So I know what direct democracy is as opposed to representative democracy. It's where citizens make votes directly as opposed to depending on their representatives. Like the ancient Athenians but where women are allowed to participate and there are no slaves. Back then the requirements for being a voting citizen were extremely restrictive (like only people who have served in the military may vote). So direct democracy is becoming a very hot subject of discussion recently. Sometimes we have direct democracy in referendums. But referendums only come occasionally. Except in the case of Switzerland where referendums are held regularly. Some laws are made by the legislature while others are made by the people. Another way to implement more direct democracy is to have fewer voters per representative. For example the legislature of Prince Edward Island in Canada has one legislator per 5000 voters. But if we want truly direct democracy could somebody please explain how it will be structured? I have no idea how it will work. Do all farmers, industrial workers, people in the service industry, small business owners and countless other citizens drop what they are doing once in a while to go to a town hall to cast a vote? Issues need to be debated and laws need to be carefully worded. One person who promoted direct democracy once told me it's as easy as casting a vote on an Internet poll. No it's not. What about the people not consulted? You need to alert every voter in a country or region that a vote is to be cast on a certain issue. And what about debating the issues before casting a vote. I'll climb the direct democracy bandwagon as soon as somebody gives me a detailed description of how it would work. Also aren't police, judges, military and your head of state in some way representatives of YOUR made laws?
Simply redesign every TV, cell phone and vehicle to require that the users cast any pending ballots before the item will function. This would guarantee nearly 100% participation.
Beyond a small group, it's the worst idea ever. For an example, a few years ago in Florida, it was relatively simple to get a Constitutional amendment passed by a referendum. We ended up with Amendments that regulate the size of pregnant pig enclosures, and a virtually unworkable school class size amendment that eliminated a lot of higher level high school classes.
Lol.....switzerland apparently achieve less than 50% partipation in most referenda! The Swiss face the same challenges as every other voting individual in other countries in terms of understanding certain policy and will look to the most convincing and honest argument to make their judgement! Many attribute Switzerlands prosperity based on this system, but I'm not convinced of this argument!
I should have been more specific in my first post: I mean citizens become lawmakers directly as opposed to representatives making the laws.
That was what my criticism was about. Citizenry making laws (in my case constitutional amendments) results in laws that are impractical--i.e. the FL class size amendment.
Look into liquid democracy in Germany. They are working on this right now. Basically, it is government by cell phone. An issue comes up for a vote on your cell phone, and you vote. "Do you want a tax cut?", "Do we ban products made in China?" So on and so on . . .
Who proposes the legislation? How long does one have to make up their minds before casting their vote? Does not the proposed law need to be carefully worded so the citizen will know what they are voting on? What about debate so as to help in making the right decision as well as amendments?
The key is "who proposes the legislation" and "How does an issue get on a referendum?" Either way, it's just as easy for special interests to manipulate this as anything else.
To tell you the truth. I am not an expert on liquid democracy. I just saw you asking the question so I made the suggestion that Germany might be the place to look at. The political movement is gaining a lot of steam in Germany. Last I checked, they are grappling with all sorts of practical question like the ones you are asking. But one thing is for sure. They are going ahead with cell phone democracy.
Thanks all for your views. Shifting gears slightly, what do the people of this forum think of having less voters per lawmaker/representative. Like in some South-Pacific nations they have one MP per 500 voters. Obviously because their populations are tiny but it got me thinking about the advantages; a lawmaker can have a truly strong connection to their constituents, it will be easier for them to consult voters to help him/her make decisions and your vote is all the more valued at elections. While it is true that this is not TRULY direct democracy, it gets as close as possible to it. Problems will arise with the legislature being gigantic in bigger countries. But it would mean the reduction of the salary of lawmakers and I've seen buildings that can comfortably fit thousands of people.
The problem is that our House is probably about as big as practically possible. Ever been on a committee that tries to plan something? The larger the committee, the harder it is.
