Direct Democracy is a threat to political elites.

[kompili]

From the link in the OP:

They can’t simply say to the electorate: “Thanks for the mandate, folks; now go away and let us govern until we call on you in four to five years to renew our mandate for another term.”

People seem to be satisfied with this, and this is what they are getting from the governments they elect. How can people feel as if they have contributed in the decision making when they only are needed every four years, only to vote the same people, from the same two parties back into the government because there is no one else.

[RJ2]

In the world and Canada today there is a collaspe of living standards and poverty beyond measure and the mandate for many of the world elite is to change our perception of rights and freedoms so we can become their debt slaves to their one world order.
We're more politcally active and conscious of our peril and we through the internet have also been able to interact amongst others whom feel the same towards issues that are starting to effect us on a daily basis on everything we've been accustomed too since we were children. Its the separate and conquer model being used against the people and for many their rights and freedoms are bought by the ever growing welfare system and no need for anyting except to do nothing and get paid for it. As I said before self-righteousness and concentrated power corrupts even the most well ment person in government today. Computers were suppose to make documentation and filing easier but what it produces is a 100% increase in governmental dabbling in the peoples affairs the referee of the ballgame is not as impartial as their supposed to be and is also a member of one of the opposing teams. Questioning them is illegitamate of their opinions and regulations and the people need to wakeup to these politics without principles..........

[Glacier]

Perhaps we should be moving the opposite direction of direct democracy. America's structure continues to crumble as they have moved from a republic to a democracy...

Democracy, as we have seen, is the worst form of government ever tried. But what is the best form of government ever tried?

The best form of government ever tried, sadly, has largely been lost to mankind's collective memory. The best form of government ever tried flourished on Iceland between 930 and 1262.

China, like America, was never intended to be a democracy. Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the Founding Father of modern China, like Benjamin Franklin, intended that the nation he bequeathed to posterity would be "A republic, if you can keep it!" This much is beyond dispute. The name of the nation Sun founded, after all, is "The Republic of China." This would hardly be worth mentioning were it not for the fact that so many people have forgotten it.

Yes, Sun made frequent and abundant use of the term "min zhu," i.e., "people rule," i.e., "democracy." But Sun was using "democracy" in the greatly expanded, grossly inaccurate 20th Century sense of the word, as if it were a synonym for republic and an antonym for autocracy. When Sun used the word democracy, he meant republic. No one who knows anything about Sun's "San Min Zhu Yi" (Three People's Principles) can have the slightest doubt about this.

Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in republican government, not democracy. Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in indirect as opposed to direct government. Sun, like America's Founding Fathers, was a firm believer in structural constraints as obstacles to "democracy," aka "mobocracy."

What is the difference between a republic and a democracy?

A republic is a nation ruled by law. The highest law in a republic is its constitution. In a republic everyone obeys the constitution.

A democracy, on the other hand, is a nation ruled by men. The highest law in a democracy is the "Will of the People." In a democracy, everyone obeys a man who represents the Will of the People. A man who represents the Will of the People is better known as a dictator.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/chu6.html

[nolanrh]

Politicans are not any more qualified, intellectually or otherwise, they are just another citizen. Nobody is more qualified to make decisions for a given area than those it directly affects. If we make the wrong decisions, we face the consequences. If we make the right decisions we reap the rewards. Seeing changes happen that you actually have a say in can do wonders for an apthetic population. We would be far more likely to educate ourselves on a given subject.

This is bull. Some people are more qualified than us, that's reality. Those people have spent years running large and small businesses, or organizing labour movements, or hold advanced degrees in economics. Or at the front lines on the battles of abuse, poverty, and crime. Some are simply exceptional people, that have acquired a wealth of knowledge and experience while leading 'ordinary lives'. Yes, many citizens are well qualified, but I won't accept it for a second that some aren't more qualified than others.

Leading a nation, or a province, is a job like any other job. While we all like to believe we'd do a better job timing traffic lights, judging trials, or leading a country, the fact remains that some people are going to be better equipped to do the job than others.

Why would we not be able to access information from "the experts" for differing sides on an issue? They are preparing the information now, there's no reason it can't be public knowledge.

The information is out there, you just have to go read it. I ask you honestly, have you read the white papers on VATs, BC-HST, and the analysis on the effect on the maritime provinces? If not, then that's my point.

[nolanrh]

From the link in the OP:

They can’t simply say to the electorate: “Thanks for the mandate, folks; now go away and let us govern until we call on you in four to five years to renew our mandate for another term.”

People seem to be satisfied with this, and this is what they are getting from the governments they elect. How can people feel as if they have contributed in the decision making when they only are needed every four years, only to vote the same people, from the same two parties back into the government because there is no one else.

That's not the only way you contribute to a decision. If you have a problem, you go to your representatives office and make it known. If you have a big enough problem you organize. You keep yourself informed and evaluate the decisions your representatives make.

Initiatives like BC-STV would have made representatives more accountable to their constituents, were you campaigning for that? Do you participate in political campaigns?

Direct democracy is inefficient. Participation in our representative democracy is what's important. We need tools to improve the ways ordinary citizens can participate effectively. We don't need to hand over policy decisions to people ill-equipped to make them.

[kompili]

We don't need to hand over policy decisions to people ill-equipped to make them.

But that is what we do, time and time again with elections, and that is why we are in the mess we are. We are letting the corporations decide for us what is good or bad, and their puppets pass it through the legislature without any feed back from the people.

[sooperphreek]

Direct democracy is inefficient. Participation in our representative democracy is what's important. We need tools to improve the ways ordinary citizens can participate effectively. We don't need to hand over policy decisions to people ill-equipped to make them.

wow....i dont know how much more participatory or effective you can get than direct democracy. and.......how much more ill equiped and inept can we be than the polititians have proven to be? i would rather make policy out in the light of day than in some back room where you have to sign a confidentiality clause before you can leave. people dont participate in the present system because their participation has proven to be redundant over and over again. and on top of that if you do participate in political processes or stand against them you wont change anything because like in toronto there will be swat teams and police ready to charge you with terrorism. why not let us be privy to what it is WE THE PEOPLE are signing away? why does it have to be policy makers and deal makers that make OUR decisions for us? the argument that "things" wouldnt happen and be stymied could be a very good thing. and as citizends paying alot of taxes with no more to show for it than the operation of governments and our day to day status quo isnt enough for some people. thats why i think a constitution with the foundation in place and the rights of people to have a say in the rest of the decisions is the best. if things cant be forced through and then a snap election is made to seal it up by spin doctors then that is the best thing that can happen to all of us in canada.

[JLives]

This is bull. Some people are more qualified than us, that's reality. Those people have spent years running large and small businesses, or organizing labour movements, or hold advanced degrees in economics. Or at the front lines on the battles of abuse, poverty, and crime. Some are simply exceptional people, that have acquired a wealth of knowledge and experience while leading 'ordinary lives'. Yes, many citizens are well qualified, but I won't accept it for a second that some aren't more qualified than others.

Being a politician doesn't give you special governing powers and getting voted in doesn't make you automatically better suited for running the show. They are still people and they can still participate, as well the rest of the equally qualified people not currently holding public office. Every one of us is really good at something but none of us are good at everything. There are plenty of citizens who are knowledgable in every area of our society who would be just as good of a fit but don't like dealing with political BS.

Leading a nation, or a province, is a job like any other job. While we all like to believe we'd do a better job timing traffic lights, judging trials, or leading a country, the fact remains that some people are going to be better equipped to do the job than others.

We don't need to hold votes on traffic lights or trials but we could hold votes on setting up the office that deals with traffic and vote in judges. Direct Democracy is not inefficient. Yes, running a country is a job and it makes for lighter work when you spread it out over all of the citizens. Would you want to vote on each and ever mundane thing that needs addressing? I would focus on the areas I feel most strongly about. We would also have the media to shine the spotlight on areas needing attention. With the technology we have, the possibilties are endless.

The government is not meant for governing us, it's meant for governing FOR us.

[nolanrh]

We don't need to hand over policy decisions to people ill-equipped to make them.

But that is what we do, time and time again with elections, and that is why we are in the mess we are. We are letting the corporations decide for us what is good or bad, and their puppets pass it through the legislature without any feed back from the people.

So we can't handle voting for people, but can handle voting for policies?

[nolanrh]

Being a politician doesn't give you special governing powers and getting voted in doesn't make you automatically better suited for running the show. They are still people and they can still participate, as well the rest of the equally qualified people not currently holding public office. Every one of us is really good at something but none of us are good at everything. There are plenty of citizens who are knowledgable in every area of our society who would be just as good of a fit but don't like dealing with political BS.

I didn't say being a politician confers special governing powers. I said certain people have skills that make them better suited to running the show. The goal should be to get those people elected. If they don't "want to deal with political BS", then they should contribute through other means. Informing the electorate, informing the media.

We don't need to hold votes on traffic lights or trials but we could hold votes on setting up the office that deals with traffic and vote in judges.

You'd want a vote on setting up an office that deals with traffic? Tell me, what exactly you know about that subject today? How long would it take you to learn what is needed by a traffic department? How many dozens of hours? How many people do you think would actually spend the time learning what is needed to make an informed vote on the subject?

[Glacier]

From my view, there are some insights that can only be gained through being intimately involved in the political process. People get elected with their own agendas, but once elected, they face the hard reality of how the world works. Thus, they are much more likley to make sound decisions than they otherwise would do as mere armchair politicians.

Take free trade for example. Most Canadians (especially left leaning ones) are adamantly opposed to it, but once these same people (left or right) get elected, they learn how and why free trade benefits the economy. Ironically, the average voter considers such a politician a sell-out.

edited.

[Al Czervic]

From my view, there are some insights that can only be gained through being intimately involved in the political process. People get elected with their own agendas, but once elected, they face the hard reality of how the world works. Thus, they are much more likley to make sound decisions than they otherwise would do as mere armchair politicians.

Take free trade for example. Most Canadians (especially left leaning ones) are adamantly opposed to it, but once these same left-leaning people get elected, they learn how and why free trade benefits the economy. Ironically, the average voter considers such a politician a sell-out.

Completely agree. Well said.

[RJ2]

The Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC says, by focusing on a return to government by Elected officials rather than a central governmnet of rule-making Un-elected bueaucrats.......Its not just the elected people we've got to look at, its the multitudes of committees, quasi appointed governmental boards(ICBC, BCSC,etc,etc) now is the time to have elected people who monitor these quasi government (Un-elected) organizations because of their unfettered power and influence and draw them closer to the scrutiny needed for an open and transparent government for the people. The Un-elected in government is huge because most were hired to work within the struture and for many of the hired employees it becomes a platform for overweening confidence and superiority over the people whom they are supposed to work for not the other way around.........

[Urbane]

From my view, there are some insights that can only be gained through being intimately involved in the political process. People get elected with their own agendas, but once elected, they face the hard reality of how the world works. Thus, they are much more likley to make sound decisions than they otherwise would do as mere armchair politicians.

Take free trade for example. Most Canadians (especially left leaning ones) are adamantly opposed to it, but once these same left-leaning people get elected, they learn how and why free trade benefits the economy. Ironically, the average voter considers such a politician a sell-out.

Excellent post.

[sooperphreek]

are the lefties really changed when they get elected? or do they know they dont have a snoballs chance in hell of actually doing what needs to be done? i think the latter.