Even if there weren't parties, there would be a point where my 95% agreement representative gets into the 5% of issues where we disagree. And no matter what, that's going to feel bad man.
billpg 8y ago
> nobody can really claim that it wasn't a democratic decision. #include "vote-leave-broke-the-law.txt"
bad_user 8y ago
Sorry, but the Brexit referendum is the perfect example of choices that should not be made directly by the population, because it lacks the competence to foresee the effects or even to distinguish fact from fiction. If you told UK citizens that the choice is in fact for a No Deal Brexit and what that will mean, they wouldn't have voted for Brexit. However the population was lied to about the economic benefits and voted against their own interests. So when the population can be lied to on such a scale, what do you find as being more democratic exactly? And more importantly, after it was clear that Britain will not get a good deal, why wasn't the referendum repeated?
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  >Sorry, but the Brexit referendum is the perfect example of choices that should not be made directly by the population, because it lacks the competence to foresee the effects or even to distinguish fact from fiction. I still find it hard to not value your own autonomy. For thousands of years, wars of independence were fought for this exact purpose. You might not value it, but I don't think you can attack others for placing value on it.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - thirdsun 8y ago
    The problem is that the UK seems wanting to cherry pick their autonomy and make use of the benefits the EU has to offer while rejecting the obligations and rules of such a union. Obviously it doesn't work like that and the eu doesn't have any interest in letting them have their cake and eat it too. The only Leave-scenario people actually could have voted for in the referendum was a no-deal-brexit. Any other promsies were ranging from uncertain to wishful thinking.
- merrywhether 8y ago
  I’m the case of Brexit, it’s possible that having more frequent engagement with direct democracy would have left the people feeling less ignored by government and less inclined to try to “stick it to them” as a method of voicing their general feeling of discontent. I think we see this around the world, where ossified representational democracies leave people feeling rather disenfranchised and thus taking whatever potshots they find available.
msquog 8y ago
> Take for an example the UK referendum to leave the EU. Even though it's overall a complete shitshow, and all sides usually agree on that, nobody can really claim that it wasn't a democratic decision. Was it a smart one? Who knows, I doubt it. But it was democratic, and that's more than I can say about this mess You are oversimplifying this - that vote was between a definite (the status quo) and a vague future direction (insert personal fantasy about what "leave" actually meant) Is it any more democratic to make people choose between "definitive choice x" and "the mystery box", than it is to make people vote for a vague bag of promises (a representative) as they already do? If not, then what you're probably after is a democratic choice between two or more defined options. But who chooses which options are presented to people? Who oversees the ensuing floods of propaganda? A direct democracy moves even more power to the propaganda machine, not the people.
Carpetsmoker 8y ago
The Brexit affair can hardly be called "democratic". The topic of the referendum was a vague question without any specifics, and it was a slim majority, while also disenfranchising a vast number of people. A democratic approach would be to conclude that a 1.8% majority is in the error margin, and then carefully listen to both sides and try to work out something that many people on both sides can live with. That way you can get a solution that appeases 70&, 80%, or more. That's real democracy, in my book. It's not an easy path though, especially not in the face of what I call "chest-beating politics". The Brexiteers have not proven to be especially easy to compromise with on pretty much any issue. There are many better ways to enact more direct democracy, by the way. For example, you can have a randomly chosen subset of people (maybe 50, or 100) vote on every proposed laws, more or less the same as jury duty. The difference with a general referendum is that these people will actually get the time to properly inform themselves and have good-faith discussions (instead of idiotic Boris Johnson spectacle bullshit "discussions"). There are many variables you can tweak, and other possible systems as well. Reading up on e.g. Athenian Democracy might be a good start, if you're not already familiar with it.
ben_w 8y ago
> Take for an example the UK referendum to leave the EU. Even though it's overall a complete shitshow, and all sides usually agree on that, nobody can really claim that it wasn't a democratic decision. Almost every argument I’ve seen about Brexit has included someone arguing that it wasn’t. This is generally followed by “oh, but Remain broke the rules too” rather than any actual defence of the behaviour of the Leave campaigns, which doesn’t actually help any of this look more democratic.

yulaow 8y ago

Well it depends on which is your view about "what is the most democratic vote system". For example I am for a "democracy of experts" system, in which any decision must be voted exclusively by those who have expertise on the matter the vote is about. From my point of view the Brexit vote is totally not-democratic because it put an absurdly complex decision on a big part of the population which has not even remotely the competence to decide on the matter. As you see it is not all white or black.

DarkWiiPlayer 8y ago
> For example I am for a "democracy of experts" system, in which any decision must be voted exclusively by those who have expertise on the matter the vote is about. Isn't that not just a technocracy? I actually think a system like that would make a lot of sense, but I still believe the population should have the power to veto a law that they don't want. As for the brexit vote being undemocratic, I see your point, but I don't think just because the people were uninformed that means the referendum was undemocratic. First of all, I don't think most MEPs who voted for the copyright reform were any more informed, on average. I also think it should ultimately be up to the population of a democratic system to decide things, even if they don't understand the situation entirely. That's the point of democracy.
- Jommi 8y ago
  So you think the MEPs made a bad decision because they were mis- or uninformed, but then you would trust that the population on average would be more informed?
  - philpem 8y ago
    They were about as well-informed as much of the general public. There's a Youtube video kicking around of someone (I forget who) going round Europarl asking MEPs if they'd actually read Articles 11 and 13. The most common answer, by a country mile, was "no". We elect representatives to read these things and make a reasoned decision on our behalf. Not to do the political equivalent of putting on a blindfold and throwing a dart, hoping to score a bulls-eye.
    - Jommi 8y ago
      Can you link the video?
- yulaow 8y ago
  > Isn't that not just a technocracy? I actually think a system like that would make a lot of sense, but I still believe the population should have the power to veto a law that they don't want. I think that too, IF they take the time to become experts in the matter of the law they don't want.
- bad_user 8y ago
  As I also mentioned in another comment, after the facts where on the table (as it became clearer and clearer that the UK will not get a deal), the referendum could have been repeated. Manipulating people and having them vote without all the facts on the table and then denying them that vote after the facts were on the table is not democracy.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> For example I am for a "democracy of experts" system, in which any decision must be voted exclusively by those who have expertise on the matter the vote is about. And who decides who is an expert on what?
- FiveSquared25 8y ago
  The people, with testing I.e. finished grad school

Angostura 8y ago

> It only works as long as the representatives see it as their duty to represent the will of the voters accurately That's not really the idea behind representative democracy. It's supposed to work that you vote for the person whose values intelligence and approach to policy you agree with, and they use their skill and judgement from there on in - you can of course lobby them on issues.

moate 8y ago
Right, but the problem is often the 'lesser of two evils' voting options. There's no choice present for me that I feel represents what I want/need in an elected official. I'm not voting for what I want, I'm just making sure that what I loathe doesn't get into office. This is the problem with representative democracy; it assumes there's a good proxy for my voice, and there increasingly isn't
- tremon 8y ago
  This is where party-based politics fails representative democracy. There are supposed to be N voices in parliament, so that at least N different voices can be heard. Large parties, party discipline and backroom deals are (imnsho) fundamentally at odds with a well-functioning representative democracy.
  - moate 8y ago
    It's a feature, not a bug. As much as people want strong individuals as representatives, time has shown over and over again that a well oiled machine (party) will be much stronger. Those parties then create rules that reinforce the need for coalitions and weaken individuals. Representative democracy is meant to be a way to mitigate the problem of true democracy, which is the idea that it's easier to build a consensus among a small group than a large one and also that "the unwashed masses don't know what's actually good for them". Bottom line is that it's impossible for 1 person to serve as a uncompromising proxy for a large group of people on multiple issues. Even if there weren't parties, there would be a point where my 95% agreement representative gets into the 5% of issues where we disagree. And no matter what, that's going to feel bad man.

billpg 8y ago

> nobody can really claim that it wasn't a democratic decision. #include "vote-leave-broke-the-law.txt"

bad_user 8y ago

Sorry, but the Brexit referendum is the perfect example of choices that should not be made directly by the population, because it lacks the competence to foresee the effects or even to distinguish fact from fiction. If you told UK citizens that the choice is in fact for a No Deal Brexit and what that will mean, they wouldn't have voted for Brexit. However the population was lied to about the economic benefits and voted against their own interests. So when the population can be lied to on such a scale, what do you find as being more democratic exactly? And more importantly, after it was clear that Britain will not get a good deal, why wasn't the referendum repeated?

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
>Sorry, but the Brexit referendum is the perfect example of choices that should not be made directly by the population, because it lacks the competence to foresee the effects or even to distinguish fact from fiction. I still find it hard to not value your own autonomy. For thousands of years, wars of independence were fought for this exact purpose. You might not value it, but I don't think you can attack others for placing value on it.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- thirdsun 8y ago
  The problem is that the UK seems wanting to cherry pick their autonomy and make use of the benefits the EU has to offer while rejecting the obligations and rules of such a union. Obviously it doesn't work like that and the eu doesn't have any interest in letting them have their cake and eat it too. The only Leave-scenario people actually could have voted for in the referendum was a no-deal-brexit. Any other promsies were ranging from uncertain to wishful thinking.
merrywhether 8y ago
I’m the case of Brexit, it’s possible that having more frequent engagement with direct democracy would have left the people feeling less ignored by government and less inclined to try to “stick it to them” as a method of voicing their general feeling of discontent. I think we see this around the world, where ossified representational democracies leave people feeling rather disenfranchised and thus taking whatever potshots they find available.

msquog 8y ago

> Take for an example the UK referendum to leave the EU. Even though it's overall a complete shitshow, and all sides usually agree on that, nobody can really claim that it wasn't a democratic decision. Was it a smart one? Who knows, I doubt it. But it was democratic, and that's more than I can say about this mess You are oversimplifying this - that vote was between a definite (the status quo) and a vague future direction (insert personal fantasy about what "leave" actually meant) Is it any more democratic to make people choose between "definitive choice x" and "the mystery box", than it is to make people vote for a vague bag of promises (a representative) as they already do? If not, then what you're probably after is a democratic choice between two or more defined options. But who chooses which options are presented to people? Who oversees the ensuing floods of propaganda? A direct democracy moves even more power to the propaganda machine, not the people.

Carpetsmoker 8y ago

The Brexit affair can hardly be called "democratic". The topic of the referendum was a vague question without any specifics, and it was a slim majority, while also disenfranchising a vast number of people. A democratic approach would be to conclude that a 1.8% majority is in the error margin, and then carefully listen to both sides and try to work out something that many people on both sides can live with. That way you can get a solution that appeases 70&, 80%, or more. That's real democracy, in my book. It's not an easy path though, especially not in the face of what I call "chest-beating politics". The Brexiteers have not proven to be especially easy to compromise with on pretty much any issue. There are many better ways to enact more direct democracy, by the way. For example, you can have a randomly chosen subset of people (maybe 50, or 100) vote on every proposed laws, more or less the same as jury duty. The difference with a general referendum is that these people will actually get the time to properly inform themselves and have good-faith discussions (instead of idiotic Boris Johnson spectacle bullshit "discussions"). There are many variables you can tweak, and other possible systems as well. Reading up on e.g. Athenian Democracy might be a good start, if you're not already familiar with it.

ben_w 8y ago

> Take for an example the UK referendum to leave the EU. Even though it's overall a complete shitshow, and all sides usually agree on that, nobody can really claim that it wasn't a democratic decision. Almost every argument I’ve seen about Brexit has included someone arguing that it wasn’t. This is generally followed by “oh, but Remain broke the rules too” rather than any actual defence of the behaviour of the Leave campaigns, which doesn’t actually help any of this look more democratic.