4 ms·

It's like voting over whether vaccines work or not... Some things should be left to experts. This is the major criticism of direct democracy.

dionian 7y ago
things as important as democratic representation and national sovereignty should require the support of the people, they can be informed by experts, but should not have their decisions made by experts when it comes to peaceful self-determination
- sleavey 7y ago
  Possibly, but if the public were really to be trusted to make decisions on national sovereignty they should not have been asked to decide between the status quo and some abstract, undefined future outside the EU. One of the biggest problems with Brexit was that it meant so many different things to that 52%.
- thomascgalvin 7y ago
  There isn't a good answer to this dilemma. On the one hand, you're right, the people are sovereign and should not have their rights trampled by an unelected hegemony. On the other hand, people are stupid, and often too stupid to be trusted to make decisions related to complex matters on which the general person is not an expert. Worse, bad actors have figured out how to exploit freedom of speech to weaponize this stupidity. So we're now in a position where a fundamental human right is also the direct cause of significant human misery.
sleavey 7y ago
Indeed. A recent poll was quoted on yesterday's "Any Questions?" show on BBC Radio 4 by a Brexiteer, which apparently asked the public "should MPs represent their own views or those of their constituents?". Some small number of voters - I forget, but it was around 7% - thought they should represent their own views and the rest thought those of their constituents. This was, in the Brexiteer's view, evidence that MPs delaying Brexit in any form was anti-democratic given that 52% voted for "it" (where "it" was sadly not defined). Thing is, we elect MPs exactly so they can express their views in parliament. They're supposed to be experts, or at least they are given resources to consult experts on matters that affect their constituents. They are resolutely not for representing their constituents' views - that's why they publish a manifesto of what they want to do and we are asked to vote on it every 5 years. Of course, part of an MP's job is to consult their constituents, but they are not bound whatsoever to represent the majority view of their constituents. Apparently 93% of the public apparently don't understand this; the same public that were asked to decide whether to stay in the EU or not...
- abraae 7y ago
  Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. Economists could perhaps answer some small parts of it - like "will this be net plus for the economy over next 5 years", but even then I'd imagine there would be little consensus. Questions this huge are really the sort of thing that should be put to the unwashed masses. They know as much as anyone else - not much.
  - kybernetikos 7y ago
    > Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. There's an interesting idea for a method of government based on the distinction between values and policy results. > In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html In my opinion 'should the UK stay in the EU' would very definitely be a question of policy not values. It would actually be pretty difficult to disentangle the brexit question into meaningful values. You could say it's about 'sovereignty', but the UK parliament is as sovereign as it ever was - as the very fact that it's currently leaving demonstrates. In fact for the pure self-interested, short term version of sovereignty, the right thing to do is to plough your own furrow, taking advantage of the benefits and ignoring what you don't like until you are finally kicked out of the EU, which is something we might well see some other EU countries do. Any more nuanced understanding of sovereignty would realize that sovereignty is how we describe an entity that is able to enter into and keep agreements, and exercise infuence on other actors, not one that is unable to because it might restrict its freedom of action. Just as for humans, the end result of refusing all bonds is not freedom, it's extreme restriction. And that's not even considering the strain that leaving the EU puts on relationships with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It wouldn't surprise me at all if down the road brexit ends in break-up. Sovereignty takes on a bit more nuance when you're simultaneously denying it to your constituent members by leaving. You could say it's about 'migration', but that's not a proper value either. I suspect that people who complain about migration have values to do with crime, economics, and needing to be around people 'like them'. The only thing about those values, is that for most of them, migration is exactly the wrong thing to be worried about. As 'experts' know, migrants are less likely to commit crime, and more likely to pay taxes than the native born. I don't think the UK should be leaving the EU for policy reasons. I believe that it's in the interests of the UK, of Europe, of the world to resist the forces trying to disintegrate Europe (I've read enough history to know what happened last time). I think many of the disagreements I have with people who think it should leave are at the level of reality - things that could be established by fact. Trying to claim that it's motivated by differences of values is part of what is making the issue less clear. Of course this is all made extra difficult by the fact that the whole thing has been horrendously mishandled. The government has repeatedly and continually believed things for long periods of time about negotiating with Europe that are simply untrue. It was obvious from the start that this was going to be complicated, and pressing the button to start the ticking timebomb you're sat on top of, is not a great way to negotiate either. Whether you want Brexit or not, invoking article 50 before anyone knew what it meant was the height of idiocy.
beaner 7y ago
Whether vaccines work or not may have a scientific answer, but it is still up to individuals to choose to use them for themselves. Similarly, people make the individual choices to purchase an apple or invite someone into their home. EU participation is just this choice at scale, and the British people have every right to vote on it directly.
- bigbaguette 7y ago
  For some vaccines, it's not an individual choice. People who choose not to use them for themselves put the rest of the population at risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
- Aeolun 7y ago
  > but it is still up to individuals to choose to use them for themselves It should not be. If they represented the Brexit correctly, and instead asked the real question “Would you like your life to get worse in pretty much every possible way?”, then how many people would have voted yes?
  - beaner 7y ago
    It should not be up to individuals to decide whether to buy an apple or invite someone into their home? Your rephrasing is not only hyperbolic but also just a theory. Obviously people would answer no. You might assume people are dumber than they are. Perhaps they are weighing factors you are not which lead them to believe that brexit will not have the outcome you think it will.
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      The rephrasing has to be a bit hyperbolic to make the point I think. > Perhaps they are weighing factors you are not which lead them to believe that brexit will not have the outcome you think it will. I am almost positive this is the case, but I unfortunately doubt that most of those factors are grounded in reality. I don’t believe there are many experts that believe Brexit is in any way a good thing, and for me those opinions just hold a lot more weight than those of populist politicians.
cronix 7y ago
> Some things should be left to experts. And yet here we all are, living with the results of the professional experts who know everything. If they are all experts in all things they vote on, why is everything such a mess all of the time?

dionian 7y ago

things as important as democratic representation and national sovereignty should require the support of the people, they can be informed by experts, but should not have their decisions made by experts when it comes to peaceful self-determination

sleavey 7y ago
Possibly, but if the public were really to be trusted to make decisions on national sovereignty they should not have been asked to decide between the status quo and some abstract, undefined future outside the EU. One of the biggest problems with Brexit was that it meant so many different things to that 52%.
thomascgalvin 7y ago
There isn't a good answer to this dilemma. On the one hand, you're right, the people are sovereign and should not have their rights trampled by an unelected hegemony. On the other hand, people are stupid, and often too stupid to be trusted to make decisions related to complex matters on which the general person is not an expert. Worse, bad actors have figured out how to exploit freedom of speech to weaponize this stupidity. So we're now in a position where a fundamental human right is also the direct cause of significant human misery.

sleavey 7y ago

Indeed. A recent poll was quoted on yesterday's "Any Questions?" show on BBC Radio 4 by a Brexiteer, which apparently asked the public "should MPs represent their own views or those of their constituents?". Some small number of voters - I forget, but it was around 7% - thought they should represent their own views and the rest thought those of their constituents. This was, in the Brexiteer's view, evidence that MPs delaying Brexit in any form was anti-democratic given that 52% voted for "it" (where "it" was sadly not defined). Thing is, we elect MPs exactly so they can express their views in parliament. They're supposed to be experts, or at least they are given resources to consult experts on matters that affect their constituents. They are resolutely not for representing their constituents' views - that's why they publish a manifesto of what they want to do and we are asked to vote on it every 5 years. Of course, part of an MP's job is to consult their constituents, but they are not bound whatsoever to represent the majority view of their constituents. Apparently 93% of the public apparently don't understand this; the same public that were asked to decide whether to stay in the EU or not...

abraae 7y ago
Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. Economists could perhaps answer some small parts of it - like "will this be net plus for the economy over next 5 years", but even then I'd imagine there would be little consensus. Questions this huge are really the sort of thing that should be put to the unwashed masses. They know as much as anyone else - not much.
- kybernetikos 7y ago
  > Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts. There's an interesting idea for a method of government based on the distinction between values and policy results. > In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html In my opinion 'should the UK stay in the EU' would very definitely be a question of policy not values. It would actually be pretty difficult to disentangle the brexit question into meaningful values. You could say it's about 'sovereignty', but the UK parliament is as sovereign as it ever was - as the very fact that it's currently leaving demonstrates. In fact for the pure self-interested, short term version of sovereignty, the right thing to do is to plough your own furrow, taking advantage of the benefits and ignoring what you don't like until you are finally kicked out of the EU, which is something we might well see some other EU countries do. Any more nuanced understanding of sovereignty would realize that sovereignty is how we describe an entity that is able to enter into and keep agreements, and exercise infuence on other actors, not one that is unable to because it might restrict its freedom of action. Just as for humans, the end result of refusing all bonds is not freedom, it's extreme restriction. And that's not even considering the strain that leaving the EU puts on relationships with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It wouldn't surprise me at all if down the road brexit ends in break-up. Sovereignty takes on a bit more nuance when you're simultaneously denying it to your constituent members by leaving. You could say it's about 'migration', but that's not a proper value either. I suspect that people who complain about migration have values to do with crime, economics, and needing to be around people 'like them'. The only thing about those values, is that for most of them, migration is exactly the wrong thing to be worried about. As 'experts' know, migrants are less likely to commit crime, and more likely to pay taxes than the native born. I don't think the UK should be leaving the EU for policy reasons. I believe that it's in the interests of the UK, of Europe, of the world to resist the forces trying to disintegrate Europe (I've read enough history to know what happened last time). I think many of the disagreements I have with people who think it should leave are at the level of reality - things that could be established by fact. Trying to claim that it's motivated by differences of values is part of what is making the issue less clear. Of course this is all made extra difficult by the fact that the whole thing has been horrendously mishandled. The government has repeatedly and continually believed things for long periods of time about negotiating with Europe that are simply untrue. It was obvious from the start that this was going to be complicated, and pressing the button to start the ticking timebomb you're sat on top of, is not a great way to negotiate either. Whether you want Brexit or not, invoking article 50 before anyone knew what it meant was the height of idiocy.

beaner 7y ago

Whether vaccines work or not may have a scientific answer, but it is still up to individuals to choose to use them for themselves. Similarly, people make the individual choices to purchase an apple or invite someone into their home. EU participation is just this choice at scale, and the British people have every right to vote on it directly.

bigbaguette 7y ago
For some vaccines, it's not an individual choice. People who choose not to use them for themselves put the rest of the population at risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
Aeolun 7y ago
> but it is still up to individuals to choose to use them for themselves It should not be. If they represented the Brexit correctly, and instead asked the real question “Would you like your life to get worse in pretty much every possible way?”, then how many people would have voted yes?
- beaner 7y ago
  It should not be up to individuals to decide whether to buy an apple or invite someone into their home? Your rephrasing is not only hyperbolic but also just a theory. Obviously people would answer no. You might assume people are dumber than they are. Perhaps they are weighing factors you are not which lead them to believe that brexit will not have the outcome you think it will.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    The rephrasing has to be a bit hyperbolic to make the point I think. > Perhaps they are weighing factors you are not which lead them to believe that brexit will not have the outcome you think it will. I am almost positive this is the case, but I unfortunately doubt that most of those factors are grounded in reality. I don’t believe there are many experts that believe Brexit is in any way a good thing, and for me those opinions just hold a lot more weight than those of populist politicians.

cronix 7y ago

> Some things should be left to experts. And yet here we all are, living with the results of the professional experts who know everything. If they are all experts in all things they vote on, why is everything such a mess all of the time?