There are so many questions, and I would still have to focus on only ONE question because I vote on ONE party.
That leads nowhere...
I do not understand what is the "theoretical idea" here. You say that holding a referendum for each proposed law is too drastic, but right after that you propose the very same thing that you called drastic.Originally Posted by Elysia
The essence of a referendum is that all those who are enfranchised to vote, vote (whether by using paper ballot slips, or by some online polling mechanism). This is in contrast to only elected representatives voting on an issue.
Can I take a shot in the dark here: you are a "thinking" person who maybe considers herself "leftish", but on this issue*, you are forced to take a right-wing, conservative position. And that makes you uncomfortable, so you resent the system...
*are there others?
Holding a... referendum... for everything will be too drastic in the huge amount of time, money and effort that must be spent on it. Everyone must get there to vote. It must take time to arrange it. Etc.
But something in that direction. To give us control over exactly what we would like to see and what not, because that's what democracy is about - that we have a right to voice out opinion and shape our country.
I don't vote on our own politicians, let alone EU.
I really don't vote on anything except referendums.
I resent the entire system, not just this, because again because of some simple issues:
- Many parties may have different things I might like, but as I can only vote on one, I have to choose among all those things I want. I don't like that.
- Parties usually don't keep what they promise. So why should I vote on them then? It would be better if I could set the goals I wanted to see and the parties all worked together to make them happen. I don't like the current system.
- I don't want to dig into what the parties say or discuss or promise or like or dislike. Much less so all parties involved. Simply not a hobby of mine. I don't like it.
So don't think this is the only thing that makes me hesitate
The problem is, liberal leftists are by nature (or logic) more individualistic than conservative rightists because they believe in individual freedoms, and not a strong arm enforcing conformity. So "as a group" they are 1) less homogeneous and prone to factionalism, 2) more prone to feeling free to empathize with the opposition, creating a blurry smear in the political spectrum. That last one is especially influenced by the reality of "self-interest", where-by a generally liberal computer programmer will empathize with draconian capitalists when it involves their perceived "share of the pie"**. Landowners are the worst in this regard. The real estate/investment crisis in the US which has caused a global recession is a result of this wishy-washy pick and choose approach.
You have too many options, Elysia, and it makes you schizoid
* a US ice cream franchise which boasts "21 flavours"
** also, perhaps, because of a misguided use of dialectical principles
31. This is important.* a US ice cream franchise which boasts "21 flavours"
Elysia, I just want to give you something to chew on. Yes, the idea of the party system is the platform and I have no objections to a new party focused on one issue. The size of the party should represent the support of the people. I think you are panicking just because others have the option to vote for the party and you don't want it to get popular. Which is fine, but try to be realistic.
This is more of a political statement. It's not like they won Senate majority. And furthermore, the Congress in the United States has staggered elections, to prevent a situation where one party has all the seats. So even for people who are not left or right all the way, (which is, I hope, many people) they are still represented by the Congress population. I am sure that other representative democracies have incorporated this. The trouble currently here in the States is that third parties can't win seats in the Congress. I think the EU should be glad it's not so entrenched in two parties.
I like it when parties are well represented in the Congress because it fosters much debate on issues and neither party is strong enough to push their agenda outright. Right now the Congress is very Democratic, so much so that the Senate republicans don't have enough people to filibuster a bill.* I think this has worked to our detriment.
Still, I don't think the pirate party will be able to push their agenda, and if they pass a law, expect it to be a moderate one. The parliament is not about to pass anything outrageous on this issue. So calm down.
*Unless Lieberman crossed the aisle again. It always seems that the opposite party can filibuster, at least, when he changes parties.
Last edited by whiteflags; 06-10-2009 at 01:10 PM.
Nah, I'm not worried. The system is very safe in many regards (as I can very well read from your reply), but I don't think it's very democratic in how it allows people to voice their opinions.
That is what disappoints me and stays my hand, so to speak.
Especially the "they promise this and that," but what do they accomplish?
Wow. This takes the whole system of democracy to another level.
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted
- Albert Einstein.
No programming language is perfect. There is not even a single best language; there are only languages well suited or perhaps poorly suited for particular purposes.
- Herbert Mayer