NotApathetic is closed to new submissions. The site is available as an archive for you to browse. Find out more...

Not Apathetic

Tell the world why you're not voting - don't let your silence go unheard

They're not voting because...

Sack the lot and use Internet referenda...

Sack the lot and use Internet referenda. We vote every 4-5 years based on a set of promises (which aren't always kept unless you have a PhD in semantics) and on the assumption that the people we elect will deal with "matters arising" in a way we agree with. Then someone goes and has a war without so much as a referendum...

Re-employ the Parties and MPs as "Policy Proposal Groups" - give them websites and airtime equally as they do now (but for more parties). Then have a referendum on each issue at a regular interval - say 3 months. Job done...

I am convinced the only reason they don't want this is because they are afraid of what mass opinion can do and because without the "stability" of a long term of office, first past the post system run by a political elite it would all descend into chaos... and maybe they're right but I'd love to find out, wouldn't you?

If everybody wasn't afraid of being identified as themselves with a biometric ID card I could write the software for this in about a month.

written 18th Apr 2005

Responses

Matthew Brown replies: Well, there are a few problems with continuos referenda

1. You give the press much greater control on the way the country is run. You may as well give the prime-minister's job to Paul Dacre (editor of the Daily Mail).

2. There are a number of views of which there is a majority in favour but most rational arguments against, e.g. capital punishment. I would rather the decision be in the hands of people who's job it is to know the statistics and to debate the laws, rather than the public who are most often ignorant.

3. People would soon get bored of constant referenda, and it would waste an awful lot of time.

written 18th Apr 2005

Gavin replies: There are a massive number of holes in Labour's ID card plans. Check out The Register for some of the major issues. If they ever implement it, it'll be a massive waste of time and money and will, of course, make no difference to organised crime and torrorism, as Labour say it will.

written 19th Apr 2005

Michael Macpherson replies: While abolishing parliament may have momentary appeal, unless we wish to resort to the Guy
Fawkes method we must consider how to reform the system. Also, while acknowledging the
creativity of the above author who wrote "with a biometric ID card I could write the software
for this in about a month", we frankly do not need to rely on the talents of computer tekkis.
More advanced forms of democracy are already in use, well tried and tested, in countries
similar to our GB+NI. (Democracy and gov. of course may be aided by ICT.) I am referring to a
synthesis of direct democracy with the indirect, representative form (parties, parliaments
etc.). This involves the right of a large body of citizens to propose law, and that a law be
cancelled or vetoed. We envisage that proposals will usually go to council or parliament for
scrutiny and debate. Rejected proposals will go to referendum. Plenty of time is built into the
system for public debate and information. The concern that ill-considered decisions will be
made or that cruel punishments will be introduced is unwarranted. This long process involving
much debate and education is by no means the same as an opinion poll. Also, we now have laws
about human rights which would hinder the introduction of inhumane practices. For more detail
about democracy reform see
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org/
and to see how this works in other countries of Europe see http://www.iniref.org/conf.html

written 19th Apr 2005

Anonymous replies: " I could write the software for this in about a month."
A few years ago I created a website that did just what you're suggesting.
On the site each issue could be discussed and people could put their aguments for or against, there was the ability to add links to resources supporting your aruments.
The site was tested using the foxhunting debate which ran for a months with a vote at the end.

It took me about a week to create the site and it worked really with the single problem of only a very well.

There was also significant discussion as to how this type of government by referenda could be integrated with our current system.

RaZe

written 19th Apr 2005

Chas Newport replies: Thanks for the replies guys.

Matthew you see one of my points - TRUE democracy puts power in the hands of the 90 percentile who arguably don't know enough to be allowed to express an opinion (I don't necessarily think this I'm just kicking it around) This will make people act on emotion rather than logic and leaves them open to manipulation - that's what I meant by the "stability" of the first past the post system, lengthy terms of office and political elite. You have to consistently pound away at an argument in a disciplined and logical way to get it accepted. But it's slow and unresponsive. However, a large majority and a weak party can mess this up as 60-70% of the population can disagree but get the Government successfully going against them.

Gavin - what do you think of the other 80% of my message?

Michael - thanks, I'll investigate this further. I'm obviously taking an extreme view to stimulate a debate. But I really do think that voting every five years on a narrow set of proposals on the assumption that one of three sets on people will continue to make decisions youa agree with is crazy.

written 19th Apr 2005

Chas Newport replies: RaZe do you have a link to the site you wrote?

written 19th Apr 2005

Michael Macpherson replies: This IS a promising exchange. If Chas takes a look at the INIREF proposals for partial direct
democracy and we can review RaZe's project then the discussion can go on. For the moment I'll
just mention some progress in local democracy, real examples, which look good. Today I received
the announcement of a meeting which will be held in Berlin where I live some of the time. The
meeting is to discuss the plans to introduce some options of direct democracy (DD) in Berlin's
districts (Berlin is a city and federal state). Until now Berlin had no district DD and only
weak central DD. This would be a major advance. Why not have this in London and Glasgow? Then I
checked out the organisers of the meeting. It's a group of citizens' project from a district of
Berlin. Each of them has addressed some local issues. They have co-operated to form a network
which is presented in www, with info. about projects and online forum (could be improved, it
looks new). See http://www.buergerbuendnis.de/home.htm

written 19th Apr 2005

RaZe replies: Unfortunately I abandoned that project about 5 years ago due as there was noone seriously interested in working on it.
I have been considering creating a new 'Direct Democracy' simulation site for some time, but my current workload is pretty heavy so I wouldn't want to do it
unless there is anyone genuinely interested in the concept. If you are then you can email me at rafezetteratbtopenworlddotcom

RaZe

written 19th Apr 2005

Chas Newport replies: Remarkable... I have joined www.iniref.org I think this is a very good middle line between the extreme example I started this thread with and the concerns expressed about media manipulation.

It also doesn't involve sacking all the MPs and robbing them of their gold plated pensions so they might actually let us do it!

written 19th Apr 2005

RaZe replies: I agree, when I was working on this 5 years ago I was proposing keeping parliament and MP's but reducing their 'workload'
by handing some of the descision making back to the public, I was suggesting a synthesis between our current representative democracy and a more direct form of democracy whereby the public has a greater say, particularly on social issues.

A common argument against direct democracy is the belief that the public are not qualified to make many descisions, however the fact of the matter is that most MP's are not qualified either.
In both cases the descision makers would need to have access to expert opinion, and in either case they would then end up making the descision based on a combination of fact and emotion.

Another way of thinking about it is:
Does it matter wether or not we get the best outcome as long as we get the outcome that we want

In my concept there would be a proccess to decide who should make the choice parliament or the public. In either case it would be up to parliament to actually draft the law. The public would only choose the principals.

RaZe

written 19th Apr 2005

RaZe replies: It's all comming back now...

In the example used earlier (foxhunting)
It would be the public that decides wether or not it should be banned/allowed (the principal of the law)
Parliaments job would be to draft the legislation required to enact the peoples wishes.

Obviously there would be situations where it would be innapropriate for parliament to seek public opinion (emergency situations, natioan security matters, etc..) in which case we would simply have to trust their judgement and hold them to account later.

RaZe.

written 19th Apr 2005

Chas Newport replies: Michael I looked at the http://www.buergerbuendnis.de/home.htm site aber ich kann nicht Zehr gut Deutche sprekken - and my spelling probably sucks too. While I listen to my Michel Thomas German CDs again can you give us a flavour of the content...

written 19th Apr 2005

Chas Newport replies: RaZe I feel a meet coming on, we are of like mind... see my new thread "The Cabinet don't run the country anyway..."

written 20th Apr 2005

Matt B replies: Have a look at the Swiss Government http://www.eda.admin.ch/oslo_emb/e/home/geninf/gov.html
If you don't trust people to exercise a proper choice why give them a vote anyway?
It works well in Switzerland as often people listen to and follow the governments lead on major referenda. Our system patently isn't working well but we don't have the strength to reform it. The government can't even decide what to do with the second chamber. I also think this would work well in the EU; we might connect more across the superstate whilst still having a measure of national (read canton in Switzerland) control .

written 20th Apr 2005

michael hardern replies: Anonymous, please contact me as I have been looking for a webmaster to do just this.

michael@hardenm.fsnet.co.uk

written 20th Apr 2005

michael hardern replies: Anonymous, please contact me as I have been looking for a webmaster to do just this.

michael@hardenm.fsnet.co.uk

written 20th Apr 2005

Michael Macpherson replies: To get an impression of Swiss direct democracy, go to the main web site of government

http://www.admin.ch/ch/index.en.html

Then under "Selected topics", immediately following "Swiss Federal Constitution", you find

Political rights (Hey Presto!)

written 20th Apr 2005

Michael Macpherson replies: "Chas Newport replies: Michael I looked at the http://www.buergerbuendnis.de/home.htm site aber ich kann nicht Zehr gut Deutche sprekken"

What I like about this "buergerbuendnis" (network, association) is the combination of active citizen politics, showing concern for local issues, and the proposed introduction of *effective* local democracy with the right to citizens' initiative and referendum. This could prove to be a powerful and creative mixture.

People from outside of Germany are usually amazed to learn that there have been dramatic achievements in direct democracy, especially since 1990 and re-unification of the two "Germanies". In some Laender such as Hamburg and Bavaria there have been many successful "initiatives" which went to referendum. This applies at district/city as well as Land (state of the federation) levels. There's a group called "More Democracy" (some info in english) which campaigns for reform http://www.mehr-demokratie.de

written 20th Apr 2005

Michael Macpherson replies: Welcome!
Chas Newton really has joined
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
a campaign for direct democracy in Britain
http://www.iniref.org/

Take a look. We need active partners and supporting members to reboot our democracy!

Chas wrote: Remarkable... I have joined www.iniref.org I think this is a very good middle line between the extreme example I started this thread with and the concerns expressed about media manipulation.

written 20th Apr 2005

About Not Apathetic

NotApathetic was built so that people who are planning not to vote in the UK General Election on May 5th can tell the world why. We won't try to persuade you that voting is a good or a bad idea - we're just here to record and share your explanations. Whether ideological, practical or other, any reason will do.

A lot of users would like us to mention that if you spoil your ballot paper, it will be counted. So if you want to record a vote for "none of the above", you can.

Search