Direct Democracy is a threat to political elites.

[JLives]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... al-elites/

Excerpt:

To govern a representative democracy, it’s enough to occupy society’s high ground — the major political parties, the courts, the educational systems, the civil service. In a direct democracy, where each issue must be debated as it arises, occupying the high ground isn’t enough. Elites can’t settle matters by sending like-minded comrades from the cocktail-party circuit to the cabinet, high court or senate. It’s not sufficient to outlaw political advertising at election time, or exile contrary views to the letters-to-the-editor pages. Hijacking legislative chambers and relegating opposition to the blogosphere is impossible in participatory democracies.

[kompili]

I really enjoyed this part of the article, and would love to see more of this type of governing of referendums for the people to vote on. That way people's vote really would count for something.

And there you have it. Some say elites can’t cope with democracy. I say that’s a calumny. They can, as long as it’s mediated through institutions they control. What they can’t abide is direct or participatory democracy. It’s California-style referendums — those pesky “propositions” or “initiatives” that put legislative issues directly to the voters — that drive the governing classes up the wall.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... z19clcuLBI

[Urbane]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/28/george-jonas-direct-democracy-is-a-threat-to-political-elites/

Excerpt:

To govern a representative democracy, it’s enough to occupy society’s high ground — the major political parties, the courts, the educational systems, the civil service. In a direct democracy, where each issue must be debated as it arises, occupying the high ground isn’t enough. Elites can’t settle matters by sending like-minded comrades from the cocktail-party circuit to the cabinet, high court or senate. It’s not sufficient to outlaw political advertising at election time, or exile contrary views to the letters-to-the-editor pages. Hijacking legislative chambers and relegating opposition to the blogosphere is impossible in participatory democracies.

I see polls showing that a solid majority of Canadians favour euthanasia and yet I see no move by those in power to change the status quo. The same situation exists for other policies as well. So yes, there is a lot to be said for direct democracy. And we do have the Charter of Rights so any attempt by the majority to trample on the rights of minorities would presumably be remedied by the court.

[Captain Awesome]

I think direct democracy is nothing but a shining pipe dream.

But hey, what do I know...

[JLives]

It is most certainly not a pipe dream. Direct Democracy is in use in many parts of the world including the US and has been quite successful. A referendum is a form of Direct Democracy.

[NAB]

Bill VanderZalm believes in direct democracy, as does Delaney. That's probably why the BC Liberals and their supporters don't like him, because direct democracy is the enemy of the political elite as well as the enemy of the bloated bureaucracies and back room gangs who actually run the ship, not the elected politicians.

Nab

[grammafreddy]

Is Switzerland a direct democracy? They have a rather unusual voting system over there. I should take the time to study it better.

[Captain Awesome]

While I see limited application for direct democracy such us municipal issues and basic household items, trying t apply it on any higher level is destined for failure as people are not smart enough to make these kind of decisions and need somebody to make them on their behalf.

[kompili]

While I see limited application for direct democracy such us municipal issues and basic household items, trying t apply it on any higher level is destined for failure as people are not smart enough to make these kind of decisions and need somebody to make them on their behalf.

Maybe you are not smart enough, but there are a lot of people that know what is going on and can make good choices when it really matters.

[JLives]

Even if "they" are not smart enough under some stranger's standard, it is thier country too and they are entitled to a say. Perhaps if it would be a motivator to get more involved and educate ourselves if we actually had more of a say.

[Captain Awesome]

Perhaps, but I doubt it.

Like Winston Churchill said - "The best argument against democracy is a 10 minute conversation with an average voter "

[kompili]

I believe that every piece of business by the government would not be voted on. But I would like to see votes on certain things.

[Glacier]

I see polls showing that a solid majority of Canadians favour euthanasia and yet I see no move by those in power to change the status quo. The same situation exists for other policies as well. So yes, there is a lot to be said for direct democracy.

I heard Preston Manning advocating Direct Democracy the other day, and he even pointed to Switzerland as an example. While Manning is a smart man, I do wonder if he is a bit naive about the ability of voters to make sound decisions. The problem with direct democracy is that the majority are often wrong, and the consequences of making decisions without thorough debate and sober second thought can be huge.

How do we know that euthanasia, the Kyoto Protocol, or anything else the majority believes in are good public policies?

[kompili]

So I guess what it comes down too, is that you can be an idiot to vote someone into government to run the country, like I expected, but to vote on anything else, people are just too dumb.

[NAB]

I like to think that our politicians / governments might have to interact with the electorate much more (as in actually do their jobs more transparently) if democracy were enhanced in such a way. The way it is they just play numbers and spin games without having to take individual responsibility for their actions.

Nab