Your view on popular referenda? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14538146
I may have agreed 10 or 20 years ago.
Today people are educated in modern countries.
They also have the internet that provides all the information they need to help make decisions.
This is not about letting a bunch of illiterates vote.
We are dealing with an intelligent population that is capable of making intelligent decisions.
We have the technology and we have the education.
If a community has those two things then they should phase out the responsibilities they give to representatives.
We have been shown the pitfalls of representative democracy.
#14538148
One Degree wrote:I may have agreed 10 or 20 years ago.
Today people are educated in modern countries.
They also have the internet that provides all the information they need to help make decisions.
This is not about letting a bunch of illiterates vote.
We are dealing with an intelligent population that is capable of making intelligent decisions.
We have the technology and we have the education.
If a community has those two things then they should phase out the responsibilities they give to representatives.
We have been shown the pitfalls of representative democracy.

Pity that in my country abstention rounds around 30-50% and in referendums it can be sometimes lower. So, 30% of the population decides? Slavery is an extreme example, but let's imagine something like gay adoption - In this case I think it should be decided according to scientific evidence about kids raised by gays and not by what every voter's morality or religion thinks of gays
#14538152
Voter turn out is very poor here, but it is mainly due to a feeling that we are not being given a choice.
I believe, but don't have the statistics, that referendums have a much higher turnout.

I give cultural integrity priority over scientific evidence.
If a group of people want to live a life that is contrary to science, I see no problem with that.
If human happiness is not our first priority, then I don't know what should be.
#14538153
One Degree wrote:Voter turn out is very poor here, but it is mainly due to a feeling that we are not being given a choice.
I believe, but don't have the statistics, that referendums have a much higher turnout.

I give cultural integrity priority over scientific evidence.
If a group of people want to live a life that is contrary to science, I see no problem with that.
If human happiness is not our first priority, then I don't know what should be.

In my opinion human happiness shouldn't be a priority or a right - It is something you are allowed to pursue as long as you respect the law and rules of society. Being happy differs from person to person and some people may be happy doing inhumane acts like raping or killing.
#14538157
'Happiness' was a poor choice of words.
I meant the 'comfort' that comes from living in a community that has guidelines that you agree with.

If science says one of your guidelines is wrong, then that information should be made available to the community, but they should not be forced to comply with it unless they agree as a community to do so.

Realistically, this just means I support local autonomy and want very few laws on higher levels that over ride this autonomy.
#14538163
As a general rule, I'm not at all keen on referendums. As annatar said, "50%+1" is not enough to determine wisdom and reason. The argument in favour also assumes that all eligible voters are properly qualified to vote i.e. can be trusted to make an informed decision. This is very obviously not the case.

One Degree wrote:People should not decide?
Don't you mean only the 'superior' people should decide?
Someone has to decide.
I have seen absolutely no evidence that our 'representatives' are any more capable of making a good decision than the homeless guy in my neighborhood.
Actually, from conversations with him, he would make much better decisions.

Please spare me this elitist crap.

Well, no. "Our representatives" don't make decisions in isolation. Responsible government depends on things like legal precedents, due process, and constitutional law. A referendum - like the one in Scotland last year - requires none of those things, and often flies in the face of them. Referendums are also a great tool for demagogues to cement their power. After all, Hitler's creation of the post of Fuhrer was approved by referendum.
#14538164
Dystopian Darkness wrote:I seriously doubt that would happen at least in the western world, provided that you explain people the pros and cons of having private property.

And even if you're right, you are simply pointing out the reason why referendums are generally a bad idea - My constitution says "no referendums on fundamental rights", and since private property is a fundamental right - No referendum, deal with it (the reason for this is that rights shouldn't be up to the people to decide, just imagine most humans voting for slavery)


Who is to say what the "rights" even are... except the people themselves? Anything else is either horribly unethical (due to a tiny elite dictating to everyone else) or mystical/superstitious ("God" told me what the Rights are).

Likewise with any Constitution.
#14538166
UnusuallyUsual wrote:Who is to say what the "rights" even are... except the people themselves?

If 51% of the people say that black people are not fully human, does that make it acceptable? Why does a simple majority determine right and wrong?
#14538167
Heisenberg wrote:As a general rule, I'm not at all keen on referendums. As annatar said, "50%+1" is not enough to determine wisdom and reason. The argument in favour also assumes that all eligible voters are properly qualified to vote i.e. can be trusted to make an informed decision. This is very obviously not the case.


Well, no. "Our representatives" don't make decisions in isolation. Responsible government depends on things like legal precedents, due process, and constitutional law. A referendum - like the one in Scotland last year - requires none of those things, and often flies in the face of them. Referendums are also a great tool for demagogues to cement their power. After all, Hitler's creation of the post of Fuhrer was approved by referendum.


People always say that stuff about Nazis taking power to somehow bash democracy. But the whole reason Nazis were so evil (one of them anyway) was because they immediately got rid of democracy itself. Also, the context and situation in 1930/1932 Germany is ridiculous and extreme.
#14538168
Heisenberg wrote:If 51% of the people say that black people are not fully human, does that make it acceptable? Why does a simple majority determine right and wrong?


I guess I don't believe that would happen. I feel that usually bigotry is fanned by politicians/dictators.
#14538169
I'm not using the Nazis to "bash democracy". I'm saying why referendums aren't particularly great. And, besides, I think the argument is legitimate. "Democracy" is a means to an end: the end being responsible government. "Democracy" in and of itself is not perfect, because depending on the cultural and material conditions in which an election takes place, there can be some pretty miserable consequences.

UnusuallyUsual wrote:I guess I don't believe that would happen. I feel that usually bigotry is fanned by politicians/dictators.

Then how on earth do you explain the entire history of the USA prior to the civil rights movement?
#14538173
Heisenberg wrote:I'm not using the Nazis to "bash democracy". I'm saying why referendums aren't particularly great. And, besides, I think the argument is legitimate. "Democracy" is a means to an end: the end being responsible government. "Democracy" in and of itself is not perfect, because depending on the cultural and material conditions in which an election takes place, there can be some pretty miserable consequences.


Then how on earth do you explain the entire history of the USA prior to the civil rights movement?


It's not about elections. That is the point. We need a system where instead of holding a single vote every like four years, we have far more responsiveness built in. Voting Democrat/Republican once per four years is not real democracy... If there are votes on specific policy options instead of for PEOPLE I think a lot of your concerns go away. A lot of the corruption gets taken out immediately.

To my mind, the central objection to direct democracy is not "the people are evil/stupid" but rather practical considerations about how to actually implement all of this in an effective way.
#14538183
Even referendums for recall of politicians would be a first step in the US.
Something more needs to be done to make them more responsible to their constituents after they are elected.

This probably would not be effective since the main problem in the US is everyone supports 'their' representatives but overwhelming reject the actions of Congress.

Any suggestions on how this could be dealt with?
#14538187
The guys in power also won the election with close to 100% votes every few years.


That is the first thing that popped in my mind with 'mandatory voting'.
I have always associated it with oppressive government.
#14538192
I'm split on this.

In Ireland the government can call a referendum to amend the constitution. I'm generally fine with this practice, though restricting abortion through this I'd consider problematic. I don't think there should be allowed referendums on certain issues - Fundamental Rights and Economics would be the too major ones - and I would be anxious about referendums-on-demand at a national level. I would be more in favour of would be localised referendums undertaken within localities/jurisdictions on issues relating to those localities:

I have three reasons for this. I figure [1] that building localities together would act as a unifying force for people, you would feel more connected to your locality, which I see as a good thing, [2] that local people would know the conditions on the ground best, and be able to judge what legislation would meet the specifics of their communities better than some general legislation from the centralised state, and that [3] it would provide good scope to test for new ideas, and whilst some might fail, it's hurting a small portion of the population.

There also is is county councils in Ireland, but these are just springboards for people to get into national politics, and not much else.
#14538194
I have three reasons for this. I figure [1] that building localities together would act as a unifying force for people, you would feel more connected to your locality, which I see as a good thing, [2] that local people would know the conditions on the ground best, and be able to judge what legislation would meet the specifics of their communities better than some general legislation from the centralised state, and that [3] it would provide good scope to test for new ideas, and whilst some might fail, it's hurting a small portion of the population.


This is pretty much what happens in the US.
We also have state referendums, but I believe California is the only state that gets really carried away with that.
I could be wrong, but their referendums seem to get the most publicity.
#14538198
One Degree wrote:
That is the first thing that popped in my mind with 'mandatory voting'.
I have always associated it with oppressive government.


No, there are several "1st-world" countries with mandatory voting. It is an eminently "mainstream" idea actually. Now, I am somewhat of a "libertarian" (socially) so I dislike compulsion in general. I feel there is a better alternative to requiring people to vote by law: rather simply make voting on Weekends instead of Tuesdays, and keep the polls open for like the entire 48 hours of the weekend (so people without as much time during the day still have an opportunity). These sound like petty changes but I am fairly confident that would result in a giant rise in overall turnout. Another thing keeping turnout low I feel is that most people simply don't think they have anywhere close to enough information about the candidates running. Again, if we made it about actual issues, where things are more blatant and transparent, people can common-sense approach the vote and have a gut feeling which way they come down on it. When it's human beings (who often DECEIVE/HIDE their real motives) it is much more daunting trying to ascertain which way to vote. Just some thoughts.
#14538199
UnusuallyUsual wrote:It's not about elections. That is the point. We need a system where instead of holding a single vote every like four years, we have far more responsiveness built in

I disagree entirely. In what world is indulging every transient whim of "the people" going to lead to responsible government? Even a vote every four years is subject to ridiculous short-termism. Letting people vote on whatever takes their fancy every couple of weeks would be a disaster.

UnusuallyUsual wrote:Voting Democrat/Republican once per four years is not real democracy... If there are votes on specific policy options instead of for PEOPLE I think a lot of your concerns go away. A lot of the corruption gets taken out immediately.

Nonsense. If you held a state-wide referendum in 1965 in Alabama, people would overwhelmingly have voted to deprive blacks of the right to vote. Similarly, if you held a referendum in Alabama today, people would probably vote to deprive gay people of their rights. "Real democracy" is not an end in itself. Suddenly making voting a very regular event doesn't guarantee that good government will prevail. It guarantees that politicians will go into overdrive with pandering and populism.

UnusuallyUsual wrote:To my mind, the central objection to direct democracy is not "the people are evil/stupid" but rather practical considerations about how to actually implement all of this in an effective way.

Absolutely. Implementing it would be a disaster. There is also the fact that people are evil and stupid. The mob is very rarely the voice of reason.
#14538207
Absolutely. Implementing it would be a disaster. There is also the fact that people are evil and stupid. The mob is very rarely the voice of reason.


Our current government is a disaster.
Our representatives are evil and stupid.
Our representatives are certainly not the voice of reason.

I think you need some better arguments for denying people more control of their government.
I, also, do not see why dedicated computer sites could not be used for immediate referendums.
It could be monitored just as easily as voter sites.

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Yes, and that conditional statement is not necessa[…]

They're going to bring the debunked "Russiaga[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]