Thread: Direct Democracy. Would you vote for it?

If you had the chance of changing representative democracy in a country like the US into direct democracy, would you support/vote for it? Do you think it would be a big failure or that it could work out? Assume that if it was voted for it would take into effect a few years from now (not right away, but not in the far future either).
If your choice is that it would be a big failure, do you think that it is the best political system or do you have another favorite choice?

I might consider voting for it, much would depend on the details of the implementation. Most likely I would not.

I don't think it would be a "failure", but I am dubious of what kind of success it would represent. For example, it could easily degenerate into the most crass sort of majority rule: if 55% of people in a state voted to throw homosexuals into deprogramming camps where they perform agricultural labour to help pay the cost, it would happen. If 60% voted for the death penalty on abortion, it would happen.

And probably both those things would happen here. Although I do not think representative democracy is ideal, I think it does provide a sort of buffer between the government and mindless mass idiocy. Not because I think politicians are such great people, but because they have to walk on so much glass all the time.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

If you had the chance of changing representative democracy in a country like the US into direct democracy, would you support/vote for it? Do you think it would be a big failure or that it could work out? Assume that if it was voted for it would take into effect a few years from now (not right away, but not in the far future either).
If your choice is that it would be a big failure, do you think that it is the best political system or do you have another favorite choice?

I'd rather have my congressman vote for the direct democracy bill.

Trust your politicians... they're smart... or... something.

Originally Posted by C_ntua

If you had the chance of changing representative democracy in a country like the US into direct democracy, would you support/vote for it? Do you think it would be a big failure or that it could work out?

Like the US or any other country in the world. No one has a direct democracy regime in place.

I think it would be a big failure. It would definitely remove any protection of minorities. It would also probably become a nightmare to manage the larger the country is both in population as in administrative regions.

Although direct democracy is nice in principle, I doubt it would be very effective in practice.

A good government must:
1. Provide protection and services for its citizens
2. Be effective. Not too slow or bogged down by bureaucracy.
3. Not be tyrannical. This includes a majority tyranny, not just the tyranny of 1.

In addition:
4. Rule of law must be respected

Direct democracy would maximize the possibility of each citizen's voice getting heard in the law-making process, but I fear it would minimize the effectiveness of the government. Representative democracy is already a very slow government. If you increase participation by 300-million-fold, it will only get slower, and nothing will get done.

Also, I think a direct democracy would increase the danger of having a majority tyranny if the people didn't inform themselves, get a good education, and participate in the government.

Originally Posted by DavidP

Although direct democracy is nice in principle, I doubt it would be very effective in practice.

A good government must:
1. Provide protection and services for its citizens
2. Be effective. Not too slow or bogged down by bureaucracy.
3. Not be tyrannical. This includes a majority tyranny, not just the tyranny of 1.

In addition:
4. Rule of law must be respected

Direct democracy would maximize the possibility of each citizen's voice getting heard in the law-making process, but I fear it would minimize the effectiveness of the government. Representative democracy is already a very slow government. If you increase participation by 300-million-fold, it will only get slower, and nothing will get done.

Also, I think a direct democracy would increase the danger of having a majority tyranny if the people didn't inform themselves, get a good education, and participate in the government.

Your second argument is a weak one. The chances would increase of a majority tyranny, but clearly not for a tyranny in general, which is the important thing. Representatives have a higher chance of resulting in tyranny than the people in general. Isn't history full of examples were the government abuses its power?
And think of the companies that use politicians. A company can simply pay a politician to gain political power. It would be much much more difficult to do so in a direct democracy.

Direct democracy is slower, but speed is not the case all the time. In a time of war, yes it is. That is why you don't have democracy at all in war. But most laws "can wait" a couple of months if the result would be better.
Practically it is democracy that makes our system slow, not so much the number of representatives. Of course the changes will result in a more complex system which will make it slower, but not too slow to do anything.
Indirectness also slows matters. Because politicians will avoid to take necessary actions because of the political cost. That wouldn't happen in a direct democracy. People would vote, express their will and the matter would be over.

The problem would be when "unpopular" actions would have to be taken, like raising taxes. But taxes would be a different concept, since the people would have a direct saying on their money. There wouldn't be an unnecessary government spending we witness today. The people would have the experts opinion, the politicians opinion etc etc to inform them about any unpopular choice, so they won't act on impulse and discard it.

----
I don't see also why minorities will be taken advantage in a direct democracy. I see our system a bigger threat for minorities because
a) The politicians care about the majority vote more. So for some minorities there won't be a representative at all. In a direct democracy they would always have power.
b) The people feel far less responsible if their representative takes advantage of a minority group rather than if the people did that directly.
c) Think of the case where the majority of people wants to go against the minority. This is easier in a representative democracy. They would just elect the right person for the job. That person would stay for years in power and the minority would suffer for years. On the other hand, in a direct democracy the people could correct their mistake.
The key is that when people act because of impulse and take quick decisions they can be monsters. What you can do is minimize the magnitude of those decisions. The magnitude can be more severe if you elect somebody that will stay for years, because the people concentrate all their democratic privileges on one vote. In a direct democracy, they have more votes, which is more balanced.

Although it's impractical without a secured network we probably won't have for another 100 years, I think Delegated Voting (Proxy voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is pretty cool. Direct Democracy sounds like a ton of work nobody would be willing to do.

Lets say that you keep your representative, even the president. Lets just assume that we make our current democratic system practically a direct democracy without changing everything. The direct vote of the people will have the major role.

The representatives would make sure that the laws are followed and all the legal procedures so we don't become a mob. They can also provide a guideline to their supporters. And provide a government on emergency times, like a war.

All the details in general can be figured out. For example, the people can vote on the bills with the most demands. The voting periods can be a few times per year. So you won't have to read 4,000 bills. The representatives could have the power to demand a vote. If the people feel like reading it they get to vote. If more than X% of the people vote then the vote counts and the people decide.

You can also have a lot of balance mechanisms. If somebody is not active politically his vote can be reduced by a percentage. The voting system can also make sure (with a few questions) that the individual has a general idea about the bill.

In any case, try to make sure that ignorant people don't ruin a vote. The most informed people votes should be valued more. I would guess that people that don't care will simply not really participate. For example, if because of an incident the people want to kick out a minority they won't have the power to simply vote for it. The minorities will be protected by laws. They would have to vote for new laws. That requires time and effort so the people will have to be determined. If they are, then still the media or other groups will have a saying. Naturally people are influenced by them. They would realize their mistake. Or not, in which case there could be a demand from the representatives for a re-vote claiming that the act was extreme etc etc. All of this will try to ensure that the people don't vote because of impulse.

Originally Posted by Bubba

I've thought about this and while it makes sense I believe b/c 75% of the U.S. population is concentrated in about 13 major urban centers across the country that a direct democracy is just not plausible at this time. The electoral college balances all that out while itself also not being a perfect system.

That is a good argument. But you forget that a state has its own laws to vote for. A city can have its own as well. So the 13 major urban centers won't have a saying for everything. For some things you could have like state votes for example. The state votes internal and the major vote represents the state vote. Every state vote can be equal. There is a way around.

My logic is that we vote for representatives. If we are stupid we will vote for bad representatives. So voting for laws our self won't make a difference. But we could blaim only ourselves and not feel that the government is going against us. Furthermore, you wont' have only one vote of the people (for their representatives). Doing something once never achieves balance. So direct democracy is more balanced in that sense. And the ignorant people would probably not vote 10 times a year. They would not be interested. So the ones that vote would be mostly the "good" ones.

You will always have leaders no matter what. But isn't it better if the leader is somebody that doesn't have to play the whole political game? Think of a group of people that want to change things. They won't just protest. They would actually have the power to make a bill and demand for it to be voted upon. They won't have to settle on the goodwill of the politicians to hear them.

Concluding I would think that the management is the biggest problem. But with modern technology you could vote from your home as well as get informed from your home. It doesn't cost much either. You would just require more time, which I think is worth it. If you don't have the time, you leave the matter to the rest. You do that now anyways. Of course there will be downsides as well as people could vote for things they thing they know, but are practically clueless.

EDIT: Our political system is based not on careful planning but mostly on need. We had kings and we wanted a more democratic system. You cannot go directly to a pure democratic system. The first step is the step we have. But that doesn't mean that it has to be the final one. I am just feeling that the next step could be taken at our time.

Delegating voting sounds interesting. Direct democracy requires work of course, mostly some education, but the ones that are not willingly to do so can simply not participate.

Originally Posted by Sharke

mob rule.

That's the term I was looking for. I wish I could say I have more faith in my fellow human beings but I honestly do not.

I do think there are many reforms that could be made to representative democracy to make it a little more "representative" in most places, and hence maybe help to better incorporate some of the potentially positive benefits of "direct democracy" (by making voting more meaningful). For example, the US senate system, whereby each state gets two senators, does not make democratic sense -- California, with a pop of like 50 million, has the same power as Utah (with a pop of less than 5 million).

But I think that is integral to the US Constitution. Which it's a bit sad that this gets treated like it was written by Moses most of the time, but probably strong constitutions are also good safeguards.