Direct Democracy

[Huron]

I would be interested in seeing the data that supports statements like:

99% of people will vote with their gut feeling

I'd also like to see the data that opponents of DD use to claim:

how easy it is for a group with a few million dollars and some marketing savvy to manipulate people's subconscious responses.

In terms of the latter, I would imagine that if entirely true, we'd all be drinking new Coke.

I think it should be understood that DD would not necessarily be 'dropped into' the status quo, i.e., simply exchange the reprsentative system for a DD system, with all other parts of society remaining the same.

For example, there could be potential risks in implementing DD in a society where the media is dominated by a group with the same basic perspective and/or agenda. It might be desirable that this risk be minimized to the greatest extent possible by limiting the media holdings that a single entity could control.

A DD democracy is intended to work towards the interests of all citizens. Those areas within our current society that don't align to this goal would require change.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Ah, Huron...it's good to see you are back.

I wouldn't say that 99% of people vote with their gut feeling. I would say that many, at least more than a few, do. I figure that about 1/4 of people vote for a candidate, 1/4 vote for a party, 1/4 vote based on issues and platforms, and 1/4 vote on a gut feeling. I have no stats to back that up, it's just the impression I get from talking to people.

The scary thing about that is that it leaves only about 25%-50% of voters researching issues and platforms and voting on them.

I also wouldn't say that advertising/media coverage affects people on a subconscious level. It does affect their perceptions though. Hardly anybody questions the corporatist stance of most politicians, for instance.

We've been told that everything must keep expanding indefinitely for so long that we believe it. That it isn't possible for everything to expand indefinitely never comes into play...the simple truth is never pointed out in any meaningful way. If someone does point it out, they are quickly dismissed as a crackpot.

Is there a mechanism in DD to address that? Nope. Not in PR nor in the current system either. Any change that we make should come with a way of addressing that sort of thing though. [/quote]

 

[Huron]

Well, I feel it's only fair to give people a break from my inane ramblings once in awhile.

I've been as guilty as anyone of making 'most people' statements.

We need to understand that the 'most people' we speak of are as much or more products of their environment as they are representative of what humanity is or could be.

I'd be somewhat more sympathetic to any notion that most Canadians are by choice apathetic, complacent, etc. in respect of their government and nation If we lived in a society that throughout our lives had provided the tools we required to be otherwise and vigorously supported the belief in citizens that their contribution to the 'health' of their community, province, nation was required. However, this isn't the case.

For the vast amount of money spent on our education systems, what percentage of Canadians would you guess have received any but the most cursory exposure to logic, philosophy or thinking skills in general? In my high school years in the 70's, we were encourage to 'think' for ourselves and 'express' our views however we were never taught how to think. In my brief interludes with university, I noted that philosophy courses concerned with logic weren't the most heavily attended.

If 'most people' haven't been trained to apply logic or 'think', why would anyone expect anything different from them than the previously mentioned 'gut feeling' decision? Realistically speaking, isn't that 'gut feeling' type of decision precisely what's desired from us in our consumer economy?

I've noted that Ontario high schools have instituted a requirement concerning 'community service' hours students need to fulfill the requirements for their diploma. I like this is idea however, I wonder how much of the 'community service' ends of being in the nature of becoming involved in local government.

Exactly what in most people's educational process gives them the impression that they could realistically play a role in guiding their province or nation, beyond stuffing a paper in a box every few years? Sure, we get to vote however growing up as many of us have hearing complaints about our governments and statements as to 'they're all being the same' from parents, media, etc.,, is it really surprising that many more or less disenfranchise themselves?

But not everyone. The high schools I attended drew on some of the more affluent Toronto neighbourhoods, so I had many friends whose lawyer, doctor, politician, etc. parents had a somewhat different attitude towards government and had 'groomed' their kids accordingly, similar to what one could expect to see at UCC.

Let's be honest here. In terms of the Liberal and Conservative parties, even if the average joe chose to become involved, what are their chances of ever having any influence in the party, given that they probably won't have the right connections or travel in the right circles?

Our society encourages folks to be exactly what they are today. And for all the phony get out and vote stuff you hear from politicians immediately prior to elections, how much effort do you ever see going into a long-term strategy, starting from the early school years, to get people involved in government decision making processes, or even voting?

I think for the most part the powers that be are satisfied with the status quo and will not do anything constructive to change it, regardless of what may come out of the other side of their mouths from time to time.

I don't believe that after twenty or thirty years living in a properly functioning DD Canada the attitudes of the 'most people' would be similar to what could be the case in Canadian society today.

Why wouldn't they be?

Because some of the mechanisms you mention that are missing today would (need to) be implemented in a DD society. These could include more emphasis on thinking and logic skills throughout the formal educational process, starting from the early years, a number of other skills that are missing for the most part from the 'create a worker' educational system we do for the most part enjoy today and have enjoyed for many years and a greater emphasis placed on the responsibilities of the individual to their society.

I just want to make clear that a DD society is one where the 'government' is in fact the citizen. So, in discussing educational processes to reinforce values that essentially come down to a duty to participate in society and government, we're not speaking of conditioning people towards some duty to the 'state. We are in essence educating them to acknowledge a duty and responsibility to themselves, and providing the tools they need to do so in an informed manner.

Obviously, we would need mechanisms to prevent the type of farce that the BC government passed off as an 'experiment in DD' in the 2002 First Nations referendum.

In terms of the rather fantastical cult of consumerism we term an economy, you're right in stating that the notion of an economy based on ever expanding markets and ever available resources conducted within a finite space does seem to have certain inherent problems. As I've indicated on the DDC site and Vive, my view is that we need to move towards an economy that gives us some guarantee of sustainability and self-sufficiency. In a DD society the decision making power belongs to the people, as opposed to our current society where the decision making power lies with 'representatives', who may in turn be beholding to interests whose agenda does not align to the average citizen's interests or who may be a part of those interests themselves, so I would be more optimistic of seeing change in this regard in a DD society than I am within the status quo.

Once again we have to realize that most people have been conditioned throughout their lives to believe that 'all is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds', that our 'leaders' (or, rulers if one wishes to be more blunt) have our best interests in mind and that anyone who questions otherwise is a 'leftist', 'communist' 'crackpot', whatever, so the 'corporate' stance you mention may not be seen as out of the norm by many. On the other hand, one can see on this and other forums that not all who question what's happening in this nation fit thes above-mentioned neat little categories (well, except for crackpot, maybe), and it is reasonable to believe that many Canadians share these questions and thought, but don't express them on the web or just don't the express them at all for fear of being labeled a 'statist dupe', etc. I believe that given the opportunity, you'd see many 'come out of the closet', as it were, and start to flex their collective muscle as concerns the nature of our society today and the value of the 'corporation' as it stands today.

I've discussed some of these issues re: new mechanisms and changes to the status quo that may be required to preserve and enhance the DD society on the DDC site, so won't go further into the matter here.

I also want to make clear that the BC referendum referred to above is not to my mind an exercise in DD. As Marcarc has indicated elsewhere, representative governments will use referendums in a cynical and unintended manner when they do not want to assume responsibility for a decision. These governments will, as was done in BC, use the referendum process to obtain the answers they want through carefully worded questions designed to deliver the same, than use the results to proclaim their following of the people's mandate.

In a DD Canada, citizens will be asked to make decisions that affect their society. Each question posed to them will identify the source, e.g., David Suzuki, Conrad Black, the Winnipeg Friday Night Lager Society, etc., provide the background and research information, sources, etc., provide the options and provide the pros/cons for each. Citizens must have access to tools that allow them to engage their 'representative' and the public servants who prepare the material and question the information they've received. There's probably much else that can be done in this regard however, this gives an example of the difference between the 'referendum' process employed in BC and a DD process.

I guess the important thing to understand is that it isn't up to the citizen to try tracking down information and background for every question posed to them. It's the job of an ethical public service which they pay to do this for them, as is done today for our politicians.

I want to clarify that the DDC site is not about trying to get people on the DD train. It's about providing information for anyone who is interested and trying to work out the answers to the many good questions raised on this thread.

As I've indicated before, I'm as aware as anyone that tossing out our politicians tonight and waking up in a DD society tomorrow would be a road to ruin. The nuts and bolts of how to implement DD in a manner that does not destine it for failure; creates the support mechanisms necessary to maintain the integrity of the system and enhance it as time goes on; provides safety measure to prevent 'tyranny of the majority' etc., need a significant amount of discussion, input and planning. There are a number of realities, such as attempted pre-emption or manipulation of the process by rightists, leftists, corporations or what have you, that must be considered and addressed. And it must also be realized that implementation of DD may require accompanying changes that extend past government into areas of the economy, etc. and upset some of the applecarts that many accept as the norm today.

One of the inherent problems with DD is that we are accustomed to having leaders provide us with 'vision', 'direction' etc. In DD the citizen is the leader. Whether we acknowledge it or not, most who choose to enter the political spectrum and 'represent' or 'lead' us do so because they have a personal agenda to push; a view of how the community, province, nation, world and the people in it should be. Most are not so interested in representing others as they are in representing their own visions and views for the nation.

Those who forward DD or act as 'representatives' in a DD system are not leaders in this sense, as the only purpose they serve is to 'flow through' citizen decisions. Rather than exerting power, they empower others. In DD, the citizen decides, as opposed to selecting a leader who decides for them.

In this respect, it isn't my intent to tell others what they should think or do or try to get anyone on board to follow me on the train to my personal DD vision. This is why the DDC site was designed to be interactive and elicit participation from everyone. DD is about everyone's views and vision for the future, not just the views and vision of one person or a small group of people.

 

[Reverend Blair]

We need to understand that the 'most people' we speak of are as much or more products of their environment as they are representative of what humanity is or could be.

While we're at it with the "most people" thing there is one reality that has to be faced. Most people don't like change. As long as they are reasonably comfortable, and because we live in a rich society we are, change represents chancing losing that comfort. That makes instituting meaningful change of any sort an uphill battle.

For the vast amount of money spent on our education systems, what percentage of Canadians would you guess have received any but the most cursory exposure to logic, philosophy or thinking skills in general? In my high school years in the 70's, we were encourage to 'think' for ourselves and 'express' our views however we were never taught how to think. In my brief interludes with university, I noted that philosophy courses concerned with logic weren't the most heavily attended.

In my high school years (70's and 80's) we were more or less encouraged to smoke dope in the parking lot. Thinking and expression were not encouraged, so we did our best not to. Odd how that particular change came just as the political pendulum began putting people like Reagan, Thatcher, and Mulroney in power. It seems to heading that way again too.

Exactly what in most people's educational process gives them the impression that they could realistically play a role in guiding their province or nation, beyond stuffing a paper in a box every few years? Sure, we get to vote however growing up as many of us have hearing complaints about our governments and statements as to 'they're all being the same' from parents, media, etc.,, is it really surprising that many more or less disenfranchise themselves?

Isn't that really at the base of the entire problem? I had a grandmother who was always politically involved. So were her sisters. That was passed down through the generations. It was normal to have political discussions around the supper table as a result. We always watched, and discussed, the news. We met politicians and was very apparent that they weren't all the same.

My friends who never had that kind of influence only vote if they are mad at the government. They complain about politicians, but don't understand policies or issues. Other friends that did have that kind of influence are, if not politically involved, at least aware.

Can politics be taught in school though? We already have people from the radical right saying that their kids are being "indoctrinated" and other such garbage. That's without politics being taught. So what happens when a teacher stands up in front of the class and says, "These people believe this and those people believe that." There is going to be a perceived bias whether it exists or not.

You can't just teach the process because without the context of political positions, and those will exist even in a DD system, the proces doesn't make sense. It becomes, "Go vote." Even if you just teach logic and critical thought there will an outcry because when critical thought is applied, those in control of the power structure are questioned. Parents are very much part of the power structure and the last they want is for their kids to be making cogent arguments.

One of the inherent problems with DD is that we are accustomed to having leaders provide us with 'vision', 'direction' etc. In DD the citizen is the leader. Whether we acknowledge it or not, most who choose to enter the political spectrum and 'represent' or 'lead' us do so because they have a personal agenda to push; a view of how the community, province, nation, world and the people in it should be. Most are not so interested in representing others as they are in representing their own visions and views for the nation.

There is that other kind of leadership...the kind we don't often see. It comes not because of one person's vision, but because they are able to express a shared vision. It does pop up once in a while. I think Tommy Douglas was an example of it in Canada. Likely Martin Luther King in the US. Ghandi is likely the most powerful example of it. If we could find a way to manufacture one or two of that kind of leader each generation, we'd be doing exceeding well.

 

[Huron]

Before responding to the points you've raised, I want to clarify the following.

Some of my comments are from a national perspective. These comments would be less relevant, or irrelevant, at other levels, i.e., municipal, provincial.

The opinions I express are solely my views of what Canadian DD could be. Others may have different views. That is of course what it's all about. Nothing I say is intended, or should be interpreted as, a cast in stone commandment of how DD in Canada must be.

To address your comments:

While we're at it with the "most people" thing there is one reality that has to be faced. Most people don't like change. As long as they are reasonably comfortable, and because we live in a rich society we are, change represents chancing losing that comfort. That makes instituting meaningful change of any sort an uphill battle.

As we've all experienced, the old 'creatures of habit' saw does carry a lot of weight. When we vary from a habit, it can cause varying levels of emotional discomfort (the feeling that 'something isn't right'). So, yes, changing from what has become habitual can be an uncomfortable experience many prefer to avoid.

However, this isn't always the case. Often change can bring a sense of freedom and satisfaction.

I don't totally disagree with your point re: change however, will mention that most times I've heard the 'people don't like change' remark it has been as a preface to discussion of change that the audience can be anticipated to dislike. I'll also point out that there's a big difference between change that is chosen, e.g., I win the lottery and buy my dream home beside the lake, and change that is not, e.g., everyone has to take a pay-cut.

The key is to demonstrate how change will be beneficial. One point to push is that change is inevitable. As we've discussed, the only people who could, with any review of the facts involved, view our current economy and lifestyle as sustainable (at least as concerns most citizens) over an extended period of time are those who, for whatever reason, force themselves to believe this, those who lack the tools to be able to understand otherwise and those who just don't care. Change will come one way or the other. Our choices are whether we control that change or ignore the facts and in doing have the change forced upon us.

Can politics be taught in school though? We already have people from the radical right saying that their kids are being "indoctrinated" and other such garbage. That's without politics being taught. So what happens when a teacher stands up in front of the class and says, "These people believe this and those people believe that." There is going to be a perceived bias whether it exists or not.

I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about giving people the tools they need to be able to reason and think in a manner which allows them to make informed decisions and avoid the type of manipulation others in the thread have indicated as an area of concern. At the same time, the notion of having a duty towards one's society would also be emphasized. I don't mean in the sense of the individual being just one of many insignificant others whose sole purpose is to labour for the benefit of the totalitarian, aristocratic/imperial, etc., 'state' but, rather mean a recognition of one's duty to aid in maintaining the health of their society, for themselves and future generations.

One thing that has been forgotten by many is that the individual freedoms and life they enjoy are largely a by-product of their society. If the society goes, so do the cherished notions of individuality and rights we have come to enjoy, as well as many of our lives. Most of us can't 'go it alone'.

You can't just teach the process because without the context of political positions, and those will exist even in a DD system, the proces doesn't make sense. It becomes, "Go vote." Even if you just teach logic and critical thought there will an outcry because when critical thought is applied, those in control of the power structure are questioned. Parents are very much part of the power structure and the last they want is for their kids to be making cogent arguments.

I disagree. If I am correctly understand your meaning in 'the context of political positions', you are referring to the values or set of values espoused by a particular group within the political perspective.

Party politics is simply a recognition that individuals holding similar views could accomplish more as a united group within the representational democratic process than they could as individuals.

Parties simply represent a particular slice of the views and values which, supposedly, comprise the political spectrum. The constituent simply selects the party that best represents their own views and values in respect of the nation and its governance at that particular point in time.

One of the many downfalls in the party system is that it forces citizens to align themselves with a group that may not represent all of their views and values. I would guess that few Canadians are totally left wing or right wing in their views, and that their position will vary depending on the issue being discussed.

In the current system, citizens are required to choose between parties espousing differing overall philosophies and goals, and hope for the best in terms of their priorities being addressed and that the decisions arrived at accord in some way with their own views. I've written on the DDC site a bit about how this can create a system in which the priorities and views of most Canadians end up being unrepresented, so won't get deeper into the topic here.

DD addresses the above by creating an environment in which the decisions made do not result from the particular views of a governing party but, rather result from the individual citizen's view in respect of that particular issue. So, if I'm 'left' in respect of one issue and 'right' in respect of another, my views will be represented for both, as opposed to one being ignored based on the political position of a governing party.

In my mind, DD eliminates the whole political spectrum issue, in that what is being expressed are values. The question of these being identified as 'right' or 'left' is moot. There is no need to discuss a political spectrum or context because in DD these are no longer relevant. DD is issue based.

In terms of this, I should note that many 'left' wingers and 'right' wingers will, regardless of starting from different points, often arrive in the same place if they are able to reason properly and have an adequate fund of knowledge. For example, as a 'left' winger, I may believe that all citizens are entitled to a decent standard of living because humans have a right to the same. As a right winger, I may see it beneficial that all citizens have a decent standard of living because this better enables them to be productive and contrinute to society, not to mention that if they do not, history has demonstrated that regardless of how many police I employ and repressive measure I take, the day will come that they will take what I have.

What needs to be taught in school are values and choices, and the ability to analyse the consequences of adopting and making the same.

In terms of your comments re: parents attitudes to the above, on the DDC site I indicated that to my mind certain things are part of the package. Either a majority of people buy into the package or they don't. If they do, some apple carts will, as previously indicated, be overturned. One of these could well be the view of some parents of children being property, and that they have a God-given right to fill that property with whatever of their own garbage they choose. At the least, kids will be given the tools to analyse opinions, perspectives etc. and determine the validity of the same, whether these come from parents, media or other sources.

I'll also note that as the Jesuits aptly demonstrated through the centuries, the ability to reason is not necessarily in conflict with faith.

However, the fact remains that any notion of a citizen (current and future) oriented DD society will conflict with some of the 'values' and 'beliefs' accepted as the norm in current society. There is no way around this because what is accepted as the norm today does not in many respects reflect the short or long term interests of most citizens or society as a whole.

Re: leadership, a DD environment is likely to foster the 'other kind of leadership' you mention.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I don't totally disagree with your point re: change however, will mention that most times I've heard the 'people don't like change' remark it has been as a preface to discussion of change that the audience can be anticipated to dislike.

That is the way this will be presented by those who are against change, or at least this particular kind of change. It's not that I disagree with you, I'm a proponent of political change that does require haircuts or learning how to tie a tie, it's that I see an obstacle that will need to be overcome.

There are some very powerful people and institutions that stand to lose a great deal if democratic change is brought in. I doubt they will sit quietly by their power and wealth is compromised. That leaves us looking for ways to deal with them.

In addition to that, a lot of people have been told they are powerless for so long they believe it. The "can't fight city hall lobby" is very difficult to counteract because they teach apathy through example then, when something fails because so many like them did not participate, stand there and say, "Told ya so."

It goes back to teaching logic and critical thought, really. I'm not sure how you break the circle though.

I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about giving people the tools they need to be able to reason and think in a manner which allows them to make informed decisions and avoid the type of manipulation others in the thread have indicated as an area of concern. At the same time, the notion of having a duty towards one's society would also be emphasized.

That is politics though, in one way or another. To be more specific, teaching that sort of thing will almost certainly lead to political discussion and even the most general political discussion will lead to conflict when certain beliefs or theories are questioned.

I disagree. If I am correctly understand your meaning in 'the context of political positions', you are referring to the values or set of values espoused by a particular group within the political perspective.

I don't really mean any particular set of values or organized group.

I'm more concerned with vague blocks forming on any given issue that are split relatively evenly and then back-room deals taking place with factions that would otherwise stay relatively uninvolved or fragmented enough that they couldn't sway the outcome.

Let's say Group A is for issue X and Group C is dead set against it. Group B doesn't have a unified opinion and doesn't really care. Group D (the rest of the political spectrum) is split. We need a mechanism to keep Group A from going to Group B and saying, "Look, if you vote with us on this, we'll vote with you on issue Y." That kind of horse-trading tends to distort any sort of political system.

I'll also note that as the Jesuits aptly demonstrated through the centuries, the ability to reason is not necessarily in conflict with faith.

You should drink beer with a priest with sometime. It isn't just the Jesuits. The education those guys get is really quite amazing.

 

[Huron]

That is the way this will be presented by those who are against change, or at least this particular kind of change. It's not that I disagree with you, I'm a proponent of political change that does require haircuts or learning how to tie a tie, it's that I see an obstacle that will need to be overcome.

I'm missing something here.

Those who are outright opposed to direct democracy won't be discussing people's reaction to change. They'll be discussing the reasons DD can't work.

Anyone who is proposing any sort of change must be cognizant of the point you mentioned earlier re: instinctive human reaction to proposed change and be prepared to address that reaction. But, I missed your point here.

There are some very powerful people and institutions that stand to lose a great deal if democratic change is brought in. I doubt they will sit quietly by their power and wealth is compromised. That leaves us looking for ways to deal with them.

Yes, you're absolutely correct, and again we need to be cognizant of this fact.

However, the truth is that much of the power you refer to is illusory and will last only so long as people accept it as being true. The people you refer to have the power we have surrendered to them, nothing more.

That being said, there is nothing stopping a person with the resources to do so from hiring someone to put a bullet in your, mine or anyone else's head (not that I'm suggesting either of us is likely to be worth the trouble of doing so). However, as history again has demonstrated, you can kill people but, you can't kill ideas. Even if you kill the person with the idea and all those around them, the idea will eventually grow again somewhere else.

That is politics though, in one way or another. To be more specific, teaching that sort of thing will almost certainly lead to political discussion and even the most general political discussion will lead to conflict when certain beliefs or theories are questioned.

Teaching people to think and question is not the same as saying this 'value' is superior to that 'value'. Yes, conflict will arise however, this is an expected norm within the decision making process, whether this be internal to an individual or external within a group.

I don't really mean any particular set of values or organized group.

I'm more concerned with vague blocks forming on any given issue that are split relatively evenly and then back-room deals taking place with factions that would otherwise stay relatively uninvolved or fragmented enough that they couldn't sway the outcome.

Let's say Group A is for issue X and Group C is dead set against it. Group B doesn't have a unified opinion and doesn't really care. Group D (the rest of the political spectrum) is split. We need a mechanism to keep Group A from going to Group B and saying, "Look, if you vote with us on this, we'll vote with you on issue Y." That kind of horse-trading tends to distort any sort of political system.

This pretty much describes the representational system.

To some extent this is what people do and have always done, the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' idea.

However, it's less likely to happen in a DD system then the current because it's harder to organize and produce verifiable results. There's no way I can know if you actually scratched my back.

In the representational model, you know whether the other side folliwed through on their agreement, e.g., I can see your habd going up in the commons, legislature, etc. So, if you burn me once, you're not likely to burn me again.

In a DD model, neither side is ever likely to know for sure whether the other came through, in that if I tell you I'll pull five thousand votes your way if you do the same for me and at the end of the day I lose with 40,000 votes, I'll never know whether you delivered or not. Also, its a lot harder to get a block composed of many people than it is of a few dozen. So, it's reasonable to predict that the type of deal you mention would be harder to come by in a DD environment than in the current environment.

You should drink beer with a priest with sometime. It isn't just the Jesuits. The education those guys get is really quite amazing.

While being of an Anglican nature, I attended a Catholic high school for three years, Nuff said?

Just in case anyone else is reading this thread and for their comfort level purposes, I'm not a recently graduated poli-sci major with a minor in marxist economics who has some pie in the sky scheme to save the world. I am essentially apolitical and do not adhere to or identify with any particular point in the political spectrum. By nature, I tend towards a more elitist than democratic approach. However, nature or not, history has shown me that the elitist approach doesn't, and can't, work over the long term. So, I have to place my faith in people and democracy.

The fact is, as can easily be seen by perusing any web forum or walking about one's town in any given day, any of us, regardless of our God-given intellectual abilities or parent given university education, can be stupid at any given time and all of us hold opinions that others find dubious.

But my experiences, and trust me, I've had many, have shown me that given the opportunity, most people try to do the right thing. That's all you can ask.

I find the bottom line issue that most have with DD is a lack of faith in others. I can well understand this however, you need to ask where exactly that comes from. So, next time you're watching TV, whether it be a crime drama, reality show,news, whatever, just listen carefully and see how many references there are to people being capable and worthy of trust, as opposed to outright demonstrations or inferences that they aren't and need some structure to guide them. Where did we get the idea that we're 'okay' and capable, and perhaps some of our friends are but, others if given the chance would be total screw-ups or unworthy of trust?

Why do we have the idea that the only people, other than ourselves of course, that are capable and trustworthy to make decisions about our nation are whatever hacks a given party chooses to run in an election?

Why do we have so much trouble having faith in others who live the same lives we do and share the same hopes?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Those who are outright opposed to direct democracy won't be discussing people's reaction to change. They'll be discussing the reasons DD can't work.

Look at the way they've gone after global warming theory though...we are really talking about the same people. They've funded organizations that pretend to be grass roots, but aren't (astro-turfs), fraudulently presented papers and theories as if they were peer reviewed when they hadn't even been published, gotten people who have dismissed as cranks by the entire scientific community onto government policy panels and into the press as "experts". They have barely said a word about it themselves, instead using shills to get their message out and trying to hide any connections that lead back to them.

I have no doubt that they would oppose any real political change with the same underhanded vehemence.

This pretty much describes the representational system.

To some extent this is what people do and have always done, the 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' idea.

Even under a system of DD there will be disproportionately powerful people though...the leaders of lobby groups, business groups, unions, special interests. These people can deliver a lot of votes by throwing their support behind something.

While being of an Anglican nature, I attended a Catholic high school for three years, Nuff said?

Just three years? I had 13 years of Catholic education. Three years should be enough though...likely more than enough. :wink:

 

[Huron]

The points you're making are quite relevant and need to be carefully considered within the DD framework.

However, I continue to believe that exerting the type of influence you mention remains easier when there are fewer people, e.g., a few representatives, that you need to bring around to your point of view than when the decision making power is spread across a broader base.

There's a great deal of value in 'what about this, what about that' questions because once an issue or concern has been identified, solutions can be found to address the same and/or minimize risk, assuming one has the power to do so. Building an effective DD should involve all citizens and give every one the chance to hasve their say and make their opinion known. The DDC site has been set up with this in mind.

I'll point out that in our current system those discussing the numerous issues of concern in the CC forums and various other Canadian forums across the web have absolutely no power or tools that would enable them to initiate any change in respect of these issues. People can rant in forums, write letters to newspapers and MPs, protest, etc. however at the end of the day the power to initiate change remains in other hands and it is those hands that will decide whether to acknowledge or ignore the issues and concerns being raised.

This is not the case in DD.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Yeah, and I'm not arguing against DD...I just see these things as obstacles that need to be addressed in any sort of parliamentary reform. I see doing away with the fallacy of corporations having legal personhood as one of the important steps towards that, but I think we also need stiff penalties for any sort of lobby group found to be making back-room deals...including being forcefully disbanded.

 

[Huron]

The corporate reference is interesting.

This isn't the place to get into the pros/cons of the corporation as a 'person' however, it can be used to illustrate a point.

Lets say that tomorrow 85% of Canadians believe that the corporation as a 'person' doesn't align with the long-term best interests of their society. So, what happens?

Well, today nothing because they have no power beyond bitching and moaning. A political party needs to take up their cause.

Is a so-called right wing or centrist party going to do this? Well probably not, just can't see old Steve or Paul being too interested in pursuing the matter. The best Canadians could hope for is a vague generalisation in the party platform as to 'looking into this matter that is of concern to many Canadians'. Of course, nothing would ever end up being done.

So, let's say a so-called left wing party makes this a plank in their platform. Well, then you've got the problem of choosing whether that plank is enough to make you vote for a party that may have nine other planks you see as 'pie in the sky', whatever. So, we probably don't have a lot of hope from that direction.

But, say this becomes a real issue across Canada. At some point the politicos will piously state it's a matter for the courts, after which it will get tied up there for ten or twenty years while high paid lawyers argue precedents from Roman law forward that support the notion as the corporation as a 'person' in front of politically appointed judges who will probably see the exercise as an annoying nuisance that just reduces the time they can spend caring for their (shareholder) investment portfolios.

While this is happening, corporations will, among other strategies, relentlessly bombard the public with propaganda showing the 'good' they are doing for one and all, intermixed with dire warnings concerning the destruction of our economy and all that is good in the world and potential veiled threats from a southerly direction.

So, I'd guess the chance of any change in this regard within our current structure to be slim to none.

In a DD society, the 85% would get to vote on an initiative raised by Reverend Blair, and corporations would no longer be 'people' in Canada.

 

[Reverend Blair]

But will anybody with an issue be able to raise it all willy-nilly like that? Wouldn't I more likely have to start a campaign to get people on board? Wouldn't I most likely try to recruit special interest groups with the organisation and infrastructure to produce results? Wouldn't my opposition do the same?

See what I mean? Without a mechanism to prevent it, we end up back in the same place. I know there has to be way around that, but to just assume that it will happen automatically would be a mistake.

 

[Huron]

I was mainly trying to demonstrate a situation where DD might offer a light at the end of the tunnel that not, realistically speaking, present in the current structure.

We know that a mechanism citizens can use to raise initiatives is required. The nuts and bolts, e.g., number of signatories, etc., involved in raising an initiative are of course open to discussion.

Objective third parties, e.g., public servants, can analyse the initiative, gather the facts and present these, the options, pro/cons and source of the initiative to citizens. Citizens will make their decisions based on the information they receive.

The initiative process is not always going to be simple yes/no questions. Getting back to global warming, for example, you might first need to present the facts re: global warming to Canadian and elicit their opinion as to whether based on known facts an issue exists that Canada sould be acting on. For Canadians who believe action is required, options of what that action should be could also be included.

Given the above, is the type of campaign often seen south of the border from pro/con sides, e.g., 'vote yes for proposition 55', 'vote no to proposition 55', necessary or desirable, given that one or both sides may not be presenting the fully story or an objective version thereof.

I wouldn't necessarily see the DD citizen initiative process as involving, or allowing, the type of massive advertising campaigns that arise in respect of some US propositions. Basically, you have the question, you have the facts, you don't need anyone trying to 'sell' you on either side.

Again, the above are just very high level suggestions of how things potentially could work. A lot of blanks remain to be filled in.

I don't assume anything will occur automatically. Again, significant thought, discussion and planning is required to create the DD structure. It won't happen overnight.