Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 6:05 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Direct Democracy?
#21
RE: Direct Democracy?
(May 20, 2015 at 8:10 pm)francismjenkins Wrote:



Thoughts?

Things that Direct Democracy needs in order to be optimally effective (in no particular order):

1. A highly informed, involved and egalitarian electorate
2. A non-partisan system of government; preferably one where individuals, rather than committees, are voted in to roles
3. Representatives with scrupulously high ethical standards 
4. High levels of local executive power with centralised principles and governance
5. Rigorous and ruthlessly executed governance systems with lifetime consequences for transgressors

This list isn't exhaustive but compare it to your current political structure and you can work out how appropriate it would be to put DD in place. I'd suggest that if 1, 3 & 5 aren't there, there's no point at all: self-interest and corruption would all too quickly destabalise the system.
Sum ergo sum
Reply
#22
RE: Direct Democracy?
(May 22, 2015 at 9:30 am)Ben Davis Wrote:
(May 20, 2015 at 8:10 pm)francismjenkins Wrote:



Thoughts?

Things that Direct Democracy needs in order to be optimally effective (in no particular order):

1. A highly informed, involved and egalitarian electorate
2. A non-partisan system of government; preferably one where individuals, rather than committees, are voted in to roles
3. Representatives with scrupulously high ethical standards 
4. High levels of local executive power with centralised principles and governance
5. Rigorous and ruthlessly executed governance systems with lifetime consequences for transgressors

This list isn't exhaustive but compare it to your current political structure and you can work out how appropriate it would be to put DD in place. I'd suggest that if 1, 3 & 5 aren't there, there's no point at all: self-interest and corruption would all too quickly destabalise the system.

"representatives" would be contrary to direct democracy, although you could have a system of delegates (and in most DD systems, delegates are usually rotated in and out, they're not elected ... every citizen would have an obligation to be a delegate at some point, much like we have a jury duty obligation). 

But in a hybrid system, I suppose we could have some aspects of both representative and direct democracy (which may be the most functional of all the alternatives). 

There's many problems inherent in both representative and direct democracy, and to date, I'm not aware of any advanced society that has been able to find the perfect mix. So IMO I think we need experimentation (but it takes a lot of work and activism just to get the space and resources needed to experiment). 
Reply
#23
RE: Direct Democracy?
I will never be a fan of mob rule by vote. Considering the history of slavery, sexism and homophobia in America, the idea that the voters should have absolute power vile. Voting is certainly part of an open system, but no part of government, including voters should be given absolute power.
Reply
#24
RE: Direct Democracy?
(May 22, 2015 at 4:53 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'd want to see the studies, naturally.  I'm unsure how one would test whether a decision is 'better'.

Here's one:

"Nearly all research on the accuracy of individual versus group decision making has used ad hoc groups, artificial problems, and trivial or nonexistent reward contingencies. These studies have generally concluded that the knowledge base of the most competent group member appears to be the practical upper limit of group performance and that process gains will rarely be achieved. We studied individual versus group decision making by using data from 222 project teams, ranging in size from 3 to 8 members. These teams were engaged in solving contextually relevant and consequential problems and, in direct contrast with previous research, the groups outperformed their most proficient group member 97% of the time. Furthermore, 40% of the process gains could not be explained by either average or most knowledgeable group member scores. Implications for management practice are also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2012 APA, all rights reserved)"


http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1990-04483-001

I have this study in pdf on my computer (but I had to purchase it). I have more on my computer as well, but this is probably the most rigorous study I've seen on this topic. It has a pretty good sample size, and its methodology was really good as well. 

There's lots of ways to measure this. For example, in the context of corporate decision making, you can look at the byproduct of decision making (a marketing campaign, a new product, reorganization of back office functions, whatever) and you can track the outcomes very precisely. 

But you do raise an interesting point. Sure, a clerk in the group may say we need to do X this way to shorten the red tape involved, but do we consider that "advisement" or participation in the decision making process? The way this study approached this question is they looked at "consensus" decision making. In other words, all group members had to agree on the final decision (consequently, even the least qualified group member could block a decision and force the group to address his/her issue). However, to what extent does less tangible cues influence group members? For example, is there a tendency to follow the most qualified and highest ranking group member? But this is actually pretty easy to determine with simple statistics, so I think these studies are valuable and so I think there is merit to the idea of group decision making, but again, this study was done in the context of corporate decision making (and so its results are limited to that context, and I'm not sure to what extent we can extrapolate more broad based conclusions from this study)? 
Reply
#25
RE: Direct Democracy?
(May 22, 2015 at 7:07 am)abaris Wrote:
(May 22, 2015 at 5:02 am)jesus_wept Wrote: Whereas, in the UK we get dragged into war by the Americans and nobody wants it.

Well, special relationship and all that.

And the last election results speak for a majority enjoying to be butt raped.

What, you mean the way the most people did not vote for the winner of the election?
Reply
#26
RE: Direct Democracy?
(May 22, 2015 at 7:15 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: "representatives" would be contrary to direct democracy, although you could have a system of delegates (and in most DD systems, delegates are usually rotated in and out, they're not elected ... every citizen would have an obligation to be a delegate at some point, much like we have a jury duty obligation). 
Sorry, I used the wrong word: 'delegates' is right. The problem I was trying to highlight is that delegate-self-interest can cause corruption

Quote:But in a hybrid system, I suppose we could have some aspects of both representative and direct democracy (which may be the most functional of all the alternatives). 
Sorry, I sent you off down the garden path: I'm not talking about a hybrid system, I'm talking about a system where 'all interested parties' take a democratic group decision on 'everything' and then a sub-set of that group act on the decision. That's what I understand as 'direct democracy'.

Quote:There's many problems inherent in both representative and direct democracy, and to date, I'm not aware of any advanced society that has been able to find the perfect mix. So IMO I think we need experimentation (but it takes a lot of work and activism just to get the space and resources needed to experiment). 
I agree, sort of. I would prefer to hold off until we've managed to get more of 1, 3 & 5. In the meantime, maybe some of the more socio-politically progressive nations might take that sort of step and provide some well needed R&D.
Sum ergo sum
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Social democracy in Europe without 5 minutes Interaktive 1 576 January 3, 2023 at 4:55 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Real democracy Macoleco 23 1112 March 17, 2022 at 9:06 am
Last Post: TaraJo
  The Future of Democracy JairCrawford 49 3023 March 11, 2022 at 11:59 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How can Democracy NOT lead to Oligarchy? ignoramus 4 336 July 18, 2020 at 12:48 pm
Last Post: Porcupine
  Democracy is fucked up Zenith 31 8294 February 25, 2017 at 1:42 pm
Last Post: Zenith
  The States Are The Laboratories of Democracy! Minimalist 12 1996 August 19, 2016 at 11:14 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  US Puppet Democracy Aractus 18 2142 June 20, 2016 at 1:15 am
Last Post: Aractus
  They’re all bought and sold: American democracy belongs to the billionaires now Heat 70 8273 February 7, 2016 at 2:50 am
Last Post: GrandizerII
  Talking about dictatorships and mafia and theocracy and democracy. A-g-n-o-s-t-i-c 32 3717 January 24, 2016 at 2:44 am
Last Post: Reforged
Video What is your favourite endorsement of democracy? Ashground 10 1995 July 5, 2015 at 8:15 pm
Last Post: Joko



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)