Direct Democracy is a threat to political elites.

[Captain Awesome]

I am against HST because, as a bookeeper for a small manufacturing business, I see in our books it does not help small business.

Teehee. I'm so glad direct democracy will never materialize. Just because 95% of people have the same view on things...and we'd be so screwed as a society.

95% of people form their opinion based on personal experiences?

Not exactly. In my view, ninety five percent of people view the information based on how it affects them. And since most taxes take away from most people - after all that's what taxes do - taxes are hugely unpopular with average voter (Hello, Gordon). So, just think about how would you pass tax increases, tax introduction through direct democracy since majority of people would be dead against them and will vote them down as it negatively affects them (just like you're against HST since it doesn't help you).

[JLives]

I don't see helping "me" and helping the business as the same thing. The rheotoric the government was marketing was it would help business. From that standpoint it hasn't helped although if we could make labour an ITC that would sure help. So my vote would be no based on my experience running a business and as a consumer. You disagree and I could equally say you are wrong for coming to your conclusion through whatever methods you did. At the end of the day though we would each get our 1 vote to state our case. That is democracy.

[Captain Awesome]

At the end of the day though we would each get our 1 vote to state our case. That is democracy.

Yes, and in reality neither one of us is qualified enough to make informed decisions on tax policies and their consequences, and consequences are awful. Awesome.

[kompili]

Right now we do have a government and a opposition to that government that is being paid. If they are so much smarter than we are, they could tell us both sides to the issues and then we could decide and vote. And while making these decisions, I would like to not be threatened with cuts to programs that affect the people and not the government.

[flamingfingers]

At the end of the day though we would each get our 1 vote to state our case. That is democracy.

Yes, and in reality neither one of us is qualified enough to make informed decisions on tax policies and their consequences, and consequences are awful. Awesome.

I have to disagree here. IF policy was presented with the pros and cons stated honestly without political 'spin" the vast majority of people would be able to make an appropriate choice. IF the HST had been explained, the pros and cons laid out properly, we would not be going through all this BS with signatures, recalls, blah, blah. It was the government (Gordo) thinking that the general electorate was so stupid they would not do anything other than roll over and be complacent. Like the electorate has been so many times before. However: Now they are more sensitized to political fraud, corruption and criminal activity and are prepared to pay attention and demand answers.

[JLives]

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.

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.

And I would be completely willing to vote for higher taxes and cuts to services. Life's not all lollipops and rainbows.

[kompili]

I would pay taxes if need be, if the government would show accountability and restrain from wasting money. Mind you, with direct democracy we might be able to finally control both.

[Captain Awesome]

I have to disagree here. IF policy was presented with the pros and cons stated honestly without political 'spin" the vast majority of people would be able to make an appropriate choice. IF the HST had been explained, the pros and cons laid out properly, we would not be going through all this BS with signatures, recalls, blah, blah.

Mmmmkay, what stops major political/economical powers from putting political spin on information if we live in Jenny's La-La land of direct democracy and rainbows? Just like before, major groups would come out and share their views on certain issues be it negative or positive. And people would listen to them and make appropriate choices. The only difference would be casting their votes directly as opposed through somebody. For some reason you think direct democracy would get rid of political influences, lobby groups, etc.

[Captain Awesome]

Politicans are not any more qualified, intellectually or otherwise, they are just another citizen.

Hey hey, let's not make fun of Carole James, she is no longer here.

But in all seriousness, you think that just about anybody can run the govt and make decisions? How about CEO, should they be replaced by workers making collective decisions too? Or generals - by referendum of all soldiers making decisions on tactical/strategic level?

[steven lloyd]

The fault in that is just because someone disagrees with your stance on an issue doesn't make them wrong.

If that's what you think I am saying jenny, then I have to suggest you're not really trying to understand what I'm saying.

I am against HST because, as a bookeeper for a small manufacturing business, I see in our books it does not help small business. We don't know how everyone comes to thier conclusion unless we talk about it.

Great ! Let's talk about it. Tell us how we're going to recoup and repay the $ 6 billion the feds paid us, and how any of us are going to benefit once we start paying PST and GST again instead of HST.

That is a big plus in Direct Democracy, people can change their minds on issues. When politicians do that, they are considered weak or not following the party line.

I agree about your point regarding politicians; however, when was the last time you noticed the average poster around here change his or her mind on an issue given new information. This is exactly my point.

[JLives]

You can stop with the pipe dream, la la land nonsense and maybe continue the conversation as an adult? It is currently in use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

There are now a total of 24 U.S. states with constitutionally-defined, citizen-initiated, direct democracy governance components (Zimmerman, December 1999). In the United States, for the most part only one-time majorities are required (simple majority of those voting) to approve any of these components.

In addition, many localities around the U.S. also provide for some or all of these direct democracy governance components, and in specific classes of initiatives (like those for raising taxes), there is a supermajority voting threshold requirement. Even in states where direct democracy components are scant or nonexistent at the state level, there often exists local options for deciding specific issues, such as whether a county should be "wet" or "dry" in terms of whether alcohol sales are allowed.

In the U.S. region of New England, many municipalities (styled towns in contrast to cities) practice a very limited form of home rule, and decide local affairs through the direct democratic process of the town meeting.

[Captain Awesome]

You can stop with the pipe dream, la la land nonsense and maybe continue the conversation as an adult? It is currently in use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Great, it did wonders to California (it's broke right now you know). And of course political elites didn't go away anywhere, just like political lobbying, influence from major economical groups, and so on.

[sooperphreek]

Politicans are not any more qualified, intellectually or otherwise, they are just another citizen. [b]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.[/b]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.

And I would be completely willing to vote for higher taxes and cuts to services. Life's not all lollipops and rainbows.

i for one have to go on record and say what you articulated really struck a cord in me. it was a brilliant statement and i think its very true. why are we so willing to defer to a "leader" who is in essence an equal to us? they went through the electorate process and they have no lordship over any of us regardless of whether they are a leader of their party or not. that i think is the biggest problem. the higher a polititian gets the more he feels that he is above the common masses that he represents. if that is what we think our leaders are (above the masses)...then we are in BIG trouble. but alas they are above us. they break the law and they get off with a slap on the wrist and lose the privilege to represent us in most cases. but that is politics. not governance. examples are moe sihota or glen clark....where are they now?? down here in the crap with the rest of us. they just made better contacts and saw how to make more money while they were on the inside.

[flamingfingers]

^ But Gordo still shines eh? Where is he now?

[JLives]

From the link in the OP:

Establishment types argue that plebiscite politics oversimplify complex matters. Referendums and legislative initiatives preclude a thorough airing of issues and their examination in depth. In addition to being cumbersome, plebiscites favour the loudest voices over the most reasoned ones, and make voters vulnerable to demagoguery.

These arguments aren’t entirely without merit, reply supporters of plebiscite politics; but all systems view complex issues in simplified terms. All systems are susceptible to demagoguery. Establishment critics are just trying to mask their real concern, which is that they can’t turn direct democracy into a private club. 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.”