|
I mean in brazil politicians use(d?) to throw big parties for the local comunity and go around with literal suitcases full of cash to give to potential voters to vote for them,and thats still less hosed up than the current donnations clusterfuck in the us.in brazil some of the money went to the voters instead of the other way round.and that still hosed up brazil something fierce. At least tax refunds is just a blanket encouragemeng for people to go vote. Will some people just go vote to get the money?sure.will uninformed voters increase?yes.will it lead to politicians actually listening to their local constituencies if turnout increases and they have to actually hold opinions and be acountable?maybe?poo poo all as worked so far. Will it make democracies more susceptible to populist movements,both good and bad? Yes.But democracies where at most 50% of people participate is a ailin democracy.and sure high participation elections are ones where there appears to be greatest changes to the status quo.but sometimes the status quo is ok, and sometimes its really lovely.and sometimes you kinda have to hope your fellow man is not a lovely person,despite all evidence to the contrary,and that the right politicians are in the right place and the right time.
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
Italy had participation rates of around 90% for most of the 90s and 00s, it only helped to prop up Berlusconi by giving people without a party loyalty a visible personality to vote for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
What I would like to see is mechanisms to kick out a politician from their post at any time and based on direct democracy. Chavez, whatever your stance of him, had a great idea when he introduced exactly that in the constitution. If X% of the constituency (whatever level) wants you out, there's a referendum,you lose, you are out. It would put somewhat of a minimal break in the 4-year quasi-dictatorships that liberal democracies have become. Because let's be franks,the whole "elected representstives that consult with experts" is BS. They only listen to moneyed interests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:What I would like to see is mechanisms to kick out a politician from their post at any time and based on direct democracy. Chavez, whatever your stance of him, had a great idea when he introduced exactly that in the constitution. Yes, this is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 19:19
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Yes, this is a good idea. I look forward to every country becoming Belgium as governments implode overnight from literally every unpopular decision ever taken by a prime minister.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I don't know how you expect people to gain trust in democracy by basically telling them that voting is worth 20 bucks and that you should just go and press a random button if you don't know who to pick. Yeah, I would prefer it if everyone who doesn't vote gets simply shot, but that's the beauty of democracy: We're voting on stuff instead of just murdering every single human being on the word of a crazy person. Let's put this question to a vote to see what punishment we can all agree on! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I look forward to every country becoming Belgium as governments implode overnight from literally every unpopular decision ever taken by a prime minister. Belgium seems to be doing ok though precisely because there’s no functioning government that lets idiots wreck poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:Why was the state sanctioned Catalan referendum on a Thursday? I thought Spanish elections were usually on Sundays. This is from a couple pages ago, but I believe it was the earliest possible date they could pick. Also last 2 Sundays were the 24th and the 31th, which are kind of lovely dates for an election. Pick your poison. They could've waited until this next Sunday of course. Except that'd mean a nearly 3 week delay, which would be lovely for Catalonia but more importantly it'd be a bad look for the government and it'd give their opponents more time to prepare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Belgium seems to be doing ok though precisely because there’s no functioning government that lets idiots wreck poo poo? That's more of testament to how poisonous the Eurozone is than the merits of chaos democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 09:11
|
|
|
The regions are competent for infrastructure and economy so I don't think it's even that. It's a testament to how we've hollowed out the federal government in favour of the regions and communities. There was nothing left to gently caress up except the police corps and judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 10:44
|
|
|
It's time for Flanders to become more than a family on the Simpsons again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:03
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:It's time for Flanders to become more than a family on the Simpsons again. Yes, Dutch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:35
|
|
|
I was thinking invading France but that works too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
We don't want Flanders (a few delusional Greater Netherlands nationalists excluded) and I don't think Flanders wants us. Flanders and the Netherlands are really, really different in all sorts of important ways other than language.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:I don't think Flanders wants us. Historically speaking, Belgium wouldn't even exist if they did. (The other reason is that Britain didn't want to see France scooping up the Netherlands' rebellious Southern Provinces.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I look forward to every country becoming Belgium as governments implode overnight from literally every unpopular decision ever taken by a prime minister. I mean, I see your point, but I don't understand why, if a decision isn't popular, said prime minister can't come out and defend it. It's obvious that the "we know best,we consulted with experts, we wear suits, trust us" has utterly failed, one only needs to look at inequality, repressive policing, the financial crises and multiple regulatory capture to appreciate that voters trust will systematically be abused. Hell, Spain had a referendum about NATO, voted a resounding no and then elected politicians were all "we know better". Screw that, at this point it is obvious that the essence of democracy is distrust. And if voters don't have a mechanism to impeach directly then the result id that voters are left with one muddled opportunity every four years to express their opinion or censor representatives. That is BS for a number of reasons. The quality of discussion might not be better, but impeach referendums would force more debate on more topics. Oh and one thing: I have you in high esteem as a poster, usually you come here with reflection and analysisr, but I find it very negative that you immediately came up with a soundbite-worthy propagandistic term like " chaos democracy".
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Not to be the supermajority guy, but one way to reduce the possibility for the actual potential chaos of constantly flipping back and forth after narrow election victories and recalls is to require a higher threshold for removal midterm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Yeah, I would prefer it if everyone who doesn't vote gets simply shot, but that's the beauty of democracy: We're voting on stuff instead of just murdering every single human being on the word of a crazy person. One man,one guillotine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I look forward to every country becoming Belgium as governments implode overnight from literally every unpopular decision ever taken by a prime minister. OTOH insane hardcore political tribalism would provide much-needed stability
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:I mean, I see your point, but I don't understand why, if a decision isn't popular, said prime minister can't come out and defend it. It's obvious that the "we know best,we consulted with experts, we wear suits, trust us" has utterly failed, one only needs to look at inequality, repressive policing, the financial crises and multiple regulatory capture to appreciate that voters trust will systematically be abused. I would agree on all points but the problem is that these are all general problems of representative democracy which wouldn't disappear under a 0-term guarantee system. The founding principle of representative democracy is the idea that the will of the people will sometimes contradict the interests of the people, therefore representatives should have the lee-way to act semi-autonomously from popular sentiment by being guaranteed terms. Now how well this works out in practice is debatable, especially lately with the UK, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Germany being key examples of governments acting as populists against the long-term interests of its citizens or even worse ignoring both will and interest al-together. But the key principle remains that while we directly elect our representatives, we hold no direct control or the legislative process, foreign relations, government administration and military deployment. Impeach referendum's might have made a difference in the last years in the Mediterranean countries but think about the Germany and the UK. Merkel did not sabotage the Eurozone against the will of her people, quite to the contrary she did it in accordance with populist sentiment despite it being in Germany's long-term interest that the Eurozone does not collapse. Furthermore, she enacted the shut-down of nuclear power in Germany off a swell in anti-nuclear sentiment following Fukushima despite it being against both the interests of Germany and indeed the world at large. Much similarly, David Cameron did not enact the Brexit referendum (or the Scottish one for that matter) because he thought they were in the long-term interests of the UK, he was just following popular sentiment in a desperate bid to stay in office. At no point would these countries have done gone down different routes under a direct electoral impeach system. They did these mistakes because they were following the will of the people, despite knowing the ramifications of such decisions in the long-term. The one big benefit representative democracies have over direct ones is that terms bring stability and predictability. Popular sentiment can change radically but it can't directly affect legislation, foreign relations or war in the short-term. Popular sentiment under a functioning representative system affects change by entrenching itself long-term, both for good and bad. By removing the guarantee that terms bring, even that tiny benefit disappears and what we're left with is nation-states guided by politicians who obsessively follow polls from day-to-day. People are all anxious about Trump invading Iran but what they might not be remembering is how Obama was actually going against popular sentiment in quite a few of his years by going for de-escalation. At some points in the last decade even the EU's member states have polled for supporting an invasion on nothing but the potential of 'oh well they might be making nukes'. Here's the thing, these were all sentiments and sentiments can change rapidly. A 0-term guarantee system would be dominated by the news-cycle and trends on social media both for good and bad. Lets take an example: 1. Mass Shooting in the US Pro-gun politicians get impeached and guns get restricted resolving the political gridlock, yay! 2. Terrorist Attack in the US by non-white person Anyone not for harsh punishments and state discrimination against said minority gets impeached, oops. I get the frustrations you have with your representatives because they are shared by most of us in this thread, but I do not buy that forcing politicians to be even more swayed by popular sentiments would actually be all that much better than what we have today. Dawncloack posted:I find it very negative that you immediately came up with a soundbite-worthy propagandistic term like " chaos democracy". I thought it sounded funny 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 09:56
|
|
|
Oh, we’re talking about crises of democracy? This speech transcript from Charles Stross is probably relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 10:39
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:They did these mistakes because they were following the will of the people, despite knowing the ramifications of such decisions in the long-term. But isn't it inaccurate to talk about a unified "will of the people", as if political polarization isn't a thing? Like, when you say this: quote:People are all anxious about Trump invading Iran but what they might not be remembering is how Obama was actually going against popular sentiment in quite a few of his years by going for de-escalation. I'm fairly sure that's because the people anxious about escalation under Trump aren't the same people who opposed de-escalation under Obama. Ditto with the Brexit referendum, it was the "will of the people"... as defined by David Cameron, the Tory prime minister who was clearly only listening to his electoral base.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 11:39
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:The one big benefit representative democracies have over direct ones is that terms bring stability and predictability. I mean I do get what you are saying, but then, do representative democracies really bring stability and predictability? I mean: MiddleOne posted:Impeach referendum's might have made a difference in the last years in the Mediterranean countries but think about the Germany and the UK. Merkel did not sabotage the Eurozone against the will of her people, quite to the contrary she did it in accordance with populist sentiment despite it being in Germany's long-term interest that the Eurozone does not collapse. Furthermore, she enacted the shut-down of nuclear power in Germany off a swell in anti-nuclear sentiment following Fukushima despite it being against both the interests of Germany and indeed the world at large. Much similarly, David Cameron did not enact the Brexit referendum (or the Scottish one for that matter) because he thought they were in the long-term interests of the UK, he was just following popular sentiment in a desperate bid to stay in office. At no point would these countries have done gone down different routes under a direct electoral impeach system. They did these mistakes because they were following the will of the people, despite knowing the ramifications of such decisions in the long-term. You argue that all these are basically problems of direct democracy and that representative democracy is better in these cases. And yet, every single example you list here was a policy decision taken by a representative democracy. You argue that direct democracies would be at least as bad based on the reading of popular sentiment in currently existing representative democracies. Representative democracies, which I feel I must stress, are having serious problems because a significant portion of the electorate does not feel represented. Do you not think this might have an effect on the popular sentiment, and lead to the throw-the-bums out style results we've seen in quite a number of referenda now? Basically people voting against the government not for well considered policy reasons, but to spite those who are (in their view) illegitimately in power and (in many cases objectively) working to gently caress them over. Now that's not to say direct democracy is a panacea, but one could argue that direct democracy takes away these questions of legitimacy and places a greater responsibility on citizens, who will thus have more incentive to spend the time and effort required to study the issues and take up policy positions based on, well, policy. I don't know if I agree with that reasoning and in any case I don't think such an incentive, if it exists, is enough. We'd also be in need of an education system that produces a responsible citizenry capable of critial thought and examination. In my view though, that would be a good thing. Just to contrast, in the Netherlands the only level of education which has critical thinking as a stated teaching goal is university. It's not so hard to see some truth in the narrative of regular people being ruled over by an elite in that fact. Doesn't seem very democratic. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Jan 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Now that's not to say direct democracy is a panacea, but one could argue that direct democracy takes away these questions of legitimacy and places a greater responsibility on citizens, who will thus have more incentive to spend the time and effort required to study the issues and take up policy positions based on, well, policy. Wouldn't you just end up with Switzerlands form of democracy? Where you had women getting rights to vote in 1971 for federal and 1991 for the last canton. Direct democracy will mostly lead to conservative decisions since A) people know what they have and are not found of change and B) people are lazy and expecting people to read up on and understand on every details is kinda unrealistically optimistic. Representative democracy works since we delegate all the boring details to the politicians and we get to vote them out every now and then. Politicians wants to stay elected and as MiddleOne explained that means they will try to follow populist sentiments. Direct democracy seems to be mostly advocated by those which are frustrated by the slowness of political things, whereas the slowness (as again MiddleOne explained) is one of the main factors for the stability of representative democracies. Also, in a direct democracy, how do you protect the 49% from the 51%? You will probably have a bigger issue with people feeling left-out in a direct democracy (see whole of London post-Brexit).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Wouldn't you just end up with Switzerlands form of democracy? How do you protect the 49% from the 51% in a representative democracy? The 51% can still vote for a party that promises to gently caress over the other 49%. Hey just look at the USA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 13:28
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:How do you protect the 49% from the 51% in a representative democracy? The 51% can still vote for a party that promises to gently caress over the other 49%. Hey just look at the USA. The USA isn't a democracy though. Generally speaking you have things like constitutional courts and a constitution that requires two-thirds majorities to amend, or international treaties that are enforceable. Like, it's not impossible, but a 50%+ majority for the crazy party is highly unlikely in a representative democracy without FPTP voting. In referenda, however, you can boil it down to a single binary yes/no issue like Switzerland did with the minarets the other day
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 13:35
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Oh, we’re talking about crises of democracy? This speech transcript from Charles Stross is probably relevant. Not entirely relevant (the most relevant is this part https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4&t=2124s ) but still a terrific 1-hour listen so thanks! CrazyLoon fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jan 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Generally speaking you have things like constitutional courts and a constitution that requires two-thirds majorities to amend, or international treaties that are enforceable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Wouldn't you just end up with Switzerlands form of democracy? Is your argument here that Switzerlands form of democracy doesn't work? And if the argument against Switzerland is women's rights, marital rape wasn't an offense in the Netherlands until 1990, so representative democracy is hardly a shining beacon here. Also you seem to be saying: A) Representative democracies are stable because of their slowness. B) Direct democracy will mostly lead to conservatism. If A and B are both true, how exactly does that disqualify direct democracy from consideration on the grounds of inferior stability? Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Jan 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:And you can't have that in a direct democracy? A constitution doesn't fill the same purpose in a direct democracy as a representative democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 15:15
|
|
|
Orange devil has mostly expressed what would be my points. That said: Cardiac: you said that what we don't like is the slowness of political things. That, in my case,is not correct. What infuriates me is the entire system benefitting the 1% only. The last two pages are a false dychitomy: "stable rule of representatives that listen to experts" or "the 51% risks murdering the 49%". The times we live in are " the 1% risks murdering the 99%" or "the 51% risks murdering the 49%". That'show I see it. Re: swiss democracy: I am not sure that'sthe proposal here. I could see the merits ofmproposing referendums but what I want is to remove idiots from office. 0-term guarantees moght have not prevented bank golems like Macron from getting into power but they would probably make them think twice before they took the sledgehammer to the labour code for no other reason than " investment bankers don't get enough money". The stability thing could be solved fidgeting with the threshold. Re: Orange devil's point about education: I agree but more critical thinking=less consumption. We can't have that. Rajoy substituted Civic education in spain with "enterpreneurship". Enough Bull for an entire season of corrida. Re: " chaos democracy" sorry my man,I didn't want to jump on you. It's just, to me it looks like a thought-stopper. Thus my comment. Phoneposting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 15:25
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:A constitution doesn't fill the same purpose in a direct democracy as a representative democracy. I had never thought about this! Got a resource please?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
http://www.dw.com/en/germans-say-russia-is-more-reliable-than-the-united-states/a-41728582quote:Germans increasingly see Russia as a more reliable partner than the US, a new study released on Saturday has found.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
I understand why trust in the US is falling, but I'll never understand why Germany is so relatively close to Russia. In spite of, you know, loving Russia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Russia hasn't overtly threatened nuclear war in the past year for starters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
They have a lot of exports and import natural gas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Maybe the secret society of Dreikaiserbund restorationists is just doing exceptionally well this century.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
I also wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a massive difference between East and West Germany. Russian as a second foreign language is still mandatory in some high schools in Saxony, or at least mandatory for a certain proportion of students per school.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I understand why trust in the US is falling, but I'll never understand why Germany is so relatively close to Russia. In spite of, you know, loving Russia. Russia saved us during ww2, we never forgot that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 11:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:Russia saved us during ww2, we never forgot that. Well, saved you for themselves, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2018 11:54
|
|
