Thinking about a more Direct Democracy. - by Nicker
Nicker on 16/2/2018 at 14:07
My apologies, Sulphur, and anyone else not living in the USA. The Orange Pall has global effects but it is true that the regression to insular and nationalistic ideologies is a world wide issue. I think that ultimately comes down to economic / population issues. There is simply not enough room in our physical world to allow space for the other in our world views, unless that other is a threat.
Nicker on 16/2/2018 at 20:15
As far as qualifications go, it is a false equivalent to compare politicians with engineers, architects or medical doctors. The latter require certification at accredited universities. Their skill set is specific and it's relatively easy to test for basic competence.
No such education exists for politicians. The former are all amateur politicians when they win their first election. There is no diploma or practicum requirement, not even an apprenticeship. It's all on the job training. Tradespeople are better qualified than noob politicians. Elected officials also have a raft of career bureaucrats, who largely remain in place regardless of regime change. People with experience and direct knowledge of the specific functions those elected are expected to oversee.
So I don't think the comparison between politicians and doctors is fair.
nemyax on 17/2/2018 at 08:41
Quote Posted by Nicker
the regression to insular and nationalistic ideologies is a world wide issue
You're after "direct democracy", but that kind of shit is what the "demos" wants today. So what do you do?
Kolya on 17/2/2018 at 09:55
Quote Posted by Nicker
So I don't think the comparison between politicians and doctors is fair.
Well many politicians here come from a juridical background where people get a lot of insight into government structures and decision making processes, not least into the intentions and values behind them, that amateurs tend to see as hindrances and useless bureaucracy.
A previous juridical career is also obviously useful, since politicians are supposed to create the rules by which the judicial branch decides.
Manager positions in the industry also share a lot of similarities with the day to day of politics, but are based on a different set of values and therefore less advantageous.
And of course you can study political science, if you want a specific qualification.
So it's not like politicians come into the senate from plowing their corn field. That is indeed an ancient (Roman) ideal that wouldn't work today.
And while those qualifications are not strict requirements, politicians generally won't get very far without them. Unless you directly invoke the vox populi which may choose actors, clowns or anyone with an "honest face" and some charisma, who promises bread and games and a glorious future.
The ancient Greeks didn't have that problem because they required political education to even begin participating in their democracy, by excluding women, slaves and all the dumb fucks that didn't come from a noble family.
In reality political education is factually required to juggle the host of interests that culminate at the head of any government. It is a practical problem of democracy that anyone is supposed to be able to get elected, that we try to amend by choosing schooled representatives that are organised in parties etc. But direct democracy removes this barrier and makes the problem much worse.
In that respect the idea isn't much different from Trump's agenda of destroying the political establishment, because he can't see the use of it.
Nicker on 18/2/2018 at 03:24
Some do have legal backgrounds and some don't. That's a far cry from politicians having equivalent educational requirements to doctors. There is no school of government other than government. And as for politicians not getting very far without a specific education, that is not true. Plenty of people from all walks of life, achieve high office and acquit themselves as well as any ex judge or lawyer.
You claim that direct democracy would make things worse but that's just an assertion or do you have a specific example to call on?
Juries are not comprised of legal professionals but with guidance and clear rules they can navigate trials quite well. We are all deemed competent enough to judge politicians every few years, why not more often and why not on specific legislation?
As for your Trump comment... you have heard of the informal logical fallacy, reductio ad Hitlerum ? Well I am considering coining a new one.
Try entering into the spirit of the discussion. Criticising is easy. Creating is hard.
Nicker on 18/2/2018 at 03:28
nemyax - the title of this thread is Thinking about a MORE Direct Democracy. A small but significant difference to demanding Direct Democracy.
The challenge is how might we use the WWW to govern ourselves better.
Who are "the demos"?
Nicker on 18/2/2018 at 03:46
Demagogue - Thanks for that example. Any successful democratic process requires an educated electorate to function well. One involving more people more directly will of course require an even higher level of knowledge. Any evolution to greater and more direct public involvement won't roll out smoothly in one generation but perhaps such a system would inspire nations to provide better educations for their children, given that many of them might be direct participants in government.
I think that a More Direct Democracy might work best with the "professional" legislators making the sausage and the public giving it the sniff test before it hits the pan. So often politicians get elected on one platform then switch to another after the polls close. Sometimes this is necessary and sometimes it's just duplicity. People should be able to push back against the latter more often than every few years.
There is a weekly call in show in Canada, called Cross Country Checkup. It has run for decades. It is live, lasts two hours (no commercials), has a specific topic announced well in advance and it is moderated. They bring on experts and advocates to flesh out the topic and to respond to the audience calls but it is the callers that drive the show. Over and over I am impressed by the quality, insight and wisdom of callers. They prove there is a vast, untapped pool of talent we are missing out on.
Renzatic on 18/2/2018 at 04:12
I learned something new today.
Kolya on 18/2/2018 at 09:58
Quote Posted by Nicker
Some do have legal backgrounds and some don't. That's a far cry from politicians having equivalent educational requirements to doctors.
I didn't say they had the same requirements. What I meant was that political decisions affect many people in basic ways and are therefore at least as important as the decisions of doctors.
Quote Posted by Nicker
There is no school of government other than government.
I gave a you a few examples how one could get tthe necessary eductaion, including studying political science which is exactly the "school of government" that you ask for. Are you somehow averse to science and expert knowledge?
Quote Posted by Nicker
You claim that direct democracy would make things worse but that's just an assertion or do you have a specific example to call on?
Well the Brexit has already been named. Experience also shows that the public will always prefer debts over cutting of state services, even if bureaucracy is hugely overblown already (See Greece). The Swiss took well into the 1970s to allow women to vote, because that required a public poll, whereas suffrage had long been achieved in most represantative democracies.
Quote Posted by Nicker
Juries are not comprised of legal professionals but with guidance and clear rules they can navigate trials quite well. We are all deemed competent enough to judge politicians every few years, why not more often and why not on specific legislation?
I don't agree that jury courts were a good idea and there are lenty of examples why they are not, but this is a whole different discussion.
Suffice to say that giving everyone the guidance and wrapping every political decision into a similarly tight set of rules is practially impossible.
To begin with, people tend not to care and not even go to votes they have no interest in. That leads to only the interest groups voting at all. A positive solutionn to that
would be to require say a 50% overall turnout. But at that point direct democracy generally falls on its face.
What then? Forced voting? Doesn't work either.
It's not like this stuff hasn't been tried.
Quote Posted by Nicker
As for your Trump comment... you have heard of the informal logical fallacy,
reductio ad Hitlerum ? Well I am considering coining a new one.
Yes, I heard of it. But I showed you a parallel: Trump wants to cut out the experts in politics ("dry the swamp") and so do you apparently. And he ran into predictable problems, because - like you - he vastly underestimated the complexity of politics at state level.
Quote Posted by Nicker
Try entering into the spirit of the discussion. Criticising is easy. Creating is hard.
Creating something stupid isn't that hard. And critical thinking is something positive.
It sounds like you want to make general agreement with your idea the entry card to this thread.
