Re:Anti-corruption shortfalls fuelling ‘global democracy cri...
by int_19h on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @07:09PM
(#19031251)
In any democracy, most people ultimately vote on what's put in front of them by somebody else. It can just as well be "vague generalizations".
Re:Anti-corruption shortfalls fuelling ‘global democracy cri...
by dragonwriter on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @07:38PM
(#19031449)
In a direct democracy it can't be vague generalizations that the actual rulers, who are distinct from the electorate, get to choose whether and how to apply and whether or not the electorate can reconsider it, because if there are actual rulers distinct from the electorate it's not a direct democracy.
Brexit is not a failure of direct democracy.
Re:Anti-corruption shortfalls fuelling ‘global democracy cri...
by int_19h on Wednesday January 30, 2019 @05:00PM
(#19040025)
There is no pure direct democracy at scale. You're still going to delegate authority to people doing things, and rely on their expert opinions when it comes to what to vote on.
But in any case, in a direct democracy, if enough people want to vote on something, they can, regardless of how stupid it is. That would include Brexit etc.
Re:Anti-corruption shortfalls fuelling ‘global democracy cri...
by wav-part on Tuesday January 29, 2019 @09:06PM
(#19031966)
How does a democracy (or any governance system backed by public will) survive if there is a 50/50 split in public will ?
Re:Anti-corruption shortfalls fuelling ‘global democracy cri...
by dllthomas on Wednesday January 30, 2019 @12:49PM
(#19037354)
If that split is over something with no middle ground, that every person considers more important than everything else put together (including survival of the democracy), then it quite simply doesn't.
Otherwise, if it's to survive, it does so by compromise, tradeoffs, bargaining, and leaving many people at least a little unhappy but not enough people unhappy enough to dismantle the system.
Brexit wasn't direct democracy; the public vote was a non-binding referendum submitted as an electoral strategum by the elected government, which then quit in favor of a new government of the same psrty, which decided—though in no way legally compelled to—to treat the vote as if it were a binding order in order to pass responsibility off onto someone other than itself.
In an actual direct democracy, the people would vote on the actual policy details, not vague generalizations only if and when it seemed likely to serve the political strategy of the ruling officials.