Then political power would belong to the people controling medias.
Most people cant be bothered to take the time to truly dig into tricky political matters : they just react to the nicest slogans or soundbites.
Call me elitist if you want, but I'm more comfortable with a professionnal caste of politicians (some rotten, some not) than with a direct democracy.
The results of the polls illustrate that : populist, kneejerk reactions.
Then political power would belong to the people controling medias.
And this is different from democracy how?
The "poll" mentioned in the article is on a particular news sites website.
So the participants are self selecting and not particularly random.
In short Ninemsn says that ninemsn readers are not well enough informed to govern, based on a history of ninemsn polls.
Maybe ninemsn is not the best site to get your news from then.
Then political power would belong to the people controling medias.
And this is different from democracy how?
The "poll" mentioned in the article is on a particular news sites website.
So the participants are self selecting and not particularly random.
In short Ninemsn says that ninemsn readers are not well enough informed to govern, based on a history of ninemsn polls.
Maybe ninemsn is not the best site to get your news from then.
No, only worse.
I don't know ninemsn, or their readers. At all. But just look at the percentage of people who can't be bothered to vote every four years, and tell me if there is enough people with enough political motivation and culture to legislate on everything, all year long, while keeping the common good in mind.
What would likely happen is that only the people with an vested interest would vote on the most obscure topics, to promote their short-term gains, and that the masses would vote for the best lobbying campaign on very high profile ones.
Full, integrally poll-driven government is a absolute nightmare.
|
Direct democracy wouldn't work with the current state of the country (speaking of the US). However, in a society that functions using consensus democracy (to protect the minority) and that has democratically regulated not for profit news that simply reports facts without opinion and a high quality education - I think it could work. In fact I hope it will work one day.
|
I saw it in action when I lived in California. Referendums are insanity. Heck, there's warnings on coffee stating that it is known by the state of California to cause cancer, despite there being no known correlation in any scientific research. All it took was a referendum and a PR campaign to trump science.
Why do we think that a majority of voters know what the hell they are talking about?
All power to the soviets!
For democratically-elected workers councils and a planned economy!
Vive le Galt!!
This is what our founders knew was a failure of greek democracy and mob rule. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner, liberty is a well armed lamb and all that old wisdom.
And just like in Greek democracy, they f$$#ed their slaves.
What's wrong with buggery?
What's wrong with buggery?Nothing if consensual, i bet painful when not.
I'm betting it can be painful either way, but that doesn't answer the question.
so all any group needs to achieve tyranny is to breed/ immigrate enough support and they control everything.
This is what our founders knew was a failure of greek democracy and mob rule. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner, liberty is a well armed lamb and all that old wisdom.
Kinda like, say, stopping two people of the same gender from getting married?
|
Kinda like, say, stopping two people of the same gender from getting married?so all any group needs to achieve tyranny is to breed/ immigrate enough support and they control everything.
This is what our founders knew was a failure of greek democracy and mob rule. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner, liberty is a well armed lamb and all that old wisdom.
When have i ever spoken against gay marriage? I have offered to PERFORM them if my home state allows.
When have i ever spoken against gay marriage? I have offered to PERFORM them if my home state allows.
I don't you that *you* personally have. The party you regularly and vocally support does so on a daily basis. If you happen to diverge on that particular topic, good for you.
|
|
When have i ever spoken against gay marriage? I have offered to PERFORM them if my home state allows.I don't you that *you* personally have. The party you regularly and vocally support does so on a daily basis. If you happen to diverge on that particular topic, good for you.
Ok now show me where i have ever said i am a republican. I hate them as much as i do democrats even though i mostly tend to be conservative. I just am arguing agianst liberal (democrat) policies here because i am surrounded by them. On conservative boards i get called a liberal myself. The parties are BOTH worthless and corrupt. Some would just rather embrace the lesser evil(as they see it, on either side) than push for real change.
Ok now show me where i have ever said i am a republican. I hate them as much as i do democrats even though i mostly tend to be conservative. I just am arguing agianst liberal (democrat) policies here because i am surrounded by them. On conservative boards i get called a liberal myself. The parties are BOTH worthless and corrupt. Some would just rather embrace the lesser evil(as they see it, on either side) than push for real change.
I don't know that you ever have. After perusing the thread in question, it was not you advocating against homosexual marriage at all -- I was mistaken, and I apologize.
|
|
Direct democracy wouldn't work with the current state of the country (speaking of the US). However, in a society that functions using consensus democracy (to protect the minority) and that has democratically regulated not for profit news that simply reports facts without opinion and a high quality education - I think it could work. In fact I hope it will work one day.
Depends on the degree of consensus. If you must have the consent of everyone - it protects the individual. If you merely require the largest minority view then you are doomed to be governed by others.
Someone could crash the government on purpose then.
Answer to OP's question: 4chan suddenly decides all policies, anywhere. Consider the 7th inning stretch debacle a warning.
|
|
If you must have the consent of everyone of 300+ million people, nothing will ever be agreed to. There will be some idiot who will object to any proposal, no matter how inoffensive.Direct democracy wouldn't work with the current state of the country (speaking of the US). However, in a society that functions using consensus democracy (to protect the minority) and that has democratically regulated not for profit news that simply reports facts without opinion and a high quality education - I think it could work. In fact I hope it will work one day.Depends on the degree of consensus. If you must have the consent of everyone - it protects the individual. If you merely require the largest minority view then you are doomed to be governed by others.
It offended him...
Thats like saying you dont have the right to object to being executed by the state because you are just one man.
If you must have the consent of everyone of 300+ million people, nothing will ever be agreed to. There will be some idiot who will object to any proposal, no matter how inoffensive.Direct democracy wouldn't work with the current state of the country (speaking of the US). However, in a society that functions using consensus democracy (to protect the minority) and that has democratically regulated not for profit news that simply reports facts without opinion and a high quality education - I think it could work. In fact I hope it will work one day.Depends on the degree of consensus. If you must have the consent of everyone - it protects the individual. If you merely require the largest minority view then you are doomed to be governed by others.It offended him...
Thats like saying you dont have the right to object to being executed by the state because you are just one man.
Some people are just contrarian.
Some people are just contrarian.
No they're not!
No, only worse.
I don't know ninemsn, or their readers. At all. But just look at the percentage of people who can't be bothered to vote every four years, and tell me if there is enough people with enough political motivation and culture to legislate on everything, all year long, while keeping the common good in mind.
What would likely happen is that only the people with an vested interest would vote on the most obscure topics, to promote their short-term gains, and that the masses would vote for the best lobbying campaign on very high profile ones.
Full, integrally poll-driven government is a absolute nightmare.
Today its 200 or 600 or whatever that participate in theory in decisionmaking. Of those its 10 or so that really make the decisions. Those 10 in turn have bankers monopoly that give them ultimatums. The democrazy is the best money can buy..
Meanwhile direct democrazy probly wouldnt attract more than maybe 10% of the population. That is still over 1000 MORE people haveing their say. Perhaps even a million times as many.
Far harder to bribe.
The expertice would even improve, now decisions are made by complete morons with zero insigt into the issues, then actually intelligent and knowledgable people could have their say. The superbowl and beer morons will never bother, just as they barely bother to vote now.
Quality of decisions will improve immensly.