Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a general principle. Yes or no? Either as an individual or as a voting population? If you are allowed to change your mind how soon after registering your original opinion can you decide that you want to change your mind?" Surely that's the essence of democracy? Unless you're using a definition that I'm not aware of. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As a general principle. Yes or no? Either as an individual or as a voting population? If you are allowed to change your mind how soon after registering your original opinion can you decide that you want to change your mind?" Anytime you want! You base your decisions on how you feel about the information you have and if sny new info makes you re evaluate then go with it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very loose question you cannot vote everyday that would be chaos you vote and live with the result of that.We all have second thoughts about many things but once the die is cast etc" So you can't change your mind? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very loose question you cannot vote everyday that would be chaos you vote and live with the result of that.We all have second thoughts about many things but once the die is cast etc So you can't change your mind?" You can change your mind any time who can stop you its your mind.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very loose question you cannot vote everyday that would be chaos you vote and live with the result of that.We all have second thoughts about many things but once the die is cast etc So you can't change your mind? You can change your mind any time who can stop you its your mind. "Does that extend to voting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very loose question you cannot vote everyday that would be chaos you vote and live with the result of that.We all have second thoughts about many things but once the die is cast etc So you can't change your mind? You can change your mind any time who can stop you its your mind.
Does that extend to voting?"Of course it extends to voting..... but remember (under normal circumstances) we only have elections every 5 years or so....so you have to wait in order to register your change of mind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very loose question you cannot vote everyday that would be chaos you vote and live with the result of that.We all have second thoughts about many things but once the die is cast etc So you can't change your mind? You can change your mind any time who can stop you its your mind.
Does that extend to voting?
Of course it extends to voting..... but remember (under normal circumstances) we only have elections every 5 years or so....so you have to wait in order to register your change of mind."Normal circumstances as of the coalition government. So up until then and as of the most recent general election politicians decide when we can change our minds depending on if they think we like them or not 
So how often are you allowed a referendum on a specific subject?
Every 5 years? If something substantive happens? Every 25 years? 50? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What has changing ones mind got to do with democracy? Democracy is about being ruled by the will of the majority, not about the right of an individual (or group) to change their minds." It's about accepting the majority view. However, if you are part of the majority and decide that you were mistaken then what is the mechanism for expressing that new opinion? Changing your mind. Voting. No? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about accepting the majority view. However, if you are part of the majority and decide that you were mistaken then what is the mechanism for expressing that new opinion? Changing your mind. Voting. No?" So you agree with me... But are really asking does buyers remorse have a place in democracy? And if it does do we have a right to democratic baxies? If (as stated above) I understand you correctly then I have to say democracy comes with the standard warning of 'Caveat Emptor' there is a health warning and disclaimer that comes with every ballot. There are no baxies and if you keep voting for shits that hurt you then you have no one but yourself to blame for the pain your in. If you refuse to vote then you have given up your chance to influence how you are treated and have no one but yourself to blame for the pain inflicted on you. If you are part the minority that voted then you must accept the will of the majority but have every right to keep pointing out to those in pain that they have no right to complain because they voted for the pain they are suffering. Democratic politics is about power, and who we entrust it to. Once we make that collective choice we have no recourse but have to accept what those in power choose to do with the power we give them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It's about accepting the majority view. However, if you are part of the majority and decide that you were mistaken then what is the mechanism for expressing that new opinion? Changing your mind. Voting. No? So you agree with me... But are really asking does buyers remorse have a place in democracy? And if it does do we have a right to democratic baxies? If (as stated above) I understand you correctly then I have to say democracy comes with the standard warning of 'Caveat Emptor' there is a health warning and disclaimer that comes with every ballot. There are no baxies and if you keep voting for shits that hurt you then you have no one but yourself to blame for the pain your in. If you refuse to vote then you have given up your chance to influence how you are treated and have no one but yourself to blame for the pain inflicted on you. If you are part the minority that voted then you must accept the will of the majority but have every right to keep pointing out to those in pain that they have no right to complain because they voted for the pain they are suffering. Democratic politics is about power, and who we entrust it to. Once we make that collective choice we have no recourse but have to accept what those in power choose to do with the power we give them." Not sure. Democracy functions because it's an on going process. It also functions because if a leader has only marginal power they are aware that their mandate does not allow them to impose fundamental change. New information and experience of the present informs your opinion for the next vote so there is a good reason for leaders to behave themselves within reason. Isn't voting for someone different in a general election changing your mind? How does one make use of new information after a referendum? Back to the main point though. Is changing your mind undemocratic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very loose question you cannot vote everyday that would be chaos you vote and live with the result of that.We all have second thoughts about many things but once the die is cast etc So you can't change your mind?" I dud not say that read what I wrote and not what you want me to say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure. Democracy functions because it's an on going process. It also functions because if a leader has only marginal power they are aware that their mandate does not allow them to impose fundamental change. New information and experience of the present informs your opinion for the next vote so there is a good reason for leaders to behave themselves within reason. Isn't voting for someone different in a general election changing your mind? How does one make use of new information after a referendum? Back to the main point though. Is changing your mind undemocratic?" Firstly we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Parliamentary Democracy, which is not the same thing although many seem to think it is. Once we cast (or don't) our votes then we effectively live in a dictatorship where those we have elected have absolute power over us. We have no rights other than those they choose to give us, and if they choose to extend their period in office and power then that is their right. When they decide to relinquish that power and hand it back to us (the population) we get to choose new representatives. Regardless of who we pick even if it means that our former representatives are replaced and the policies of our new government are diametrically opposed to our former government we have not changed our minds because we are making a new choice. When it comes to politics only those in power can change their minds and we are never in power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very loose question you cannot vote everyday that would be chaos you vote and live with the result of that.We all have second thoughts about many things but once the die is cast etc So you can't change your mind?I dud not say that read what I wrote and not what you want me to say." It was a general question because I'm asking about a principle. I restated the question because the answer was ambiguous, to me at least. You vote and live with the result = you can't change your mind Once the die is cast implies that you can't change your mind. Have I missed something? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You vote and live with the result = you can't change your mind Once the die is cast implies that you can't change your mind. Have I missed something?" Nope, you got it in a nutshell.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure. Democracy functions because it's an on going process. It also functions because if a leader has only marginal power they are aware that their mandate does not allow them to impose fundamental change. New information and experience of the present informs your opinion for the next vote so there is a good reason for leaders to behave themselves within reason. Isn't voting for someone different in a general election changing your mind? How does one make use of new information after a referendum? Back to the main point though. Is changing your mind undemocratic? Firstly we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Parliamentary Democracy, which is not the same thing although many seem to think it is. Once we cast (or don't) our votes then we effectively live in a dictatorship where those we have elected have absolute power over us. We have no rights other than those they choose to give us, and if they choose to extend their period in office and power then that is their right. When they decide to relinquish that power and hand it back to us (the population) we get to choose new representatives. Regardless of who we pick even if it means that our former representatives are replaced and the policies of our new government are diametrically opposed to our former government we have not changed our minds because we are making a new choice. When it comes to politics only those in power can change their minds and we are never in power. " Sounds like semantics to me. A representative democracy is not a democracy at all? Choosing a new government based on your opinion of the last lot being modified as a consequence of their actions is not changing your mind? So charities mind isn't undemocratic because you can't actually do it?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very loose question you cannot vote everyday that would be chaos you vote and live with the result of that.We all have second thoughts about many things but once the die is cast etc So you can't change your mind?I dud not say that read what I wrote and not what you want me to say. Yes It was a general question because I'm asking about a principle. I restated the question because the answer was ambiguous, to me at least. You vote and live with the result = you can't change your mind Once the die is cast implies that you can't change your mind. Have I missed something?" I am not saying you cannot change your mind just that you must live by your decision.If you pull out of a road and a car hits you,you cannot go back the accident has happened.Well hope you get my drift anyway | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"ok then, stop being ambiguous when you ask the question ... is the context of the question regarding changing ones mind after casting ones vote in a general election or casting ones vote in one of the two referendums that have taken place in the UK?" Either. Both processes are democratic. It is ambiguous because it's a question about a general principle. I'm not going to make it "easy". I'm not a politician  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A very loose question you cannot vote everyday that would be chaos you vote and live with the result of that.We all have second thoughts about many things but once the die is cast etc So you can't change your mind?I dud not say that read what I wrote and not what you want me to say. Yes It was a general question because I'm asking about a principle. I restated the question because the answer was ambiguous, to me at least. You vote and live with the result = you can't change your mind Once the die is cast implies that you can't change your mind. Have I missed something?I am not saying you cannot change your mind just that you must live by your decision.If you pull out of a road and a car hits you,you cannot go back the accident has happened.Well hope you get my drift anyway" So you can change your mind but it would be undemocratic to do anything about it? So if you're wrong, you know you're wrong and everyone else knows that they're wrong we carry on regardless? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A representative democracy is not a democracy at all?" That is right. If you don't believe me try picking a subject where your representative is voting against the wishes of their constituents and forcing them to change their mind, see how successful you are. Or just look at the decisions being made by councils across the north of England with regards to fracking and you may see my point. "Choosing a new government based on your opinion of the last lot being modified as a consequence of their actions is not changing your mind?" Correct, at each election you make a choice hopefully based on the performance of previous incumbent. You are making a new choice not altering (changing) your last choice. You may make different choice to last time but that is not the same as changing your mind about your last choice. There is no way to return a government to opposition because you wake up to the fact they are not doing what they said they would. We choose, we live with the result until we get to choose again. "So charities mind isn't undemocratic because you can't actually do it? "What are you on about? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"ok then , with regards to general elections, it's not undemocratic to change ones mind after voting .... it is undemocratic that the political system only allows people to vote politicians into office and disallows them to vote politicians out of office. as regards referendums, were are completely fucking shit at holding referendums as we've only ever had two that are nationwide .... switzerland on the other hand have four or so every year and they've got it down when it comes to letting the people change their mind when a referendum throws up a completely fucking idiotic result" I didn't realise that there was a mechanism for a revote in Switzerland. Can't find anything on it but not tried very hard... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"ok then , with regards to general elections, it's not undemocratic to change ones mind after voting .... it is undemocratic that the political system only allows people to vote politicians into office and disallows them to vote politicians out of office. as regards referendums, were are completely fucking shit at holding referendums as we've only ever had two that are nationwide .... switzerland on the other hand have four or so every year and they've got it down when it comes to letting the people change their mind when a referendum throws up a completely fucking idiotic result I didn't realise that there was a mechanism for a revote in Switzerland. Can't find anything on it but not tried very hard..." anyone one can propose a topic to be voted on in switzerland .... and if 100,000 back a vote on that topic in 18 months then it is added to the next referendum date ... so if a referendum result is dubious then it just takes someone to ask " are we sure about this" ... so the mechanism is there | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A representative democracy is not a democracy at all? That is right. If you don't believe me try picking a subject where your representative is voting against the wishes of their constituents and forcing them to change their mind, see how successful you are. Or just look at the decisions being made by councils across the north of England with regards to fracking and you may see my point. Choosing a new government based on your opinion of the last lot being modified as a consequence of their actions is not changing your mind? Correct, at each election you make a choice hopefully based on the performance of previous incumbent. You are making a new choice not altering (changing) your last choice. You may make different choice to last time but that is not the same as changing your mind about your last choice. There is no way to return a government to opposition because you wake up to the fact they are not doing what they said they would. We choose, we live with the result until we get to choose again. So charities mind isn't undemocratic because you can't actually do it?
What are you on about? "So semantics depending on how you interpret choices being made. Changing your mind is different to forming a new opinion based on new information? I don't understand the last quote as I didn't write it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"ok then , with regards to general elections, it's not undemocratic to change ones mind after voting .... it is undemocratic that the political system only allows people to vote politicians into office and disallows them to vote politicians out of office. as regards referendums, were are completely fucking shit at holding referendums as we've only ever had two that are nationwide .... switzerland on the other hand have four or so every year and they've got it down when it comes to letting the people change their mind when a referendum throws up a completely fucking idiotic result I didn't realise that there was a mechanism for a revote in Switzerland. Can't find anything on it but not tried very hard... anyone one can propose a topic to be voted on in switzerland .... and if 100,000 back a vote on that topic in 18 months then it is added to the next referendum date ... so if a referendum result is dubious then it just takes someone to ask " are we sure about this" ... so the mechanism is there " Ah | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we couldn't change our minds there'd be no need for elections " Bingo.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Direct democracy has the downside of amplifying fringe voices and being very unlikely to vote for perceived negative things, even if they're necessary. So, no, more votes are not what's needed. " What is needed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Direct democracy has the downside of amplifying fringe voices and being very unlikely to vote for perceived negative things, even if they're necessary. So, no, more votes are not what's needed. " It's a great point Would you extend your argument to say that twitter style "democracy" amplifies fringe voices? You can see how people "voting" against perceived negative things (e.g. R*pe culture) have a damaging effect (on public harmony... Etc) . Im thinking feminism and blm here...
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Direct democracy has the downside of amplifying fringe voices and being very unlikely to vote for perceived negative things, even if they're necessary. So, no, more votes are not what's needed. " I disagree with that. Representative democracy shifts the responsibility for decision making away from the people and places power in the hands of the politician. We vote for people we trust to make those decisions for us, but as we have come to distrust the political class (with good reason) we have either stopped voting - or vote tribally, without actually examining the issues that are being proposed. More direct democracy which would result in people seeing the consequences of their decisions - for good or ill. Would soon sober up the political discussions, in my opinion. Would probably take a few bad votes right enough, for the message to get through - but after a while folk would stop getting their opinions from headlines or tv news soundbites and start actually taking a bit of care in deciding what they vote for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Direct democracy has the downside of amplifying fringe voices and being very unlikely to vote for perceived negative things, even if they're necessary. So, no, more votes are not what's needed. It's a great point Would you extend your argument to say that twitter style "democracy" amplifies fringe voices? You can see how people "voting" against perceived negative things (e.g. R*pe culture) have a damaging effect (on public harmony... Etc) . Im thinking feminism and blm here...
"And you'd be wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Direct democracy has the downside of amplifying fringe voices and being very unlikely to vote for perceived negative things, even if they're necessary. So, no, more votes are not what's needed. I disagree with that. Representative democracy shifts the responsibility for decision making away from the people and places power in the hands of the politician. We vote for people we trust to make those decisions for us, but as we have come to distrust the political class (with good reason) we have either stopped voting - or vote tribally, without actually examining the issues that are being proposed. " I have no time for people who choose to abdicate their responsibilities with regards to voting. That's their failing, and no one else's. " More direct democracy which would result in people seeing the consequences of their decisions - for good or ill. Would soon sober up the political discussions, in my opinion. Would probably take a few bad votes right enough, for the message to get through - but after a while folk would stop getting their opinions from headlines or tv news soundbites and start actually taking a bit of care in deciding what they vote for." How do you imagine that people who can't find it in themselves to pay attention once every few years would then find themselves imbued with a sense of civic duty and become informed and vote frequently? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I have no time for people who choose to abdicate their responsibilities with regards to voting. That's their failing, and no one else's. " I've no time for people who spew verbal vomit without backing up their reasoning
Anyway, it's a fair point... Many people, myself included see voting on most issues as a waste of time when the politicians generally can't be trusted to do what they said they would at best and are purely operating from self interest at worst.
The short term popularity contest nature of politics is just a distraction (it must take up a good chunk of their mental reserves) when long range thinking and strategy are needed and unpopular but needed decisions can't be made because they mean losing a seat.
The best companies in the world don't flip flop ideologies and turn over their leaders every few years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I have no time for people who choose to abdicate their responsibilities with regards to voting. That's their failing, and no one else's. I've no time for people who spew verbal vomit without backing up their reasoning
"I'm certain you think that's both relevant and insightful. I can't fathom why. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Direct democracy does not increase the voting powers of fringe groups it actually does the opposite. " Yeah, no, this is wrong. Voting in general works best with high participation rates, which is already a problem with elections being years apart. Direct democracy increases the number of votes, and leads to decreased voter turnout, due to fatigue. Thusly, empowering fringe groups. And this doesn't even get into the deeper problem that replacing representative democracy with direct democracy will cripple the ability of a government to make unpopular but necessary decisions. Direct democracy: always a stupid idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is and what isn't direct democracy? " It is where the people vote on policy directly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is and what isn't direct democracy? It is where the people vote on policy directly. " Do you not think the people in the UK deserve to vote on their futures once (finally) the terms of engagement are figured out? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is and what isn't direct democracy? It is where the people vote on policy directly. Do you not think the people in the UK deserve to vote on their futures once (finally) the terms of engagement are figured out? " Not sure what that's got to do with your previous question, beyond the superficial, but anyway... The answer is no. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Are you not against brexit John? Surely you support British people having a second chance if that's your stance? " And you'd be wrong. Brexit being a terrible idea is self evident, and on those grounds the UK government should put a stop to it doesn't mean I would be in favour of hoping that when given a do over people wouldn't blow it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And you'd be wrong. " Why am I wrong? By virtue that I am not you? (all knowing) Textbook DemonJohn forum wrecking (is it trolling?) I've made my peace but just saying this to drive my point about your carryon home | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" And you'd be wrong. Why am I wrong? " That was in the bit you snipped. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But that implies that you don't want a vote and want the government to just stamp it out... But you also like democracy.... But that would be directly against the original democratic decision... Which you just told me you don't want to be retested with a vote You can see how I'm totally confused about how I'm wrong " Only if you're trying hard to play at being confused. If multiple referenda in Ireland have failed to teach you this, then let me be clear - plebiscites on international treaties are a very bad idea. They're complex, unwieldy, not written in plain English, and usually amend existing documents of similar complexity. Irish people have shown time and time again that they don't actually vote on the treaty, because that's hard work, but use it as a proxy vote on the government of the day. Which is a waste of everyone's time. If you don't believe me, have a think about his likely it is that anyone who voted leave gave a fuck or thought about how a hard border between NI and the republic would even work. It's part of the reason we have the mechanisms of government - to negotiate and ratify these things on behalf of the populace. To represent them if you need me to be more explicit in where I'm going with this. So, no. I don't think there ought to be another vote, on these issues, as they're never a good idea. The government, who are supposed to act in the nations best interest, who have an actual idea of the unmitigated catastrofuck that brexit is, ought to pull the breaks, and not abdicate their responsibility to a fickle mob. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Direct democracy does not increase the voting powers of fringe groups it actually does the opposite. Yeah, no, this is wrong. Voting in general works best with high participation rates, which is already a problem with elections being years apart. Direct democracy increases the number of votes, and leads to decreased voter turnout, due to fatigue. Thusly, empowering fringe groups. And this doesn't even get into the deeper problem that replacing representative democracy with direct democracy will cripple the ability of a government to make unpopular but necessary decisions. Direct democracy: always a stupid idea." You have contradicted yourself if direct democracy creates voter fatigue so the voters tern out decreases then look at the voter turn out now and the system we have now. To my knowledge direct democracy has never been tried anywhere so there's no way to know what would happen. Representative government works if the politician votes for the things the votes want but if they don't there is nothing voters can do about it for 4 years. This why why zac goldsmith wanted the right to recall but other politicians didn't. If local votes were every 6 months, regional every 2 and national every 4 with long term infrastructure projects every 5 voters would have more power to effect there local areas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think we should have another referendum once the terms of the Brexit deal are finalised - the first referendum was too simplistic and lacking in real information that I think it is quite reasonable if people decide to change their minds (either way) once factual information about what we are actually doing is known." I would agree but if it is an over simplified choice between in or out then it will be the same problem. People need to know the facts and have more choices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Direct democracy does not increase the voting powers of fringe groups it actually does the opposite. Yeah, no, this is wrong. Voting in general works best with high participation rates, which is already a problem with elections being years apart. Direct democracy increases the number of votes, and leads to decreased voter turnout, due to fatigue. Thusly, empowering fringe groups. And this doesn't even get into the deeper problem that replacing representative democracy with direct democracy will cripple the ability of a government to make unpopular but necessary decisions. Direct democracy: always a stupid idea. You have contradicted yourself if direct democracy creates voter fatigue so the voters tern out decreases then look at the voter turn out now and the system we have now. " That's not a contradiction. " To my knowledge direct democracy has never been tried anywhere so there's no way to know what would happen. " California and Switzerland. For someone who thinks it's a great idea, you've not done much by way of research into this. " Representative government works if the politician votes for the things the votes want but if they don't there is nothing voters can do about it for 4 years. " That's a feature, not a bug. Having representatives actually represent allows them to do things that are unpopular, but necessary. Like raising taxes. " If local votes were every 6 months, regional every 2 and national every 4 with long term infrastructure projects every 5 voters would have more power to effect there local areas. " Yes, a policy of all the good things, none of the bad things, and an increasing voice for fringe elements is what that would get you. Marvellous idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Direct democracy does not increase the voting powers of fringe groups it actually does the opposite. Yeah, no, this is wrong. Voting in general works best with high participation rates, which is already a problem with elections being years apart. Direct democracy increases the number of votes, and leads to decreased voter turnout, due to fatigue. Thusly, empowering fringe groups. And this doesn't even get into the deeper problem that replacing representative democracy with direct democracy will cripple the ability of a government to make unpopular but necessary decisions. Direct democracy: always a stupid idea. You have contradicted yourself if direct democracy creates voter fatigue so the voters tern out decreases then look at the voter turn out now and the system we have now. That's not a contradiction. Turnout varies widely, depending on the issue, but generally hovers around only 40 per cent in Switzerland. The UK turn out has been between 79 and 60% over the last few years. 2015 was 68.7% To my knowledge direct democracy has never been tried anywhere so there's no way to know what would happen. California and Switzerland. Califonia has the 6th largest economy in the world. Switzerland has cantons because it is a mountainous region and very difficult to government centrally. They had to break the euro peg because people were buying Swiss Francs as a safe haven which meant there currency was to strong for exports. The examples of california and Switzerland standards of living suggests to me direct democracy is a good thing. For someone who thinks it's a great idea, you've not done much by way of research into this. Representative government works if the politician votes for the things the votes want but if they don't there is nothing voters can do about it for 4 years. That's a feature, not a bug. Having representatives actually represent allows them to do things that are unpopular, but necessary. Like raising taxes. Unpopular but nesecary like raising which tax how much and to spend on what? If local votes were every 6 months, regional every 2 and national every 4 with long term infrastructure projects every 5 voters would have more power to effect there local areas. Yes, a policy of all the good things, none of the bad things, and an increasing voice for fringe elements is what that would get you. Marvellous idea." You have contradicted yourself again you say direct democracy would lead to fringe elements having more of a voice but then say representative government needs to do things that are unpopular but necessary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Direct democracy does not increase the voting powers of fringe groups it actually does the opposite. Yeah, no, this is wrong. Voting in general works best with high participation rates, which is already a problem with elections being years apart. Direct democracy increases the number of votes, and leads to decreased voter turnout, due to fatigue. Thusly, empowering fringe groups. And this doesn't even get into the deeper problem that replacing representative democracy with direct democracy will cripple the ability of a government to make unpopular but necessary decisions. Direct democracy: always a stupid idea. You have contradicted yourself if direct democracy creates voter fatigue so the voters tern out decreases then look at the voter turn out now and the system we have now. That's not a contradiction. Turnout varies widely, depending on the issue, but generally hovers around only 40 per cent in Switzerland. The UK turn out has been between 79 and 60% over the last few years. 2015 was 68.7% To my knowledge direct democracy has never been tried anywhere so there's no way to know what would happen. California and Switzerland. Califonia has the 6th largest economy in the world. Switzerland has cantons because it is a mountainous region and very difficult to government centrally. They had to break the euro peg because people were buying Swiss Francs as a safe haven which meant there currency was to strong for exports. The examples of california and Switzerland standards of living suggests to me direct democracy is a good thing. For someone who thinks it's a great idea, you've not done much by way of research into this. Representative government works if the politician votes for the things the votes want but if they don't there is nothing voters can do about it for 4 years. That's a feature, not a bug. Having representatives actually represent allows them to do things that are unpopular, but necessary. Like raising taxes. Unpopular but nesecary like raising which tax how much and to spend on what? If local votes were every 6 months, regional every 2 and national every 4 with long term infrastructure projects every 5 voters would have more power to effect there local areas. Yes, a policy of all the good things, none of the bad things, and an increasing voice for fringe elements is what that would get you. Marvellous idea. You have contradicted yourself again you say direct democracy would lead to fringe elements having more of a voice but then say representative government needs to do things that are unpopular but necessary. " That's also not a contradiction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
