Like they have in Switzerland
Wikipedia
Would this be the right way to go for nations in North-America and Europe so that people have more influence on the decisions made - full power over the law ?
What would the negative aspects be of such a system ?
No.
Perhaps now we have something to debate. You go first.
Voter apathy. If you guys have around 50% voter turnout on Presidential elections, what do you think the number would be if there were referenda all the freaking time? And you just know that the nuts would be the most industrious voters.
Mob rule? I don’t thinks so. Not in America anyway. Have you ever talked to any of those people?
we can make systems so that we can vote on the internet og cell-phone
We often have people coming into this forum brandishing an idea to make democracy more direct as if that is a noble goal on its own. Most of us tend to disagree when we think the issue over. Perhaps the OP should elaborate on the reasons that more democracy is an end to itself and should be pursued. I always preferred a good republic myself.
Yeah, let’s run the government like American Idol. “Should we invade Canada or not? You can call or text in your vote…”
I don’t think it would matter much. Presidential elections are every four years. Now, I don’t know how complicated voting is in the US, but in my neck of the woods you show up, show ID, put a piece of paper in an envelope, and drop the envelope in a slot. I doubt it’s much more complicated in the US. If half of the eligible population neglects to do something like that once every four years, do you really think it’s because of the physical hassle? I doubt it.
Now, there is something to be said for direct democracy. My personal dream is a system where, every day after dinner, you log onto the DemocracyVotingWeb ™ to see if there’s something to vote on that day. If there is, you read summaries of each position, written by experts on the subject, and then vote. Routine, like brushing your teeth. There’s a zillion reasons this system won’t work, but I’d love to see it working.
I can see it now. Every appropriations bill to fund national park maintenance, every defense bill with a line in it to approve the promotion of someone to lieutenant colonel, every trade compact that changes the acceptable cod catch in the north Atlantic – all of it being scrutinized and attacked by people who have nothing but time on their hands and scores they want to settle.
Ever been to a city council or school board meeting during the public comment section? There’s a reason for representative democracy.
A hundred people work for a company in the small town of Ookblat. This company releases some amount of pollutants into the air and thereby is abetting Global Warming. It comes up to a democratic vote to decide whether the company has to cease all emissions. If the law is passed, the company would have to raise the price of its product by double, which would put it out of business and all one hundred people out of a job, or move its operations to China which would again mean those 100 people would be out of a job. And, since Ookblat is a small town in the middle of nowhere, it would be very hard for these people to find any other work.
So the vote comes, and it’s 100 people versus the entire rest of the nation (i.e. the other 298,444,115 people.)
Now if all the other 298,444,115 people in the nation each properly research the issue and look at things like the actual amount of emissions, the employment opportunities in the area, the economics of the company’s industry, and such stuff, that’s not necessarily bad–but frankly there is very little chance that people leading a normal life with a career are going to be able to research the issue to a proper degree to be able to weigh the plusses and minusses and come to a decision that is fair to both the ecosystem and the employees of the company. While as someone whose whole job is to look at issues like this and research it can then come up with a fitting solution and implement it.
Certainly that one person can be bribed, but then again how can you say that the whole “Save the Internet!” campaign wasn’t largely Google running a smear campaign so that they got free service. Or what if ti happens to be that most people sub-thirty mostly base their political choices on their favorite rock band’s? Overall, the best one can ever do is to find someone to do the job, establish some measures to keep him honest, and trust in that.
And of course the ever linkable:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
“One of these countries will be smoldering ruin next week. Make sure to vote for ALL the countries you want to keep safe. Rumsfeld out.”
One problem with direct democracy is that, in any political unit larger than a New England township or a Swiss canton, the people as a whole are not and cannot be organized as a deliberative policymaking body. They simply go to the polls and are presented with a list of items on which to vote up or down. Therefore, they might approve two pieces of legislation the practical incompatibility of which would be glaringly obvious to an actual legislative assembly. In California, the voters have approved all kinds of spending mandates and untouchable budget items while also putting severe limits on the state’s ability to levy taxes.
Og VOTE!
I dream of a national “Congress Lottery” where ordinary folks are selected to serve in Congress… kind of like Jury Duty… except with no peremptory challenges and a much larger sample size (something on the order of 500) that would statistically mirror the attitudes and beliefs of an informed citizenry.
Of course, if by some one in a zillion chance we get a Congress full of skinheads, the people can vote to dissolve Congress and hold a new lottery.
Yeah! And the votes will be tabulated quickly and electronically! By a company called Diebold! No wait…Haliburton! No, I was right the first time. Diebold.
I like this idea. There have been experiments where they bring people in to decide things like how to allocate city budgets. They usually end up increasing how much is spent on things like parks and emergency services and are shocked when they see how little actually goes there.
Debated in this thread.
Please remember that the democratic theory of government is not a theory of good government but of legitimate government – it is the idea that no person or group can properly be sovereign but the state’s people as a whole, regardless of whether they choose well or ill. Or, as H.L. Mencken put it, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
But if you insist on actual results . . . In his classic book Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, political scientist Robert Dahl showed a clear relationship between effective democracy or “polyarchy” (designed as a system where there are not only elections but they are actually contested, and there is sufficient press freedom for alternatives to be seriously debated) and enjoyment of personal liberties and civil rights.
His study did not look at any difference between representative and direct democracy – understandably, as the latter is such a rare phenomenon.
While the idea is currently unworkable, and I doubt we could do without representatives, it may be possible over time that we can represent ourselves more fully in this manner.
But rather than letting everyone vote on everything, I’d suspect a person would be required to vote step by step on a small number of things they know well and develop some expertise in. Thus, they put the a bill together piece by piece, vote on the final bill, and then the representatives pass it or not. Or a larger body of citizens vote for competing bills and the reps vote on those. Or the reps create the bill and we line item veto it to our liking.
Somehow, we’d have make it workable to fit into one’s day to day life because direct democracy would require more time from an individual.
On the other hand, we might just try wikiocracy. 