Voting On Issues: Referendum Politics

Undesired Walrus said:
Out of interest, do you think there is anything a referendum shouldn't be held on? Like relocating troops from one part of Afghanistan to the other?
Click to expand...
I presume you're asking me. I haven't thought about it. I guess there would be a lot, like that sort of security decision, particularly ones that need to be made quickly, and ones that need to maintain secrecy, so I'd certainly not suggest we have a country-wide war-cabinet! But again, I seem to have misrepresented myself. The question seems to imply that I'm sure there are things we should have referenda on! I'm discussing the concept, and was initially asking for pointers to where the idea might be being discussed already. I got a bit idealistic for the sake of argument along the way. I'm well aware that the nay-sayers have some powerful arguments, and I feel it's probably even harder to develop such a system than I thought initially, so I'm being persuaded a little towards the nay myself.

Are there any issues you think should be taken to referendum - say, whether we invade Iran? (I choose that example because it's been suggested as a possible next target in the war over oil - sorry, on terror.)
 
DC said:
Human rights?
Click to expand...
You seem to be missing the point. Once again, your brief answer leaves me having to read between the lines that you believe in certain undeniable truths that just are. It will be difficult for us to continue a conversation.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Which examples do you cite? Which system of referendums has shown to work, instead of giving people making decisions even less accountability than elected officials have?
Click to expand...
What an amazing idea, I simply hadn't thought of that - that having made a decision as "the people" - we're not accountable for it. I kind of just assumed that self-determination involves automatic accountability - if we make a decision, we have to live with the consequences. but it's more serious than that. If the people decide to go to war with Iraq and discover it was illegal, we have no-one to take to a war crimes tribunal. Thanks.
 
Proposition 112AG3: This proposition will allow Rifleman Hank Macathurs to discharge his rifle into the center of mass of an enemy soldier that is charging his foxhole on Ridge 4901.

Proposition 112AG3-B: This proposition authorizes funeral expenses for former Rifleman Hank Macathurs who died in glorious battle awaiting the Will of the People.
 
John Freestone said:
What an amazing idea, I simply hadn't thought of that - that having made a decision as "the people" - we're not accountable for it. I kind of just assumed that self-determination involves automatic accountability - if we make a decision, we have to live with the consequences. but it's more serious than that. If the people decide to go to war with Iraq and discover it was illegal, we have no-one to take to a war crimes tribunal. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Or you can decide to run your state into the ground and then move out and let the state declair bankruptcy and the pathetic people can't move to avoid the long term consequences of your decisions are stuck with them.
 
Travis said:
Proposition 89QA3: This proposition will allow for Charlie Company 1/87 Infantry to advance 300 meters up Ridge 4801 in order to counterattack Insurgent elements that besieged them starting on the 8th of August.
Click to expand...
Hee, very good. "Ok, lads, Forum says Open Fire!" Not quite what I had in mind. Hey, given the increasing live video link from the battlefield the possibilities are endless. ;)
 
John Freestone said:
You seem to be missing the point. Once again, your brief answer leaves me having to read between the lines that you believe in certain undeniable truths that just are. It will be difficult for us to continue a conversation.
Click to expand...

yeah, after i posted it i thought, but wait, we did vote FOR those human rights...

what i mean we need a way to ensure that all citizens have the same rights, so that not one group gets rights denied that others have.

undeniable truths?
do you mean things like God given rights are universal human rights?
i don't believe in them, we as a society create and maintain rights, well not always :(

But i think people should not be able to vote to refuse a right to a group of people and leave that right for other.

(i don't see that problem solved in representative democracy)
 
DC said:
i see no reason to believe it would not work on larger scale.
Click to expand...

And I see no reason to assume that the problems you see in California for example couldn't happen in Switzerland. People voting for short term interests instead of long term interests is commonplace.
 
Proposition AD4702: This law will establish, in accordance to Bille Palance Walker's mathematics exam paper, that 36 + 48 * 4 does in fact equal Megan Fox. Furthermore the answer to 75 - 23 will be 4004 upside down.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And I see no reason to assume that the problems you see in California for example couldn't happen in Switzerland. People voting for short term interests instead of long term interests is commonplace.
Click to expand...

sure such things can happen, just as they can happen when short sighted representatives make the decision for you.

Direct Democracy is not easy its hard work and requires a lot of informing yourself about issues. self-determination means a lot responsibility.
Not just voting some dude in charge then excuse all his decisions with" well you know, they are politicans"
 
Travis said:
Proposition 89QA3: This proposition will allow for Charlie Company 1/87 Infantry to advance 300 meters up Ridge 4801 in order to counterattack Insurgent elements that besieged them starting on the 8th of August.
Click to expand...

Well, I LOL'd.
 
DC said:
yeah, after i posted it i thought, but wait, we did vote FOR those human rights...

what i mean we need a way to ensure that all citizens have the same rights, so that not one group gets rights denied that others have.

undeniable truths?
do you mean things like God given rights are universal human rights?
i don't believe in them, we as a society create and maintain rights, well not always :(

But i think people should not be able to vote to refuse a right to a group of people and leave that right for other.

(i don't see that problem solved in representative democracy)
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, then I misunderstood you a bit, and we're pretty much in accord. I don't believe in God-given universal rights. We make 'em up, bless us, and I'm glad we do. and yes, we should try to protect the best of them and work to let all people have them who agree with them. It gets complicated, like when we might feel that certain practices in other cultures are abusive of human rights, and there aren't any simple answers, but yeah in principle it's a great goal.

And I also don't think it's particularly to do with the immediacy of the democracy. But there might be instances where it is easier to improve human rights protection directly via referendum, rather than having to hope the government of the day brings it in. Governments' record on human rights isn't that clean, and recently they've been taking our rights away from us at an alarming rate.

But you have raised a very good point for me. If we had something of the sceheme I described, theoretically a majority could pass a law that easily went against a cherished human right. I guess I'm having faith that people wouldn't do so, but that's naive of me. Certainly it could happen if a law could be passed that applied prejudiciously against a particular group. If we made a law concerning protection from unreasonable stop-and-search by the police that we all have to take the consequences of, we're unlikely to make abusive laws, but if we can specify certain types of people are exempt, we're down a very steep slope into the mire. So basic protections, like equality, have to be enshrined in some form of constitution....or maybe that is actually unreasonably pessimistic and when it comes to it, as a mass, we're not going to make prejudicial laws. I dunno.
 
John Freestone said:
Ah, yes, then I misunderstood you a bit, and we're pretty much in accord. I don't believe in God-given universal rights. We make 'em up, bless us, and I'm glad we do. and yes, we should try to protect the best of them and work to let all people have them who agree with them. It gets complicated, like when we might feel that certain practices in other cultures are abusive of human rights, and there aren't any simple answers, but yeah in principle it's a great goal.

And I also don't think it's particularly to do with the immediacy of the democracy. But there might be instances where it is easier to improve human rights protection directly via referendum, rather than having to hope the government of the day brings it in. Governments' record on human rights isn't that clean, and recently they've been taking our rights away from us at an alarming rate.

But you have raised a very good point for me. If we had something of the sceheme I described, theoretically a majority could pass a law that easily went against a cherished human right. I guess I'm having faith that people wouldn't do so, but that's naive of me. Certainly it could happen if a law could be passed that applied prejudiciously against a particular group. If we made a law concerning protection from unreasonable stop-and-search by the police that we all have to take the consequences of, we're unlikely to make abusive laws, but if we can specify certain types of people are exempt, we're down a very steep slope into the mire. So basic protections, like equality, have to be enshrined in some form of constitution....or maybe that is actually unreasonably pessimistic and when it comes to it, as a mass, we're not going to make prejudicial laws. I dunno.
Click to expand...

but how do we ensure that discriminatory laws get implemented or come to a vote?
it is always based on faith that those having the decision will not do it.
If it are a few, by the president handpicked judges in a supreme court or a few elected "Bundesräte" that have the decision, or if it are the people directly. i never understood the idea of having only a few people with the decision power over that will prevent or make it less likely for discriminatory laws to be implemented.
 
DC said:
sure such things can happen, just as they can happen when short sighted representatives make the decision for you.

Direct Democracy is not easy its hard work and requires a lot of informing yourself about issues. self-determination means a lot responsibility.
Not just voting some dude in charge then excuse all his decisions with" well you know, they are politicans"
Click to expand...

Well put. It would (among other things) require a massive culture change with regards to politics. Personally, I would like to see some form of mandatory political education both in schools and beyond (maybe a national holiday dedicated to considering political issues) but I'm not really sure how it might work.

A lot of people seem to have the 'it ain't broke that bad so don't risk completely ruining it' attitude, and it is fair enough, but I would suggest (and this addresses JF's earlier question to me of why not on lots of issues not just major ones) that you start slowly. Our vote on AV is at least a start.

I feel there is little room in our political system for review and continuous improvement of the actual procedures/processes/principles, which tends to make the work of political philosophy a lot like a lot of other philosophy (practically worthless).

Unfortunately to get any of this anywhere, it has to go through the current system...
 
John Freestone said:
You seem to be missing the point. Once again, your brief answer leaves me having to read between the lines that you believe in certain undeniable truths that just are. It will be difficult for us to continue a conversation.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately if there aren't (or, you believe there aren't) then the implication is mob rule. Sucks to be in the minority.

But to claim the currents systems all protect against tyranny of the majority better than introducing more direct democracy would is saying that either they fit with your personal views in this area better or there are these underlying principles that require no democratic approval that the current system adheres to at least to a reasonable extent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom