Should the UK become a 'Direct Democracy'?
It's interesting with the rise of populism and libertarian movements (on the left and right) over the past few years that the question of electoral reform is beginning to be raised. We're now in a time of referendums, leaning towards getting proportional representation and serious questions are getting asked about the legitimacy of politicians, given events like the Iraq war, academisation, and what's happening to the NHS are making people even more cynical.
What I was wondering is: could the UK become a 'pure' democracy and would it function well? Obviously a constitution would be required (and voted on). Perhaps education would be mandatory so every person in the country would have to visit an education center on basic economics/business/politics to ensure that people aren't voting irrationally.
As for how it would work, I'm thinking that if we had all of the UK countries split up in to local zones where electronic centres could be established OR the internet could be used to suggest laws. Perhaps a tree diagram of current UK laws would be available, where people could bring up different issues on a local or national level. If these suggestions became petitions that gained a significant level of support, referendums could be held.
Pros: -Every person can be listened to and the views of everyone are included
-The situation of being in a 'tory seat' and voting labour or vice versa is reduced
-Rather than relying on manifestos, people are more likely to suggest interesting areas for the budget of the country: perhaps investing in space research instead of funding a railway scheme, or creating huge nation-wide projects in neuroscience.
-Corruption reduced. 'Establishment' career politicians creating policies just for votes and maintaining their career rather than pushing forward political issues that they believe in.
Cons:
-Issue faced by the Americans when setting up the United States: 'tyranny of the majority' where perhaps if a referendum favored a huge majority, the minorities could be completely neglected
-Lack of education among electorate. Easy to joke about when you're talking about certain members of the British public :P , but in all seriousness, most people may not be bothered/able to understand issues facing the country every week
-VERY hard to maintain.
so yeah, was wondering what you guys think on this issue, thanks
What I was wondering is: could the UK become a 'pure' democracy and would it function well? Obviously a constitution would be required (and voted on). Perhaps education would be mandatory so every person in the country would have to visit an education center on basic economics/business/politics to ensure that people aren't voting irrationally.
As for how it would work, I'm thinking that if we had all of the UK countries split up in to local zones where electronic centres could be established OR the internet could be used to suggest laws. Perhaps a tree diagram of current UK laws would be available, where people could bring up different issues on a local or national level. If these suggestions became petitions that gained a significant level of support, referendums could be held.
Pros: -Every person can be listened to and the views of everyone are included
-The situation of being in a 'tory seat' and voting labour or vice versa is reduced
-Rather than relying on manifestos, people are more likely to suggest interesting areas for the budget of the country: perhaps investing in space research instead of funding a railway scheme, or creating huge nation-wide projects in neuroscience.
-Corruption reduced. 'Establishment' career politicians creating policies just for votes and maintaining their career rather than pushing forward political issues that they believe in.
Cons:
-Issue faced by the Americans when setting up the United States: 'tyranny of the majority' where perhaps if a referendum favored a huge majority, the minorities could be completely neglected
-Lack of education among electorate. Easy to joke about when you're talking about certain members of the British public :P , but in all seriousness, most people may not be bothered/able to understand issues facing the country every week
-VERY hard to maintain.
so yeah, was wondering what you guys think on this issue, thanks
Scroll to see replies
Original post by THE EPIC Panda
No.
not the most insightful reply, but, oh well, ty anyway
No we should stay as we are its worked for hundreds of years
This would be horrific. You would never ending battles between the only people who can be bothered to be obsessed with politics - those on the far left & right.
Just think of the cost in campaings and lobbying. Total waste of money
Just think of the cost in campaings and lobbying. Total waste of money
Like communism, it may be a good idea in principle but completely unworkable and impractical in the real world.
Original post by Kingslayer
It's interesting with the rise of populism and libertarian movements (on the left and right) over the past few years that the question of electoral reform is beginning to be raised. We're now in a time of referendums, leaning towards getting proportional representation and serious questions are getting asked about the legitimacy of politicians, given events like the Iraq war, academisation, and what's happening to the NHS are making people even more cynical.
What I was wondering is: could the UK become a 'pure' democracy and would it function well? Obviously a constitution would be required (and voted on). Perhaps education would be mandatory so every person in the country would have to visit an education center on basic economics/business/politics to ensure that people aren't voting irrationally.
As for how it would work, I'm thinking that if we had all of the UK countries split up in to local zones where electronic centres could be established OR the internet could be used to suggest laws. Perhaps a tree diagram of current UK laws would be available, where people could bring up different issues on a local or national level. If these suggestions became petitions that gained a significant level of support, referendums could be held.
Pros: -Every person can be listened to and the views of everyone are included
-The situation of being in a 'tory seat' and voting labour or vice versa is reduced
-Rather than relying on manifestos, people are more likely to suggest interesting areas for the budget of the country: perhaps investing in space research instead of funding a railway scheme, or creating huge nation-wide projects in neuroscience.
-Corruption reduced. 'Establishment' career politicians creating policies just for votes and maintaining their career rather than pushing forward political issues that they believe in.
Cons:
-Issue faced by the Americans when setting up the United States: 'tyranny of the majority' where perhaps if a referendum favored a huge majority, the minorities could be completely neglected
-Lack of education among electorate. Easy to joke about when you're talking about certain members of the British public :P , but in all seriousness, most people may not be bothered/able to understand issues facing the country every week
-VERY hard to maintain.
so yeah, was wondering what you guys think on this issue, thanks
What I was wondering is: could the UK become a 'pure' democracy and would it function well? Obviously a constitution would be required (and voted on). Perhaps education would be mandatory so every person in the country would have to visit an education center on basic economics/business/politics to ensure that people aren't voting irrationally.
As for how it would work, I'm thinking that if we had all of the UK countries split up in to local zones where electronic centres could be established OR the internet could be used to suggest laws. Perhaps a tree diagram of current UK laws would be available, where people could bring up different issues on a local or national level. If these suggestions became petitions that gained a significant level of support, referendums could be held.
Pros: -Every person can be listened to and the views of everyone are included
-The situation of being in a 'tory seat' and voting labour or vice versa is reduced
-Rather than relying on manifestos, people are more likely to suggest interesting areas for the budget of the country: perhaps investing in space research instead of funding a railway scheme, or creating huge nation-wide projects in neuroscience.
-Corruption reduced. 'Establishment' career politicians creating policies just for votes and maintaining their career rather than pushing forward political issues that they believe in.
Cons:
-Issue faced by the Americans when setting up the United States: 'tyranny of the majority' where perhaps if a referendum favored a huge majority, the minorities could be completely neglected
-Lack of education among electorate. Easy to joke about when you're talking about certain members of the British public :P , but in all seriousness, most people may not be bothered/able to understand issues facing the country every week
-VERY hard to maintain.
so yeah, was wondering what you guys think on this issue, thanks
We are free enough to vote however the heck we want to vote whether someone deems it 'irrational' or not. As soon as you start controlling which people can vote based on how they vote is the moment you become a tyrannous dictatorship with whoever is in charge of the educational centres being the one who decides who can and can't vote.
No thanks. The last time we tried direct democracy half the country wet themselves, shrieked about how awful democracy was and just generally became insufferable. That's basically put me off direct democracy.
Communism is evil in practice and in theory.
Original post by Duncan2012
Like communism, it may be a good idea in principle but completely unworkable and impractical in the real world.
Communism is evil in practice and in theory.
Rule by media? No thanks
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'd like for you to explain how this is practically possible. If you want it in terms of Athenian direct democracy it's never going to work as our society now and back then is radically different.
We have elements of direct democracy such as referendums, but after the EU referendum result I think I'm fairly safe in saying i) I don't trust the public with anything and ii) We won't be having another referendum for a while.
As much as I enjoy the principle the average member of the public is too moronic to have such responsibility placed upon them.
We have elements of direct democracy such as referendums, but after the EU referendum result I think I'm fairly safe in saying i) I don't trust the public with anything and ii) We won't be having another referendum for a while.
As much as I enjoy the principle the average member of the public is too moronic to have such responsibility placed upon them.
I think it's certainly an interesting comment on society that we trust politicians more than ourselves to dictate policies.
The average voter is nowhere near educated enough to understand politics, economics, etc. Myself included. I criticise politicians like the next man but I doubt I'd be able to do their job half as effectively. Most people just vote for what their parents voted for because they were raises that way, even if all the evidence points to the other party being best. It is a stupid system, but I guess it's damage control over the endemic stupid lmao.
What i do think is that parties should have to be made accountable for not sticking to their manifesto promises. Situations change, it's ok to change your stance on policies - but more most be done to hold them to their promises if they cannot prove a reason for not sticking to it. E.g. lower tuition fees, benefits, etc.
The average voter is nowhere near educated enough to understand politics, economics, etc. Myself included. I criticise politicians like the next man but I doubt I'd be able to do their job half as effectively. Most people just vote for what their parents voted for because they were raises that way, even if all the evidence points to the other party being best. It is a stupid system, but I guess it's damage control over the endemic stupid lmao.
What i do think is that parties should have to be made accountable for not sticking to their manifesto promises. Situations change, it's ok to change your stance on policies - but more most be done to hold them to their promises if they cannot prove a reason for not sticking to it. E.g. lower tuition fees, benefits, etc.
Possibly the worst idea ever thought of.
One of the worst innovations by government of recent times has been the parliamentary e-Petitions. The idea that if you get x number of signatures you can get parliament to think about a debate.
Well, that plays totally into the hands of the morally outraged Facebook user. You can get 50,000 signatures on just about anything, but getting 50,000 people to oppose something that they have no clue about is quite tough - so you'd get all sorts of bizarre things being passed in direct democracy, simply because the sensible people who should be opposing it have no clue what's going on.
There are probably a hardcore of 500,000 really pissed off people in the country- the hardcore trouble makers who will back Corbyn to the death and want revolution. At any given time, you could probably get 100,000 of them to vote on just about any mad scheme you'd care to name.Finding people to oppose them and vote them down constantly would be really hard as it would be an ongoing and daily process. On the other hand, tell them that they only have to do it once every five years- they'll turn up to trounce the Trots and then go back to their normal lives. What they won't do is have some kind of Athenian engagement in daily politicking
Similarly, you can never underestimate the dickhead vote - the number of people doing something for a laugh - even if individually. Take for example Boaty McBoatface or the Jedi Knight thing on the census. People are "having a laugh" -but will vote in huge numbers for it. If there is no legislative process to stop this kind of thing, you would get embarrassingly stupid things happening all the time.
One of the worst innovations by government of recent times has been the parliamentary e-Petitions. The idea that if you get x number of signatures you can get parliament to think about a debate.
Well, that plays totally into the hands of the morally outraged Facebook user. You can get 50,000 signatures on just about anything, but getting 50,000 people to oppose something that they have no clue about is quite tough - so you'd get all sorts of bizarre things being passed in direct democracy, simply because the sensible people who should be opposing it have no clue what's going on.
There are probably a hardcore of 500,000 really pissed off people in the country- the hardcore trouble makers who will back Corbyn to the death and want revolution. At any given time, you could probably get 100,000 of them to vote on just about any mad scheme you'd care to name.Finding people to oppose them and vote them down constantly would be really hard as it would be an ongoing and daily process. On the other hand, tell them that they only have to do it once every five years- they'll turn up to trounce the Trots and then go back to their normal lives. What they won't do is have some kind of Athenian engagement in daily politicking
Similarly, you can never underestimate the dickhead vote - the number of people doing something for a laugh - even if individually. Take for example Boaty McBoatface or the Jedi Knight thing on the census. People are "having a laugh" -but will vote in huge numbers for it. If there is no legislative process to stop this kind of thing, you would get embarrassingly stupid things happening all the time.
(edited 7 years ago)
Sounds a bit like bitnation, what you're describing.
Direct Democracy isn't all its cracked up to be. I agree that it's good to have referendums on big political issues such as the EU referendum and the Scottish Referendum, but having referendums on a whole load of political issues won't work. People will get sick of going to the ballot box as we've seen in Scotland with 4 big votes within the space of 2 years.
After every big referendum or general election, the question gets raised of should we change our electoral system, then it all settles down again. We had an electoral system referendum in 2011 and majority voted in favour of keeping our current system
Original post by Kingslayer
Not at all. You already mention the tyranny of the majority. If you're on the losing side, your views aren't taken into account at all. Your views are specifically ignored.
-Rather than relying on manifestos, people are more likely to suggest interesting areas for the budget of the country: perhaps investing in space research instead of funding a railway scheme, or creating huge nation-wide projects in neuroscience.
Nah. Given the awful quality of debate in the recent EU referendum, I imagine half the votes would cover demands to reveal non-existent conspiracies and the other half oppressing minorities and expelling migrants and refugees.
-Corruption reduced. 'Establishment' career politicians creating policies just for votes and maintaining their career rather than pushing forward political issues that they believe in.
The 'establishment' such as it exists as some kind of monolithic entity, manipulated the public into voting the leave the EU based on a low-information, conspiracy-theory ridden, scaremongering campaign.
Would never work with a population of 65 million, it's far too expensive, people lack sufficient education to vote on complex issues and people would get apathetic very soon which would enable only the dedicated morons at the far ends of the spectrum to essentially decide legislation.
good opinions guys, its obviously a HUGE stretch to put this kind of thing in to place given the way our world currently operates, and I agree that you're going to encounter problems with large numbers of people. But having the power to scrutinize politicians could be better, no?
Original post by Kingslayer
X
Not for the vast majority of issues. Major constitutional questions should be settled by referenda; everything else should be determined by representative democracy.
Besides, with all the Trumpite/Corbynite cultists running around these days I'd prefer a somewhat more paternalistic hand on the rudder rather than allowing them to drive us off the cliff into demagogic authoritarianism
Original post by Kingslayer
-Lack of education among electorate. Easy to joke about when you're talking about certain members of the British public :P , but in all seriousness, most people may not be bothered/able to understand issues facing the country every week
-Lack of education among electorate. Easy to joke about when you're talking about certain members of the British public :P , but in all seriousness, most people may not be bothered/able to understand issues facing the country every week
This. In a direct democracy you would see suicidally dumb decisions like Brexit made by the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, economically illiterate, xenophobic public every day. Leave the important decisions to highly intelligent and educated elites.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Participation crisis essay
- Should i vote Labour?
- Your Perfect Country
- Please can someone help me with some feedback on my lnat practice essay?
- Can someone please give me feedback on my A-Level Politics essay?
- politics essay help please
- Pls give feedback on this essay!
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- How to become a prescriber?
- A level Edexcel Politics
- Where should I study Architecture?
- Can I become a teacher with a Msc
- QTS only, no PGCE
- Higher modern studies
- marriage
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
- A-level Politics Study Group 2023-2024
- is my lnat essay bad?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
