People not allowed to wote on laws. Is it DEMOCRACY?

Rasputin_RU

Rasputin_RU

Rasputin_RU

Associate
Joined
20 Nov 2006
Posts
45
You know funny thing is that in most of the world people do not get thier ight to wote on laws, only on polititions with thier policies.
However in Holland people vote them self, like a while ago on a law on speeding, and should penalty be increased.
Is that not a democratic way?
Country we live in is ours. We should choose.
 
We vote in the politicians so that they can maker the laws. That's the whole point of management.

Its like a committee, an organisation votes on it's members and they make the rules.
 
Would this include statutory instruments? If so we'd be voting every two seconds, which would lead to the only people actually bothering to vote being OAP's and the jobless - hardly representational.

fini
 
fini said:
Would this include statutory instruments? If so we'd be voting every two seconds, which would lead to the only people actually bothering to vote being OAP's and the jobless - hardly representational.

fini
Click to expand...

I agree on the look of it it looks complicated and difficult, but other countries manege it, the system could be worked out to do it in some sort of few things at the time.
Politicians a lot in here and back home, they promice but do not deliver. Do we forget about it, but if there was different way and we could choose our own way and would not need so many lying politicians, who spend most of money on policies.?
 
If we directly voted on everything (and of course, it could never be everything, it could only be a sizeable proportion of things that politicians decided were important) we could very easily end up with completely incoherant policy and decisions based on what the Daily Mail happens to say in any particular week. We vote for who we think is best to run the country - running the country is a big job and we need people dedicated to doing it!

Just my opinion.
 
what each citizen should have is like one of these digital-quadroband wrist band thingies and when a vote comes up on the little screen like.

"do you want to ban smoking everywhere"

you can press YES or NO" the information is then sent back to central office and analysed and whatever the majority is is made LAW. (you would also be ble to view possible theoretical consequences for whichever way you choose to vote)

Secondly there would have to be a team of people (thinktanks) who would make sure that the issues being voted on are relevant and that the questions are expressed in a clear and unbiased way so that the average joe on the street can exercise their constitutional rights without being misled or whatever.

Also on this fancy wrist device if you wanted you would be able to view/download more information on the issue. Basically it would do a Ultra-super-google meta search and then deliver a number of key peer-reviewed documents and articles on the subject which you could peruse before voting.

And if there is a problem with not having enough time to vote then at the start of each day you would see the list of possible laws to be voted on that day and you could select which ones you want to have a say in and suchlike. (they're all divided into categories like Health, Social and Transport etc)

The great thing about it is it does away with all politicians except a few administrators who just make sure the system is running smoothly...

hrmm...... :) /me ponders SOUNDS GREAT EHH!!! :D

me presses button on wristband YES IT DOES!
 
<beep> Should we spend several billion pounds kitting everyone out with expensive super voting watches that idiots will break, chavs will steal and geeks will load linux on to?
Yes[] No[]
You have selected 'No'<beep>

fini
 
Ah but how much of the public would need

Phone a friend
Ask the audience
or
50/50 in order to make a decision?
 
Surfer said:
what each citizen should have is like one of these digital-quadroband wrist band thingies and when a vote comes up on the little screen like.

"do you want to ban smoking everywhere"

you can press YES or NO" the information is then sent back to central office and analysed and whatever the majority is is made LAW. (you would also be ble to view possible theoretical consequences for whichever way you choose to vote)
Click to expand...

I love the idea.
and it could work.
and the power would be devided between people rather making polititians figh who is stronger or more powerfull, weather go to war or not. ETC.
Click yes if you want to go to Iraq.
 
Over Clocker said:
We vote in the politicians so that they can maker the laws. That's the whole point of management.

Its like a committee, an organisation votes on it's members and they make the rules.
Click to expand...

But in a committee, you get to vote on all the 'laws', or rules. It happens at the AGM where everyone raises a hand to agree to a rule change.
 
The problem you run into in this situation is what has happened in California where the electorate not only votes on individual laws but can also demand that laws are put on the ballot paper. They now, by law, have to spend a set percentage of the state's tax take on education and fixed sums on a number of other initiatives to the extent that it's not actually possible to balance the books!
 
Surfer said:
what each citizen should have is like one of these digital-quadroband wrist band thingies and when a vote comes up on the little screen like.

"do you want to ban smoking everywhere"

you can press YES or NO" the information is then sent back to central office and analysed and whatever the majority is is made LAW. (you would also be ble to view possible theoretical consequences for whichever way you choose to vote)

Secondly there would have to be a team of people (thinktanks) who would make sure that the issues being voted on are relevant and that the questions are expressed in a clear and unbiased way so that the average joe on the street can exercise their constitutional rights without being misled or whatever.

Also on this fancy wrist device if you wanted you would be able to view/download more information on the issue. Basically it would do a Ultra-super-google meta search and then deliver a number of key peer-reviewed documents and articles on the subject which you could peruse before voting.

And if there is a problem with not having enough time to vote then at the start of each day you would see the list of possible laws to be voted on that day and you could select which ones you want to have a say in and suchlike. (they're all divided into categories like Health, Social and Transport etc)

The great thing about it is it does away with all politicians except a few administrators who just make sure the system is running smoothly...

hrmm...... :) /me ponders SOUNDS GREAT EHH!!! :D

me presses button on wristband YES IT DOES!
Click to expand...


Does it make toast though? :eek:
 
The public vote for the person who represent their views in office as their local MP, then the local MP votes for Laws in Parliment, hence it is call the House of Commons (As in Commoners :) as opposed to House of Lords ) So it is democracy as in theory it is the public who is voting on the law being passed. If every average joe is required to vote for every law then no one would get anything done, not to mention they would have no idea the impact that particular law would have on the respective section of the public. Nor would they have the clue on actually understanding what the bill is actually passed, there are a lot of legal jargon there.

I can't remember the actual number of legislations Labour have passed since they took office but it is in the thousands, some of those are "little ones". However technically they are all as important as each other as in the UK there is no Constitution so every law is on a level playing field (Where in Germany and the US the Constition holds a higher status above all other laws). Is that mean the public will have to vote for every law? Or should there be a slot everyday for phone in like a game show to vote for a bill or 30 bills that is being passed that day ?
 
Last edited:
Rasputin_RU said:
You know funny thing is that in most of the world people do not get thier ight to wote on laws, only on polititions with thier policies.
However in Holland people vote them self, like a while ago on a law on speeding, and should penalty be increased.
Is that not a democratic way?
Country we live in is ours. We should choose.
Click to expand...

Im sorry to say i hate people like you.
 
Johanson said:
Can you imagine reading through all the documentation and having to find out all the details of a new law? Most people wouldn't want to.
Click to expand...

not only they wouldn't want to, even if they wanted to, they wouln't have a clue what it is saying. A lot of people can't even spell correctly, legal jargon might as well be German as it would simply go over most people's heads.
 
Direct voting on every issue = Mob rule.

Mob rule is generally considered a bad idea because everyone has minority views on something or other, and under such a system, everyone loses out as the majority can cancel them out.

Of course, if our democracy system was more aligned to the desires of the people (by, for example, replacing first past the post voting with proportional representation), we'd generally end up with better laws anyway.

Historically, democracy meaning one person one vote is a new invention, really only the last hundred years or so...
 
Johanson said:
Can you imagine reading through all the documentation and having to find out all the details of a new law? Most people wouldn't want to.
Click to expand...


this is where the wristband (c) comes in though. All the legal jargon of the law is processed into readable summary format (you can even filter the format depending on what you want to see e.g. The Sun format, The Guardian format, The Daily Mail format and so on) and then when you download it to your wristband or other digital - wifi device you can see it and it is tailored to the location you downloaded it from. That is, it would indicate how it would affect your own community.

The costs wouldnt be that much in a few years (due to rollout of ultra high speed broadband: think of a global wifi environment and all these wristbands being community local wifi enabled devices). Whats the point of technology if you dont use it to change the way society works for the better. :D

The problem of there being too many laws to possibly having time to vote on. Well we could still have some kind of national decision-making body but all local policy could be decided by the local communities? (without the need for councillors and mayors - they would be replaced by a few administrators who just ensure smooth running of the system)


Or what we could have is instead of everyone having to vote on all laws everywhere. When you first boot up the device you have to fill out a questionnaire type thing which identifies whether you are right-wing left-wing and you can customize it so you could indicate that you are soft on immigration or whatever. But you would be able to indicate on the touchscreen which areas of policy you are most concerned with (e.g. you are a farmer so you are concerned with agricultural laws and food laws etc) But its all customizable so you can change your mind. Basically you enter a profile of yourself and it votes for you (automated) unless the particular law has a significant theoretical impact on other areas which you might want to be notified of (ie you want to make a conscious vote on the law instead of letting the machine vote according to your prescribed preferences)

You see the good thing about it is: it gets rid of politicians and their twaddle and corruption and it necessarily involves everyone in running the country.

(you can choose to what extent you want to be involved and you can have the device notify you only if a law is about to be passed which will directly affect you for example you are a smoker and there is a vote on smoking in pubs then the device alerts you to this)

Any other problems? Or can i start petitioning parliament already :p
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom