Has the time come for Direct Democracy?
 

We've seen a fair bit of discussion already in the various election threads about how big a disconnect there was between the relatively high number of votes cast for some of the parties and the relatively low levels of representation this translated into in terms of seats, and we all know this kind of outcome is always a definite possibility with a FPTP system. The question is, would switching to some kind of PR really be enough to bring democracy into the 21st Century? Two or three hundred years ago, when it took days for a horse messenger to travel from one end of the country to the capital, and when the majority of the population still couldn't read and write, it made perfect sense that the task of debating and taking decisions about how the country was managed was left in the hands of an elected body of representatives. Jump forward to the present age of instant mass digital communication though, and there would be nothing technically to prevent every decision currently taken by those representatives to instead be voted on by each and every adult in the country at the simple click of a button. You obviously wouldn't want a switch from one system to another to happen overnight, as it would be a recipe for chaos, but in the longer term, is it realistic or desirable to put off a gradual move towards this?

Proportional representation only lots of coalitions, therefore nothing gets done.

Imagine if we had that now. Some want cuts, some don't. Stalemate, nothing gets done.

Some want Trident replaced, some don't. Stalemate, nothing gets done.

UKIP had over 12% of the vote, yet only have one seat. Some would say it's unfair, but first past the post means at least we get a manifesto that a party had lead with.

^^^ This

You mean the majority have to live with the minority's manifesto?

The last coalition was the first majority government in decades, they got loads done

Anarchy brigade are out in force then.

If the partys had that much support they would have one, just accept they didnt have enough support and move on.

Right, so out of four posts so far, we've got three one way or another making the point that proportional representation isn't the answer. Can't any of you useless fekkers read, or has the meaning of the word direct somehow completely escaped you? :wonder::D

No, in a word

Simply (digital) mob rule

No. Unfortunately most (not all) of society needs leaders and people to lay out ground rules. If not the world would be a mess. As much as we all have our own political views and agree/ disagree with different parties ideas you cannot deny that the people behind these ideas are well educated, have studied our country for years, made it their life's work to be a leader. Imagine letting those scummy p****s from benefits street having a say on how our country is ran? Why you think labour had such a bad time at the election? They appealed to poor, benefit claiming people and no one else. And guess what? No one voted for them because lazy twats don't go to voting offices and they don't care about politics in any way shape or form. Letting people like that have their say on how a whole nation is ran would be idiotic and turn into absolute chaos.

Couple hundred years ago, Wellingtons time, the common man didn't even have a vote!

I think your post is mixing what people understand as Proportional Representation (PR) and some sort of direct voting method.

Jasper Carrot recently suggested he would stand for MP, then simply put every vote out to his constituents. He wouldn't actually be a member of a party as such and just vote the way he was told to. I thought that might actually work nowadays if you are online. And why not? Everyone would them get a vote for the particular issue at hand.

I suppose you could then extend this and simply put every vote to everyone and simply get rid of a majority of the MP's, just having small core parties putting policies forwards for votes to the general public in booths in the high street.

But it's not going to solve the fundamental issue that seems to be coming up (and certainly after this election).

The Minority simply don't like the fact that a majority have voted something in. Even if one says that this is due to our first past the post system. Even if you some how changed it to a PR system, it won't change with any other type as the 49% will claim that they didn't vote for something and then probably point out any overall turn out issues.

But there were lots of parties with different idea's. First past the post means we get a Government with one manifesto, and a clear direction in how they want to lead the country.


Just because `your party` didn't get in, doesn't mean we should all change how we vote. If labour had got in, there wouldn't be mass cries wanting the voting system changed, as they'd then be happy Labour were in power.

Not a good idea, IMO.Most of the population have no idea of what is good for a country or the real meaning of what they would be asked to vote for.

The current system isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than that!

Well intentioned but just shoves the problem down the line.

Say he gives he lends his vote out to wether or not the HSC gets the nod or not, presumably the only way to decide would be by another vote and if its 49% to 51% each way that's 49% either way still pissed off

As usual the only people whingeing about PR are those who lost

get rid of all political partys, mp's vote how their constituants want them to vote, not what their party leader tells them to would be a good start.

direct voting also has draw backs, but as above, those who lost are doing the moaning.

See I said that in a thread about the EU referendum and was accused of being an elitist arse hole. :lol1:

A lot of people who were considering voting for a 'smaller' party won't knowing full well they can't get a seat using the FPTP system - so end up voting for the 'better' of the larger parties.

If PR was used I suspect the outcome may have been quite different!

Whatever happens the whole system needs an overhaul of some sort (IMHO)!

The overhaul came and went !


A year ago it was almost guaranteed by everyone and his son that we would never again be have three choices and the same old same old



And what happened when it came down to the people



Absolutely nothing , of course

You have a strange concept of democracy

There are ways this could be mitigated against. For example, for every decision that would be put to a direct vote, those wanting to participate would first have to take some kind of online test to prove they have a reasonable grasp of the subject matter at hand. Would that honestly be worse than some of the clowns we see inhabiting the House of Commons right now taking those decisions?

The problem is "those who lost" are 63% of the turnout. Only about a third of the vote went to the Tories, yet they have a majority in Parliament. That's not democracy, it's a stitch up.

How do you think a vote on taxation would go under this system?

Also who would decide the issues and choose the questions?

Taking your second question first, realistically you would have to maintain some kind of parliamentary system or equivalent representative body for the purposes of deciding what it was that people voted on. As for the questions, which I'm assuming you mean are the ones asked in the eligibility tests, these would be compiled by a cross-party committee or civil servants on behalf of the rep-body.

Moving on to the taxation question, I don't see how this would be vastly different from the kind of choice people routinely face under the present voting system. It's tempting to think that left to their own devices people would all vote to reduce taxes to some ridiculously low amount, but it's no less ridiculous to suggest either that a direct democracy system would allow such a thing to be put to a vote without clear explanation of the (extreme and dramatic) consequences. Would a majority really vote to effectively stop paying the Armed Force, Police, Ambulance Services, etc, just to keep an extra X amount of pounds in their pay-packet? I seriously doubt it.

Yes, I think they would, and that's just the people who are not already evading/avoiding tax, some on an industrial scale because due to PAYE they have very little opportunity

Problem is, most people want it all, but you can't have it all. The number of people who would be responsible and knowledgeable enough to be allowed to vote on it would be so small that people would cry foul and elitism anyway.

welcome to the euro referendum, vote on something that you have been force fed certain aspect's and not the actual whole picture

people are voting for their area, not nationally, don't loose sight of that.

If you did it another way then it would be decided in the big citys and smaller more rural areas would get no representation.

Good point - nicely put :thumb:

mb

FPTP only suits the "winning" party. PR would offer better representation. Obvious. I don't see anything wrong with coalition government, considering that's what we pretty much have anyway. Who thinks Cameron can do what he likes with such a small majority and a party split on so many issues?
Only consensus politics can offer any stability, and it's about time politicians put the people first.

Why don't we have a number of rounds? - so 12 parties start so after round one top party gets 34% of the vote so majority so half the parties drop out so round 2 top party get 40% of the vote so no majority so another couple of parties drop off so eventually you will get a party that has over 50% of the vote......ok it takes a couple of months but at least you will get a government with over 50% of the vote so the majority wont be governed by the minority........or be like America and have a Prime Minister from one party and the government with another party having the majority of MP's