3 ms·

I definitely think this kind of law should be debated and balanced, and I know what you mean. Originally, I was thinking of giving these people the power to "ve

I definitely think this kind of law should be debated and balanced, and I know what you mean. Originally, I was thinking of giving these people the power to "veto" the bills. But then I quickly realized what you are saying. Heck, even the majority of population shouldn't have that kind of power too often (except national referendums) because that would mean "real direct democracy" and that system is definitely worse than the republic system. I'm just saying we need some light direct democracy influences in the republic, to have more checks and balances against the representatives. Maybe 6 months is too much. Maybe 100,000 is too low. I'm sure we could find a balance. And I'm only asking to postpone the bill and have set-up some kind of open debate process - like multiple hearings with the public or civil liberties organizations involved - anything like that, as long as they don't rush it through Congress.

henrikschroder 15y ago
> I'm just saying we need some light direct democracy influences in the republic Yes, that is what proportional representation and a plurality of political parties achieve. In the last elections here, I first selected one of the major blocks of parties, and then a specific party within that block. That way my vote gets a little bit more power, I get to say something about the general political foundation, and I get to say something about specific issues that are important to me. If the party I generally vote for does something I'm completely against, I don't have to abandon the fundamentals, I can still keep my vote within the bigger block, but shift it to another party, which means the entire block shifts direction ever so slightly. This way, outside voter forces act on the blocks to change them and shape them, instead of that process being completely internal and driven by their perception of popular opinion. > And I'm only asking to postpone the bill and have set-up some kind of open debate process The biggest problem with this is that politics is all about compromise. It's about giving and receiving, about making deals. It allows parties to get their way in issues they and their voters care deeply about, in exchange for not getting their way in less important issues. But if you add an open debate process, you lose the bigger picture. Different parts of the public, different organizations will get involved in different issues, and completely ignore others, and each organization will act as if their issue is the only important one, and not be willing to budge an inch. For every issue you can always find enough people that cares very deeply about it, but it's much harder to see the bigger picture, how many people actually care deeply about a certain issue? And I think that only by giving them the power to vote can you really find out.

henrikschroder 15y ago

> I'm just saying we need some light direct democracy influences in the republic Yes, that is what proportional representation and a plurality of political parties achieve. In the last elections here, I first selected one of the major blocks of parties, and then a specific party within that block. That way my vote gets a little bit more power, I get to say something about the general political foundation, and I get to say something about specific issues that are important to me. If the party I generally vote for does something I'm completely against, I don't have to abandon the fundamentals, I can still keep my vote within the bigger block, but shift it to another party, which means the entire block shifts direction ever so slightly. This way, outside voter forces act on the blocks to change them and shape them, instead of that process being completely internal and driven by their perception of popular opinion. > And I'm only asking to postpone the bill and have set-up some kind of open debate process The biggest problem with this is that politics is all about compromise. It's about giving and receiving, about making deals. It allows parties to get their way in issues they and their voters care deeply about, in exchange for not getting their way in less important issues. But if you add an open debate process, you lose the bigger picture. Different parts of the public, different organizations will get involved in different issues, and completely ignore others, and each organization will act as if their issue is the only important one, and not be willing to budge an inch. For every issue you can always find enough people that cares very deeply about it, but it's much harder to see the bigger picture, how many people actually care deeply about a certain issue? And I think that only by giving them the power to vote can you really find out.