BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3976
Merit: 1382
|
|
June 26, 2016, 01:34:01 AM |
|
The U.S. is too big population-wise for direct democracy. Rather, dismantle the federal Government, and let the States have direct democracy individually. And if a State becomes too large, let it be done county by county.
|
|
|
|
Gronthaing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1001
|
|
June 26, 2016, 02:43:46 AM |
|
What needs to happen is someone like a billionaire to step up outside from the donaldtrump type folks.
Who paved their grind like markcuban who is aware how politics goes, and lay a foundation down for a third party to oversight votes that and many other things how laws are passed.
Billionaires already have two parties. The democratic party and the republican party. Why would they need a third?
|
|
|
|
designerusa
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2310
Merit: 1028
|
|
June 26, 2016, 07:31:42 AM |
|
Do you think direct democracy in the US (referendum etc) would be a good idea or do you think the party system (Hillary, Trump etc) is better?
to me, direct democracy is the best of all . because society is powerful enough to legislate. if general assembly isnt powerful to legislate, society can do it properly for that reason parliamentary democracy has to be choosen for sure..
|
|
|
|
Daniel91
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3374
Merit: 1824
|
|
June 26, 2016, 08:10:19 AM |
|
I don't think that direct democracy is good idea. We can see it through many recent events. In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking. They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants. Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum. Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise. They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.
|
|
|
|
mOgliE
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1251
|
|
June 26, 2016, 09:39:25 AM |
|
I don't think that direct democracy is good idea. We can see it through many recent events. In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking. They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants. Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum. Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise. They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.
Yeah of course politicians showed they are much more effective and reliable at making hard decisions >< Maybe people in UK voted like shit because they were angry and not used to vote for important subject. Direct democracy should be put in place and learned by the people. With time they'd learn to make careful long term decisions, knowing their vote will be important contrary to what's currently happening. (what was the last time you voted and it was important?)
|
|
|
|
Gronthaing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1001
|
|
June 27, 2016, 03:38:57 AM |
|
I don't think that direct democracy is good idea. We can see it through many recent events. In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking. They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants. Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum. Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise. They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.
Yeah of course politicians showed they are much more effective and reliable at making hard decisions >< Maybe people in UK voted like shit because they were angry and not used to vote for important subject. Direct democracy should be put in place and learned by the people. With time they'd learn to make careful long term decisions, knowing their vote will be important contrary to what's currently happening. (what was the last time you voted and it was important?) I like the idea of direct democracy. And other forms of it like liquid democracy for example. But there is some reason in what he said. Many people will never make informed decisions. Maybe they won't have time to look into some issues, or energy, or interest. And propaganda and fear mongering work well. Would that be better than what politicians are doing now anyway? Probably. But what would really help is transforming the economic system. Incentivize cooperatives. Maybe use codetermination. Consider universal basic income. Etc. This would help more people have the time and the conditions to participate in the political system.
|
|
|
|
catch.me.if.you.can
|
|
June 27, 2016, 05:58:59 AM |
|
I don't think that direct democracy is good idea. We can see it through many recent events. In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking. They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants. Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum. Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise. They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.
And what is wrong with the emotions?
|
|
|
|
Barnabe
|
|
June 27, 2016, 08:07:57 AM |
|
I don't think that direct democracy is good idea. We can see it through many recent events. In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking. They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants. Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum. Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise. They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.
And what is wrong with the emotions? Emotions are only valid in the moment and don't take into account rational thoughts. A decision like this cannot be taken with emotions. Emotions are like calling an ex-girlfriend at 4am while drunk. On the moment it seems right, but you will regret it later.
|
|
|
|
catch.me.if.you.can
|
|
June 27, 2016, 08:30:05 AM |
|
I don't think that direct democracy is good idea. We can see it through many recent events. In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking. They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants. Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum. Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise. They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.
And what is wrong with the emotions? Emotions are only valid in the moment and don't take into account rational thoughts. A decision like this cannot be taken with emotions. Emotions are like calling an ex-girlfriend at 4am while drunk. On the moment it seems right, but you will regret it later. The emotions are mutual.
|
|
|
|
cluit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1016
|
|
June 27, 2016, 08:45:08 AM |
|
I don't think that direct democracy is good idea. We can see it through many recent events. In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking. They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants. Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum. Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise. They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.
People often take wrong decisions being emotional in such moment where rationality would be more useful. Whereas the politicians or other such qualified personnel can think bilaterally that would one way or the other lead to prosperity and success.
|
|
|
|
|
Daisy14
|
|
June 27, 2016, 09:40:26 AM |
|
Do you think direct democracy in the US (referendum etc) would be a good idea or do you think the party system (Hillary, Trump etc) is better?
The illuminati controls both the party system [Hillary, Trump] and the direct democracy to a certain degree, so the outcome remains the same whichever method you choose.
|
|
|
|
catch.me.if.you.can
|
|
June 27, 2016, 01:57:49 PM |
|
Do you think direct democracy in the US (referendum etc) would be a good idea or do you think the party system (Hillary, Trump etc) is better?
The illuminati controls both the party system [Hillary, Trump] and the direct democracy to a certain degree, so the outcome remains the same whichever method you choose. The jews control the party system but they dont control the direct democracy.
|
|
|
|
Gronthaing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1001
|
|
June 27, 2016, 10:59:57 PM |
|
Do you think direct democracy in the US (referendum etc) would be a good idea or do you think the party system (Hillary, Trump etc) is better?
The illuminati controls both the party system [Hillary, Trump] and the direct democracy to a certain degree, so the outcome remains the same whichever method you choose. The jews control the party system but they dont control the direct democracy. The evil jews as always. If they really control the two party system wouldn't they choose sanders instead of hillary or something? Or is he a renegade? Or part of some conspiracy to hide their power or intentions?
|
|
|
|
lucsky
Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
|
June 27, 2016, 11:11:08 PM |
|
I don't think that direct democracy is good idea. We can see it through many recent events. In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking. They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants. Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum. Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise. They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.
I do not think that direct elections are a good idea, just by the fact that the pure exercise of democracy does not work. The idea that a simple majority decision of the people (+ 50%) is a democratic exercise has been overtaken by the current dimension of the concept of democracy, in which all need to feel represented. If the exercise of democracy was simply the decision-making of the majority, most present in a room could decide that it is okay to beat up one of those present.
|
|
|
|
Gronthaing
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1001
|
|
June 27, 2016, 11:38:43 PM |
|
I don't think that direct democracy is good idea. We can see it through many recent events. In UK, most people voted based on emotions, not rational thinking. They was cheated that leaving EU will means more money for their health care and no more immigrants. Now, when they are finally aware what they did, they already collected 2 millions votes for new referendum. Only politicians are qualified to make such hard decisions, because they know all facts and in direct negotiation can always make some good political deal or compromise. They are, after all, direct legal representatives of their voters.
I do not think that direct elections are a good idea, just by the fact that the pure exercise of democracy does not work. The idea that a simple majority decision of the people (+ 50%) is a democratic exercise has been overtaken by the current dimension of the concept of democracy, in which all need to feel represented. If the exercise of democracy was simply the decision-making of the majority, most present in a room could decide that it is okay to beat up one of those present. Well they could. But recognizing that could happen to anyone constitutions were set up. Sets of basic rights and rules that inform a lot of decisions. And are harder to change. Direct democracy could have the same framework. See the case of countries that rely more on referendums like switzerland for example. Not perfect. But what better options are there than democracy?
|
|
|
|
|