Is it time for Direct Democracy to make a comeback?

[Reccesoldier]

I think that proportional representation would be the end of functional democracy in Canada as every single-issue party in Canada would clog the House of Commons with their respective agenda.  Just look at the Green Party: one agenda.  Not very effective.

Someone's sold you a bill of goods about PR and you've bought it lock, stock and barrel Capt'n.  There are many functional PR governments in the world like Germany, Ireland, Israel, Malta, New Zealand, Finland, Brasil none of these countries has collapsed because of PR...

OMG! Maybe they are all smarter than we are, or better informed, or more caring or less self absorbed!!!!

There are many many varriations of PR as well, each is tailorable to the country that uses it.  But I guess because by an accident of history this country was collonized primarily by the British that we should be forever enslaved to their peculliar form of governance.

 

[vonGarvin]

Relax.  People aren't stupid.  As a mass, though, people are dumb, swayed this day by this, that day by that.  Elections wouldn't be about the issues, it would be about the shiniest new product, the latest scare tactic, whatever (which would make them not much different than the elections we already have)

Those "308" were elected.  Yes, idiots make it through, but the sum of their potential as a whole far outweighs each person's potential.   Call it "synergy"...call it "checks and balances".  Call it "fred".  It doesn't matter.

The point is that our current system is NOT broken, so why go fix it with a trigger happy populace when those who have too much time on their hands would be the most active?  Heck, most people complain about "going to the polls".  Frig: 30 minutes out of your life.  Big friggin' deal.  If it were a Survivor episode, they wouldn't care less (60 minutes out of their lives).  Face it, we live in an A.D.D. society.  Ever see a kid with A.D.D. try to stay focused on something?  It just doesn't happen.  To have a vote on every little bill, my God.  The can of worms!  Who would propose the bills?  People themselves?  Every tom, dick and harry goes to the internet once their session of World of Warcraft times out and enters the "virtual government", logs in (with secure password, naturally), and types the following "A bill that would make WoW the official online game of Canada."  Of course there are research grants involved, etc and so forth.  So, he proposes a bill, gets his WoW geek friends to vote for it, as do a bunch of hash-brownie eating Potheads from East Van, and next thing you know, he's getting a monthly cheque in the mail!  Awesome!

 

[a_majoor]

This is a variation on the argument for electing judges, and the answer, I'm afraid is the same. The Founding Fathers of the United States feared democracy and threw a lot of sand in the gears (and created a pretty elaborate clockwork at the same time) to ensure that direct democracy would not take root in the United States. Indeed, the original conception of that nation was "These United States", with a small federal government managing foreign policy, defence and a few other overarching matters that affected all the States, while the States were free to manage their internal affairs as they saw fit.

One of the inspirations for the American system was the Venitian Republic, which lasted almost 400 years until conquered by Napoleon. One of the other inspirations against direct democracy was the history of the Res Publica Roma and the Empire, since the masses were quite willing to sacrifice their long term prosperity and security to satisfy the urges of the moment. If the Founding Fathers were aware of Thucydides, they would only have seen their worst fears confirmed by the violent swings of the Athenian Eklassia as Demagogues manipulated the assembly.

Direct representation on the Swiss model might be interesting; popular movements, referendums etc can PROPOSE legislation, but only the assembly can actually pass it into law after due consideration.

 

[vonGarvin]

Someone's sold you a bill of goods about PR and you've bought it lock, stock and barrel Capt'n.  There are many functional PR governments in the world like Germany, Ireland, Israel, Malta, New Zealand, Finland, Brasil none of these countries has collapsed because of PR...
OMG! Maybe they are all smarter than we are, or better informed, or more caring or less self absorbed!!!!
There are many many varriations of PR as well, each is tailorable to the country that uses it.  But I guess because by an accident of history this country was collonized primarily by the British that we should be forever enslaved to their peculliar form of governance.

I'm not as naive as you may think.  I realise that there are systems of PR out there, Germany included.  In fact, in Germany, each citizen gets two ballots on Election day.  One for their local "MP", the other for the "party".  Most just vote both for same party, as it were.  Not all, naturally.  That's how the "highly effective" single party Greens got in to the Bundestag in Bonn for the first time in 82 or 83.  Believe it or not, Canada has a much longer democratic history than most of those nations you mentioned.  And they are all powerhouses (democratically speaking, of course).

"forever enslaved to their peculliar (sic) form of governance.".  I suppose that's why the loyalists fought the "rebels" and when they lost, came north to Canada?  That's why so many served and continue to serve today, because we love being "enslaved"?  Give it a break.

 

[Reccesoldier]

I'm not as naive as you may think.  I realise that there are systems of PR out there, Germany included.  In fact, in Germany, each citizen gets two ballots on Election day.  One for their local "MP", the other for the "party".  Most just vote both for same party, as it were.  Not all, naturally.  That's how the "highly effective" single party Greens got in to the Bundestag in Bonn for the first time in 82 or 83.  Believe it or not, Canada has a much longer democratic history than most of those nations you mentioned.  And they are all powerhouses (democratically speaking, of course).

 

In Germany at least 5% of the population must vote for a party in order for it to have official status, your original point was that our parliament would become effectively clogged with single issue parties, I was pointing out that it is not necessarily so.

England with it's FPTP system has 120+ registered parties, Ireland (the Republic) which uses STV has only 11, 7 of which are represented in the Dail.

"forever enslaved to their peculliar (sic) form of governance.".  I suppose that's why the loyalists fought the "rebels" and when they lost, came north to Canada?  That's why so many served and continue to serve today, because we love being "enslaved"?  Give it a break.

I would be seriously worried about your ability to understand the English language if you actually believed that was what I was refering to.

 

[Journeyman]

Despite the thread having rapidly become a personality contest (I'm so uncomfortable with those debates ;D ), I'll weigh in...

Are the majority of people whom you personally know incapable of making an informed decision? Yes or No?

It's a trick question, your answer isn't really important, but it does illustrate that not a single person on this forum can assume to know how smart, stupid, caring, callous, self absorbed, altruistic, charitable, stingy, savvy or dull "the average Canadian" is.

You're right, it is a trick question, but not for the reason stated. It's actually a misleading question. Capability does not equal performance.

While I believe people are certainly capable of informed decision-making, there are too many factors which interfere with it happening: other priorities precluding becoming informed, slick advertising, "societal ADD" , laziness, peer pressure,  "Survivor conflict," self-motivated greed; I'm sure the list is endless.

For some, with a daily interest in political activities, it may be a good thing. I suspect, however, that people fitting into that category are predominantly: a) those with a particular agenda/belief system which is likely contray to the majority view, or b) 3rd-year Political Science students whose enthusiasm to right the world's wrongs is outweighed only by their complete unfamiliarity with costs and responsibilities tied to their "solutions."

Now, while the current system has flaws -- can't argue that -- I still believe the system as it's running in Canada to be better for Canada* than other options floated, including direct democracy.

Wow, you guys are depressing.

Actually, that's a pretty common reaction to differing opinions around here. I'm personally suspicious when people here agree with me; I feel a need to cover my wallet.  ;D


* Other nations may find a "benevolent dictatorship" more appropriate to their present degree of social development. Not my call.

 

[time expired]

I will give you an example of the kind of democracy I believe you are advocating.Switzerland in
the late 1970s,vote on an autobahn tax,everyone to buy a 40 Swiss franc vignette to be displayed
on car windshield.Turnout for the vote 25%,high for normal vote,result a resounding YES.On Jan.1,
the date this was supposed to take effect the autobahn clogged by police stopping and ticketing
Swiss without vignette.The Swiss,uninterested and uninformed 75%,believed this law only applied
to foreigners and the anger was great.However the law had been passed and is still in effect and
of course costs a lot more than 40 francs.
 By the way Recce soldier please hit the spell check once in a while as I believe colonizing has
something to do with the anus.
                                     Regards

 

[observor 69]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill.
British politician (1874 - 1965)

 

[vonGarvin]

I would be seriously worried about your ability to understand the English language if you actually believed that was what I was refering to.

Well, I understand english rather well.  I can spell, I can read, heck, I can even write it. 

Now, you give the example of the UK with its 120+ parties.  That's fine and dandy.  Suppose Canada had that many (I have no idea how many exist in Canada, and I don't care to look it up. I have heard of the marajuana party, however, for what it's worth). 
I do have a question: why 5% be the magic number to be represented?  Homosexuals make up less than half that % in Canada, yet they have a very strong voice in Parliament.  Why not make it 1%?  1/3%?  I mean, assume 300 members of parliament in the house, each member represents 0.5% of the popular vote. 

And what do we base that % on?  Total turn out?  Total eligible voters?

Your "solution" to our "failed democratic state" raises more issues than it attempts to solve....

 

[Infanteer]

For all of you who believe (it seems) that Joe and Jill Canuck couldn't be trusted to choose their own breakfast cereal in the morning let me ask you one thing... A simple Yes or no answer will suffice.

Are the majority of people whom you personally know incapable of making an informed decision?

Yes or No?

It's a trick question, your answer isn't really important, but it does illustrate that not a single person on this forum can assume to know how smart, stupid, caring, callous, self absorbed, altruistic, charitable, stingy, savvy or dull "the average Canadian" is.

Yes.

Of course I'm being facetious (a bit), but informed decision making usually gets checked in at the car door.  To trust the populace to make informed decisions daily on complicated issues of public policy ranging from tax policy to Canada in Afghanistan would be throwing too much on the plate.  It would earn you apathy at best and demagoguery at worst - been that way since the demos gathered in the agora and listened to the smoothest tongue.  Stability is maintained through checks and balances - representatives (supposedly) doing all the legwork in a legislative process with many filters being the main one.

As for PR - no thanks.  It may be workable, but in my opinion it only serves to reinforce the party system and consolidate power further in the hands of the Party bosses (who get to draw up the lists).  In my opinion, our system needs to go the other way.

 

[time expired]

The 5% clause was placed in the German constitution,drawn up by the way by the Americans,to
avoid the chaos of the Weimar Republic.This was Germany´s first attempt at democracy,there were so many parties that to govern the major parties had to form coalitions with groups with widely
differing platforms.This resulted in very fragile governments that did not last very long and the
country became ungovernable,the people became disillusioned with democracy and we all know
the result.
                        Regards

 

[FascistLibertarian]

Canada is a much stabler country though.
Countries like Germany in the 1920's and 30's or Isreal now maybe should not have PR, but Canada it might work in some way.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Direct Democracy ... good in small settings with informed voters... in larger settings .... Lets vote to change Mr. Day's first name to Doris.  Or even better lets vote over and over and over again on a single issue.  Why 40% of the population really hate something...

Although I would support turning the Senate into a reflection of the % of the popular vote.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just a reminder that any democracy is only as effective as:
1)  The education system allows it to be, as history is the greatest teacher; 
2)  The media allows it to be, as disemination of objective and comprehensive information is required for individuals to process beofre coming to a decision;
3)  The citizenry allows it to be by doing their homework, as an willfully ignorant citizen in a democratic system is by nature a liability to everyone around them.


Matthew. 

 

[Benny]

Although I would support turning the Senate into a reflection of the % of the popular vote.

This is what we have in Australia, and it works quite well. Though no party ever gets a majority in the senate without having roughly 70-75% of the seats in the house of representatives, the governing party still get 90% of their legislation through. The ones that get stuck tend to be the contentious issues, where a minor party (usually the greens) will stop it. So you have an effective government in one house via the 'two party' system, and minority views don't get swamped as they still get their say in the senate.

 

[RangerRay]

How Parliament should be composed (in my fantasy land):

House of Commons where seats are distributed by strictly by population, without caveats for Quebec and PEI.  Perhaps use a Single Transferrable Vote where the second choices of the last place candidate are redistributed until one candidate receives 50% +1; or stick with FPTP.

Countered by a Senate where each province, regardless of size, has the same number of senators.  Perhaps use PR for the Senate, where half the Senate is elected in 4 year intervals.

I'm not too sure about the electoral systems, but I do not want to see PR or mixed PR for the House of Commons.  PR systems tend to reduce local representation by making ridings larger and fewer.  As what was alluded to earlier, they empower parties where they create lists of candidates that voters may not neccessarily want.

I'm mixed on direct democracy as a whole.  It can get an honest debate going about some issues, but it can also lead to people voting themselves goodies, special interest groups forming government policy, and voting for mundane issues like whether a new school should be built or if the dog catcher should get a raise.  We should tread very carefully here.

 

[Infanteer]

You're forgetting the third part of Parliament.  Give the GG some real authority to use from time to time.

 

[RangerRay]

You're forgetting the third part of Parliament.  Give the GG some real authority to use from time to time.

I'm puzzled about how to reform that office.  There has to be a better method of selecting one, but electing the GG and making the office political (more than it unfortunately is now) is unacceptable to me.  The GG should truely be above politics and be a humble servant of HM, but the GG should also not be afraid to use the powers and authorities already vested in that office.

 

[warrickdll]

Our current system could be replaced by 308 names being pulled from a hat - it would work because Canadians would make it work.

Good Government and Democracy can be the same thing. More democracy doesn't have to mean worse government.

The system we use should be as democratic as we can make. Instant Runoffs, PR (there are more ways to do PR besides party lists), and a gradual introduction of some Direct Democracy should not be so feared.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

Ranger I dunno about PEI having as many sens as Ontario....
The problem of course is that none of the provinces which have to many sens for their pop will agree to change the system unelss they get soemthing.
If the GG was elected they would have the ability to use their power (just a thought).
Also I find it intresting, Aus has a much better system than us (demo wise) BUT people are just as fed up with the system there as they are here.