4 ms·

Be careful what you wish for. Do you really want the policy to reflect popular polling? Really really? Because what the public supports is a mixed bag. Maybe th

Be careful what you wish for. Do you really want the policy to reflect popular polling? Really really? Because what the public supports is a mixed bag. Maybe the population will support higher healthcare spending but also greatly restricted immigration policy ... or leaving a beneficial trade-block due to fears of Eastern European immigrants. Contrast this to Switzerland, where we've seen popular anti-immigration measures being 'tweaked' by more level-headed politicians who realize there are larger issues at play. There is something to be said about policies put forward by sophisticated and educated elites.

haolez 7y ago
What you describe is not democracy, but a benevolent dictatorship.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  No. What I describe is a Representative Democracy.
  - haolez 7y ago
    A benevolent dictatorship is a representative democracy with a very small leadership team.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      Oh come on. If we start distorting commonly understood words and concepts, how can we possibly have a rational conversation? A benevolent dictatorship is not the same as a representative democracy.
- Zenst 7y ago
  >There is something to be said about policies put forward by sophisticated and educated elites. Sounds more like a meritocracy, but then politics has taught us that many labels can fit depending upon your initial position and posture in much the same way that idea's in the middle can from the left appear right-wing and equally upon the right, appear left-wing. Hence labeling and focusing upon those labels whilst ignoring the content - solves nothing.
  - haolez 7y ago
    Yeah, but we can’t even figure out how to have reliable elections without using paper ballots. I don’t think we are mature enough to have an unbiased merit-based selection of individuals to rule us all. Who sets the merit parameters? Who will test candidates?
    - Zenst 7y ago
      Oh, I totally agree. I was just showing how things can have many labels and with that, effect how the content is interpreted with focus upon the label over the content. In some ways we have a level of meritocracy in that we set a minimum level of IQ and ethical standard to be allowed to vote, prisoners don't vote (most countries I'm aware of at least, though I'm sure as with everything that exceptions exist). Just that some want to raise and add to those merits. Which would be sad and equally could be labeled a form of dictatorship and highlights again, how something is labeled, defines the direction of debate. For me, a more engaged and granualar system of say is what is needed. Today we have a token X upon a limited selection, with no garantee's that those options can or will do what they said at the time you placed your token X, once every 4-5 years. Voting is stuck in the medieval times, when it could take months to a bit of paper across the country and people could just about manage an X as their writing skills. Politics needs to evolve. But if I was to change one single thing, it would be to remove the party system myself. All representatives would be standing to represent who elected them and speak for them over party loyalty. That would see a fairer and more insightful democracy play out. But that would be a start. A more granular say is needed in our voting systems and that say needs to be more frequent.
1556 7y ago
The "tweaking" that you refer to sounds exactly like British immigration policy in the decades preceding the EU referendum. It didn't solve anything, resentment just built up and eventually overflowed. And the end result is far more damaging than it would have been to just listen in the first place.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  If they didn't adjust the policy they would be in the same place as Britain is with Brexit today.
  - todd-davies 7y ago
    I think this has a point, though the author's meaning is ambiguous. To elaborate, if the Swiss govt directly implemented popular policy viewpoints, then fears of immigration could have brought about a Brexit type situation in a way similar to how the UK Government had a yes/no referendum that implemented the 'popular' policy of Brexit.
- Leherenn 7y ago
  The problem is that the question was incoherent, just like the recent vote on weapons. This question was asked in a vacuum, and didn't take into account that it was in direct contradiction with current laws/agreements. Implementing the immigration law would most likely have meant exiting Schengen and a whole lot of EU things. This should have been made explicit in the vote, not implicit. I don't even understand how asking such a question is legal when one answer results in the law being incoherent.
entropea 7y ago
>There is something to be said about policies put forward by sophisticated and educated elites. Yeah, that they sell out to the highest bidder and are seeing revolts around the world as the middle & lower classes get decimated by their "educated elite" global policies. There is more to life than lifeless consumerism.
hgoel 7y ago
The same supposedly educated elites that through ignoring everyone not an educated elite caused the current political climate in the US?

haolez 7y ago

What you describe is not democracy, but a benevolent dictatorship.

macspoofing 7y ago
No. What I describe is a Representative Democracy.
- haolez 7y ago
  A benevolent dictatorship is a representative democracy with a very small leadership team.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    Oh come on. If we start distorting commonly understood words and concepts, how can we possibly have a rational conversation? A benevolent dictatorship is not the same as a representative democracy.
Zenst 7y ago
>There is something to be said about policies put forward by sophisticated and educated elites. Sounds more like a meritocracy, but then politics has taught us that many labels can fit depending upon your initial position and posture in much the same way that idea's in the middle can from the left appear right-wing and equally upon the right, appear left-wing. Hence labeling and focusing upon those labels whilst ignoring the content - solves nothing.
- haolez 7y ago
  Yeah, but we can’t even figure out how to have reliable elections without using paper ballots. I don’t think we are mature enough to have an unbiased merit-based selection of individuals to rule us all. Who sets the merit parameters? Who will test candidates?
  - Zenst 7y ago
    Oh, I totally agree. I was just showing how things can have many labels and with that, effect how the content is interpreted with focus upon the label over the content. In some ways we have a level of meritocracy in that we set a minimum level of IQ and ethical standard to be allowed to vote, prisoners don't vote (most countries I'm aware of at least, though I'm sure as with everything that exceptions exist). Just that some want to raise and add to those merits. Which would be sad and equally could be labeled a form of dictatorship and highlights again, how something is labeled, defines the direction of debate. For me, a more engaged and granualar system of say is what is needed. Today we have a token X upon a limited selection, with no garantee's that those options can or will do what they said at the time you placed your token X, once every 4-5 years. Voting is stuck in the medieval times, when it could take months to a bit of paper across the country and people could just about manage an X as their writing skills. Politics needs to evolve. But if I was to change one single thing, it would be to remove the party system myself. All representatives would be standing to represent who elected them and speak for them over party loyalty. That would see a fairer and more insightful democracy play out. But that would be a start. A more granular say is needed in our voting systems and that say needs to be more frequent.

1556 7y ago

The "tweaking" that you refer to sounds exactly like British immigration policy in the decades preceding the EU referendum. It didn't solve anything, resentment just built up and eventually overflowed. And the end result is far more damaging than it would have been to just listen in the first place.

macspoofing 7y ago
If they didn't adjust the policy they would be in the same place as Britain is with Brexit today.
- todd-davies 7y ago
  I think this has a point, though the author's meaning is ambiguous. To elaborate, if the Swiss govt directly implemented popular policy viewpoints, then fears of immigration could have brought about a Brexit type situation in a way similar to how the UK Government had a yes/no referendum that implemented the 'popular' policy of Brexit.
Leherenn 7y ago
The problem is that the question was incoherent, just like the recent vote on weapons. This question was asked in a vacuum, and didn't take into account that it was in direct contradiction with current laws/agreements. Implementing the immigration law would most likely have meant exiting Schengen and a whole lot of EU things. This should have been made explicit in the vote, not implicit. I don't even understand how asking such a question is legal when one answer results in the law being incoherent.

entropea 7y ago

>There is something to be said about policies put forward by sophisticated and educated elites. Yeah, that they sell out to the highest bidder and are seeing revolts around the world as the middle & lower classes get decimated by their "educated elite" global policies. There is more to life than lifeless consumerism.

hgoel 7y ago

The same supposedly educated elites that through ignoring everyone not an educated elite caused the current political climate in the US?