Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, referendums)."
Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"! Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which may be used to veto actions of government or parliament.
Adding elements of direct democracy to indirect (representative) democracy brings creative input from the electorate into the political process, as well as stronger "checks" on government. This is not dictatorship so it is incorrect to imply that. Also, the procedures of direct democracy allow, indeed demand, much public debate and deliberation of issues. So these procedures differ greatly from opinion surveys, which invite an instant and often ill-considered response.
Design of this deliberative citizen-led democracy is sketched here http://www.iniref.org/steps.html more detail via http://www.iniref.org/
IandRgb
http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm strategies for real democracy
Soupdragon
2009-11-27 11:11:36 EST
I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_an > _expe.html > > Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of > representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or > follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where > policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, referendums)." > > Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"! > Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes > citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which > may be used to veto actions of government or parliament.
You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will deal with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a few-citizens- with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'.
Robert Peffers
2009-11-29 02:59:36 EST
"soupdragon" <me@privacy.com> wrote in message news:Xns9CD0A4BCC2484darevtnn@62.141.42.83... > I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in > news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_an >> _expe.html >> >> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of >> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or >> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where >> policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, referendums)." >> >> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"! >> Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes >> citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which >> may be used to veto actions of government or parliament. > > You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will deal > with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a > few-citizens- > with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'. Silly me. I thought that the campaign led by a few-citizens-with-an-agenda was exactly what the posts in this group was all about, (or is that another agenda)? --
Auld Bob
I&R ~ GB
2009-11-29 16:55:17 EST
soupdragon wrote: > I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in > news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_an >> _expe.html >> >> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of >> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or >> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where >> policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, referendums)." >> >> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"! >> Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes >> citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which >> may be used to veto actions of government or parliament. > > You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will deal > with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a few-citizens- > with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'.
We have replied to this your error along the lines of:
That you soupdragon wrote: "So before I want to hand over power to a determined minority ..."
shows that you have NO IDEA about how modern direct democracy works. You appear to refer to rights which could only be legislated upon centrally. With citizen-initiated referendum any person, group or organisation can put forward a proposal. A large, agreed number of citizens must be found to endorse the proposal. Only then (most bad or extreme proposals fail at this first hurdle) can it go forward to the next stage which in the system recommended by I&R ~ GB means that the proposal must be debated in Parliament. All of the latter steps are accompanied by free news reporting, public information and debate. Proposals which contravene constitution, international agreements, common sense or humanity can be challenged in the courts. If Parliament rejects the proposal then the proposing group may demand a referendum. In order to do that they must collect a further large number of endorsements. Again the procedure occurs under public and professional scrutiny, aired in the mass media, widely debated. So a decision made by referendum will have been substantially deliberated, turned inside out, considered. Much more so than the average or even above average debate about a parliamentary bill (except perhaps an attempt to regulate MPs' expenses).
So, it is THE ELECTORATE WHO DECIDES on issues which they select, not your bogey-dragon "determined minority"."
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Campaign for direct democracy in Britain http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm election campaign call http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html web site index
Soupdragon
2009-11-30 05:22:30 EST
I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:7ng8mlF3kj2j6U1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
> soupdragon wrote: >> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in >> news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: >> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_ >>> an _expe.html >>> >>> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of >>> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or >>> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where >>> policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, >>> referendums)." >>> >>> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"! >>> Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes >>> citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which >>> may be used to veto actions of government or parliament. >> >> You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will >> deal with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a >> few-citizens- with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'. > > We have replied to this your error along the lines of:
You seem to be confusing 'glaring deficiency' on your part, with 'error'.
> That you soupdragon wrote: "So before I want to hand over power to a > determined minority ..." > > shows that you have NO IDEA about how modern direct democracy works.
There is nothing 'modern' about this idea - it's over 2000 years old, nor does any of what you wrote below address the points I made. It is nothing more than empty rhetoric - short on detail, long on wind.
> You appear to refer to rights which could only be legislated upon > centrally.
I refer to rights which *must* be in place to protect minority and other interests before we hand government over to mob rule and "Daily Mail led citizens initiatives".
> With citizen-initiated referendum any person, group or > organisation can put forward a proposal. A large, agreed number of > citizens must be found > to endorse the proposal.
How many? Vague as usual.
> Only then (most bad or extreme proposals > fail > at this first hurdle)
How do you know this when you haven't set a limit?
> can it go forward to the next stage which in the > system recommended by I&R ~ GB means that the proposal must be debated > in Parliament.
To what end? If they don't back it, it goes ahead anyway so what's the point?
> All of the latter steps are accompanied by free news > reporting, public information and debate. Proposals which contravene > constitution, international agreements, common sense or humanity can > be challenged in the courts. If Parliament rejects the proposal then > the proposing group may demand a referendum. In order to do that they > must collect a further large number of endorsements. Again the > procedure occurs under public and professional scrutiny, aired in the > mass media, widely debated. So a decision made by referendum will have > been substantially deliberated, turned inside out, considered. Much > more so than the average or even above average debate about a > parliamentary bill (except perhaps an attempt to regulate MPs' > expenses).
Zzzz! 'Large number' but no number mentioned. No mentioned of neccessary mandate at the referendume, etc etc.
> > So, it is THE ELECTORATE WHO DECIDES on issues which they select, not > your bogey-dragon "determined minority"."
You really don't get this, do you? Yesterday, it was announced that the far-right sponsored bill to stir up anti-Muslim hatred in Switzerland got their way with a 'modern direct democracy' plebicite - with a mere 29% of the electorate. All they needed was 100,000 signatures - a pitance. And all this despite the fact that polls in the run up to the plebicite showed consistently 2 to 1 against the proposal.
There is your determined minority in action. That is the reality of what you will bring without mechanisms in place to protect the rights of the minority and to ensure any policy imposed on the electorate does indeed have a mandate from the electorate and not, as appears to have been the case in Switzerland, mob rule fuelled by Daily Mail style headlines posing as 'public debate'.
[followups set]
I&R ~ GB
2009-11-30 10:50:17 EST
soupdragon wrote: > I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in > news:7ng8mlF3kj2j6U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: > >> soupdragon wrote: >>> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in >>> news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: >>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_ >>>> an _expe.html >>>> >>>> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of >>>> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or >>>> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy (where >>>> policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, >>>> referendums)." >>>> >>>> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly "misrepresented"! >>>> Modern direct democracy (in political science) always includes >>>> citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and a plebiscite which >>>> may be used to veto actions of government or parliament. >>> You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will >>> deal with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a >>> few-citizens- with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'. >> We have replied to this your error along the lines of: > > You seem to be confusing 'glaring deficiency' on your part, with > 'error'. > >> That you soupdragon wrote: "So before I want to hand over power to a >> determined minority ..." >> >> shows that you have NO IDEA about how modern direct democracy works. > > There is nothing 'modern' about this idea - it's over 2000 years old, > nor does any of what you wrote below address the points I made. It > is nothing more than empty rhetoric - short on detail, long on wind. > >> You appear to refer to rights which could only be legislated upon >> centrally. > > I refer to rights which *must* be in place to protect minority and > other interests before we hand government over to mob rule and "Daily > Mail led citizens initiatives". > >> With citizen-initiated referendum any person, group or >> organisation can put forward a proposal. A large, agreed number of >> citizens must be found >> to endorse the proposal. > > How many? Vague as usual. > >> Only then (most bad or extreme proposals >> fail >> at this first hurdle) > > How do you know this when you haven't set a limit? > >> can it go forward to the next stage which in the >> system recommended by I&R ~ GB means that the proposal must be debated >> in Parliament. > > To what end? If they don't back it, it goes ahead anyway so what's the > point? > >> All of the latter steps are accompanied by free news >> reporting, public information and debate. Proposals which contravene >> constitution, international agreements, common sense or humanity can >> be challenged in the courts. If Parliament rejects the proposal then >> the proposing group may demand a referendum. In order to do that they >> must collect a further large number of endorsements. Again the >> procedure occurs under public and professional scrutiny, aired in the >> mass media, widely debated. So a decision made by referendum will have >> been substantially deliberated, turned inside out, considered. Much >> more so than the average or even above average debate about a >> parliamentary bill (except perhaps an attempt to regulate MPs' >> expenses). > > Zzzz! 'Large number' but no number mentioned. No mentioned of neccessary > mandate at the referendume, etc etc. > >> So, it is THE ELECTORATE WHO DECIDES on issues which they select, not >> your bogey-dragon "determined minority"." > > You really don't get this, do you? Yesterday, it was announced that > the far-right sponsored bill to stir up anti-Muslim hatred in > Switzerland got their way with a 'modern direct democracy' plebicite - > with a mere 29% of the electorate. All they needed was 100,000 > signatures - a pitance. And all this despite the fact that polls in the > run up to the plebicite showed consistently 2 to 1 against the proposal. > > There is your determined minority in action. That is the reality of what > you will bring without mechanisms in place to protect the rights of the > minority and to ensure any policy imposed on the electorate does indeed > have a mandate from the electorate and not, as appears to have been the > case in Switzerland, mob rule fuelled by Daily Mail style headlines > posing as 'public debate'. > > [followups set]
Much repetition by soupdragon.
About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by soupdragon.
Among an impressive collection of recommendations for reform of our democracy and governance, the Power Inquiry put forward a proposal for partial direct democracy (Report 2006, Recommendation 24). The proposal had two stages, a citizens' initiative which if successful must be debated in Parliament. To reach this stage it was suggested that 400,000 voter-endorsements (signatures) would be required. If Parliament rejects the proposal, then the proposing group (plus others of like mind) could push through a demand for plebiscite by collecting a further 400,000 endorsements. Additionally, as in other countries, Parliament would be able to put forward an alternative proposal and both must be put to the electorate for decision.
Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated publicly.
I&R ~ GB has made a start by launching a debate: DEBATE DD:GB Proposals for the introduction of Elements of Direct Democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Join in via http://www.iniref.org/latest.html
This sort of democracy, citizen-led, is unpopular with politicians. In oder to get elements of direct democracy introduced we need a focussed campaign. Some campaign tactics for the coming election may be found here http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm
I&R ~ GB
Soupdragon
2009-11-30 11:56:29 EST
I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:7ni7m7F3jp4veU1@mid.uni-berlin.de:
> soupdragon wrote: >> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in >> news:7ng8mlF3kj2j6U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: >> >>> soupdragon wrote: >>>> I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in >>>> news:7na668F3l5p07U1@mid.uni-berlin.de: >>>> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/11/the_peoples_politician_ >>>>> an _expe.html >>>>> >>>>> Tom Giles writes of a "growing debate .... about the role of >>>>> representative democracy (where MPs make their own judgements or >>>>> follow those of their parties) as opposed to direct democracy >>>>> (where policy is dictated by popular opinion via, for example, >>>>> referendums)." >>>>> >>>>> Direct democracy in recent times has been commonly >>>>> "misrepresented"! Modern direct democracy (in political science) >>>>> always includes citizen-led elements such as the law proposal and >>>>> a plebiscite which may be used to veto actions of government or >>>>> parliament. >>>> You've yet to explain how this 'citizen-led direct democracy' will >>>> deal with the issue of a public mandate to prevent it becoming ' a >>>> few-citizens- with-an-agenda-led tyrrany'. >>> We have replied to this your error along the lines of: >> >> You seem to be confusing 'glaring deficiency' on your part, with >> 'error'. >> >>> That you soupdragon wrote: "So before I want to hand over power to a >>> determined minority ..." >>> >>> shows that you have NO IDEA about how modern direct democracy works. >> >> There is nothing 'modern' about this idea - it's over 2000 years old, >> nor does any of what you wrote below address the points I made. It >> is nothing more than empty rhetoric - short on detail, long on wind. >> >>> You appear to refer to rights which could only be legislated upon >>> centrally. >> >> I refer to rights which *must* be in place to protect minority and >> other interests before we hand government over to mob rule and "Daily >> Mail led citizens initiatives". >> >>> With citizen-initiated referendum any person, group or >>> organisation can put forward a proposal. A large, agreed number of >>> citizens must be found >>> to endorse the proposal. >> >> How many? Vague as usual. >> >>> Only then (most bad or extreme proposals >>> fail >>> at this first hurdle) >> >> How do you know this when you haven't set a limit? >> >>> can it go forward to the next stage which in the >>> system recommended by I&R ~ GB means that the proposal must be >>> debated in Parliament. >> >> To what end? If they don't back it, it goes ahead anyway so what's >> the point? >> >>> All of the latter steps are accompanied by free news >>> reporting, public information and debate. Proposals which contravene >>> constitution, international agreements, common sense or humanity can >>> be challenged in the courts. If Parliament rejects the proposal then >>> the proposing group may demand a referendum. In order to do that >>> they must collect a further large number of endorsements. Again the >>> procedure occurs under public and professional scrutiny, aired in >>> the mass media, widely debated. So a decision made by referendum >>> will have been substantially deliberated, turned inside out, >>> considered. Much more so than the average or even above average >>> debate about a parliamentary bill (except perhaps an attempt to >>> regulate MPs' expenses). >> >> Zzzz! 'Large number' but no number mentioned. No mentioned of >> neccessary mandate at the referendume, etc etc. >> >>> So, it is THE ELECTORATE WHO DECIDES on issues which they select, >>> not your bogey-dragon "determined minority"." >> >> You really don't get this, do you? Yesterday, it was announced that >> the far-right sponsored bill to stir up anti-Muslim hatred in >> Switzerland got their way with a 'modern direct democracy' plebicite >> - with a mere 29% of the electorate. All they needed was 100,000 >> signatures - a pitance. And all this despite the fact that polls in >> the run up to the plebicite showed consistently 2 to 1 against the >> proposal. >> >> There is your determined minority in action. That is the reality of >> what you will bring without mechanisms in place to protect the rights >> of the minority and to ensure any policy imposed on the electorate >> does indeed have a mandate from the electorate and not, as appears to >> have been the case in Switzerland, mob rule fuelled by Daily Mail >> style headlines posing as 'public debate'. >> >> [followups set] > > Much repetition by soupdragon.
Largely as a result of 'much failure' by you address any of the pertinent points. I note you studiously bypass the glaring failure of your 'direct democracy' yesterday in Switzerland. This was *not* repetition, it was straight off the press news, yet you try to dismiss it as repetition. I find that somewhat telling.
> About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by > soupdragon.
I ask you about a mandate and you evade it and give us vague numbers for starting the process and no requirement of voting return levels at the plebescite, nothing on minimum turn out to validate it, or minimum levels of victory to ensure an electorate mandate.
> [Finally some figures - minimum of 400,000 to get the process started] > > Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated > publicly.
Something the public will find problematic given your habit of avoiding uncomfortable questions regarding deficiencies in the sytem you propose.
I&R ~ GB
2009-11-30 13:02:33 EST
soupdragon wrote: > >> About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by >> soupdragon. > > I ask you about a mandate and you evade it and give us vague numbers > for starting the process and no requirement of voting return levels > at the plebescite, nothing on minimum turn out to validate it, or > minimum levels of victory to ensure an electorate mandate. > >> [Finally some figures - minimum of 400,000 to get the process started] >> >> Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated >> publicly. >
Well then, what is your assessment of the proposal, "About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by soupdragon.
Among an impressive collection of recommendations for reform of our democracy and governance, the Power Inquiry put forward a proposal for partial direct democracy (Report 2006, Recommendation 24). The proposal had two stages, a citizens' initiative which if successful must be debated in Parliament. To reach this stage it was suggested that 400,000 voter-endorsements (signatures) would be required. If Parliament rejects the proposal, then the proposing group (plus others of like mind) could push through a demand for plebiscite by collecting a further 400,000 endorsements. Additionally, as in other countries, Parliament would be able to put forward an alternative proposal and both must be put to the electorate for decision.
Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated publicly.
I&R ~ GB has made a start by launching a debate: DEBATE DD:GB Proposals for the introduction of Elements of Direct Democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Join in via http://www.iniref.org/latest.html
This sort of democracy, citizen-led, is unpopular with politicians. In oder to get elements of direct democracy introduced we need a focussed campaign. Some campaign tactics for the coming election may be found here http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm" ?
Have you read the cited Power to the People report, at least Recommendation 24? It's interesting. More about hurdles and thresholds is at DEBATE DD:GB Proposals, url above.
I&R ~ GB
Soupdragon
2009-11-30 15:39:46 EST
I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:7nife7F3l69qqU1@mid.uni- berlin.de:
> soupdragon wrote: >> >>> About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by >>> soupdragon. >> >> I ask you about a mandate and you evade it and give us vague numbers >> for starting the process and no requirement of voting return levels >> at the plebescite, nothing on minimum turn out to validate it, or >> minimum levels of victory to ensure an electorate mandate. >> >>> [Finally some figures - minimum of 400,000 to get the process started] >>> >>> Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated >>> publicly. >> > > Well then, what is your assessment of the proposal, "About rules for > democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by soupdragon.
I already assessed it above but, typically, you simply ignored my response and engaged in repetition. You do seem to be very reluctant to address this mandate issue. Could it be you know realise all you'd be doing is replacing a 'democratic deficit' with an 'electoral mandate deficit'?
I&R ~ GB
2009-12-01 13:28:52 EST
soupdragon wrote: > I&R ~ GB <infoTAKE@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:7nife7F3l69qqU1@mid.uni- > berlin.de: > >> soupdragon wrote: >>>> About rules for democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by >>>> soupdragon. >>> I ask you about a mandate and you evade it and give us vague numbers >>> for starting the process and no requirement of voting return levels >>> at the plebescite, nothing on minimum turn out to validate it, or >>> minimum levels of victory to ensure an electorate mandate. >>> >>>> [Finally some figures - minimum of 400,000 to get the process > started] >>>> Of course the exact numbers and procedures need to be debated >>>> publicly. >> Well then, what is your assessment of the proposal, "About rules for >> democratic procedures and "numbers" requested by soupdragon. > > I already assessed it above but, typically, you simply ignored my > response and engaged in repetition. You do seem to be very reluctant > to address this mandate issue. Could it be you know realise all you'd > be doing is replacing a 'democratic deficit' with an 'electoral mandate > deficit'?
This thread was introduced with "Adding elements of direct democracy to indirect (representative) democracy brings creative input from the electorate into the political process, as well as stronger "checks" on government. This is not dictatorship so it is incorrect to imply that. Also, the procedures of direct democracy allow, indeed demand, much public debate and deliberation of issues. So these procedures differ greatly from opinion surveys, which invite an instant and often ill-considered response."
In partial direct democracy PDD as we propose it the People are in charge of public affairs. Most work of running the country is done as before but with PDD the electorate with plebiscite can mandate the government to act in a certain way or mandate parliament to pass a law. How all this works in practice can be discovered by browsing a few web sites such as: http://campaignfordemocracy.org.uk/directdemocracyexamples/ http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rodmell/ http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm election campaign call http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html web site index http://www.iniref.org/learn.html FREE materials