tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6061413341671693609.post902916283029298543..comments2023-05-17T15:43:43.790+01:00Comments on Musings On Liberty: Police StateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6061413341671693609.post-78074346812332869972009-03-08T23:09:00.000+00:002009-03-08T23:09:00.000+00:00I could see that approach working too.I could see that approach working too.Paul Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201807319614893054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6061413341671693609.post-91930783306547877382009-03-08T18:16:00.000+00:002009-03-08T18:16:00.000+00:00I could quite happily go along with that manifesto...I could quite happily go along with that manifesto. Looks very good indeed.<BR/><BR/>Re the upper house, a thought I did have a while back was having local councils elect a leader to sit in the upper house. The indirect elections provides some degree of separation.Vindicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13966077915620078085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6061413341671693609.post-85887781936363385182009-03-08T18:08:00.000+00:002009-03-08T18:08:00.000+00:00"So in your view is the solution simply to make th..."So in your view is the solution simply to make the executive and parliament more accountable, and to limit the power of the state, but still sticking to the system of representative democracy?"<BR/><BR/>In essence, yes. The five key steps I think would bring the most improvement are:<BR/><BR/>1. Establish a written constitution limiting state power.<BR/><BR/>2. Have the lower house elected by STV, to give more proportionality without ingraining the role of parties into the system.<BR/><BR/>3. Directly elect the executive. It isn't something I'd considered previously, but I think the case you've put forward is strong.<BR/><BR/>4. Have the members of the upper house either randomly selected or elected for a single term, after which the members are barred from standing in any public election. That would ensure the house would be able to provide an effective check on the lower house without being swayed by electoral pressures.<BR/><BR/>5. Use some kind of jury system to decide on issues where the full-time representatives would have a conflict of interest, such as MPs salaries.<BR/><BR/>"I am not sure I agree entirely, and would look to the experience of Switzerland where direct democracy seems to work broadly quite well."<BR/><BR/>It does seem to, although the constitutional requirement (as I understand it) for referenda to be called only on receipt of a petition signed by a large number of the electorate does at least prevent them being used for politically expedient reasons by the government. I think that highlights one of the major problems with referenda - they are only practical if used infrequently, which in some ways can make them undemocratic, by taking some people's pet issues out of the normal political process.Paul Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201807319614893054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6061413341671693609.post-70849045818333923052009-03-08T13:08:00.000+00:002009-03-08T13:08:00.000+00:00Paul, You make a very interesting point.So in your...Paul, You make a very interesting point.<BR/><BR/>So in your view is the solution simply to make the executive and parliament more accountable, and to limit the power of the state, but still sticking to the system of representative democracy?<BR/><BR/>I am not sure I agree entirely, and would look to the experience of Switzerland where direct democracy seems to work broadly quite well.Vindicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13966077915620078085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6061413341671693609.post-62480193087937047212009-03-08T12:11:00.000+00:002009-03-08T12:11:00.000+00:00I agree that most people are not going to research...<I>I agree that most people are not going to research the intricacies of a particular issue, and that there is little point if their vote is unlikely to make a difference, but surely that is also the case for General elections? Even more so in fact?!</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely, but at least the system ensures that the people we put into parliament, however poor a choice they may be, have the time and sufficient incentive to come up with decisions which won't lead to total disaster. I don't like the fact that so much of my life is controlled by majority decision making, but at least the system gives me some protection against total mob rule.<BR/><BR/><I>In reality those people who are interested would do the research and launch campaigns to persuade voters. It doesn't matter if those who don't care don't vote since they will accept the result</I><BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, those who don't really care will often vote anyway and perhaps even more dangerously, people who have strong opinions which aren't based on any kind of research or understanding will vote too.<BR/><BR/><I>referendums give those who do care a chance to have their say.</I><BR/><BR/>If we decided everything by referendum, it would do, but I don't see that being practical. If you have referenda on a select few issues, then you can end up disenfranchising some. When we vote for a party, it invariably has some policies we agree with and others we don't. If the party I vote for gets into power and then puts one of the policies I liked to a referendum, then I've effectively been robbed of my vote. Of course, a party could put a referendum as a manifesto commitment, but that just seems like a cop out. If I'm paying somebody to make decisions, I don't want them throwing the responsibility back to me when the decisions get tough.<BR/><BR/><I>As for juries, is that not basically Parliament, or your local council? I.e. representatives who make a decision?</I><BR/><BR/>Except for the method of selection. If I was in court, I'd have more faith in a randomly chosen jury to reach the right decision than I would in an elected jury.Paul Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201807319614893054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6061413341671693609.post-45117286688588531062009-03-07T18:49:00.000+00:002009-03-07T18:49:00.000+00:00I agree that most people are not going to research...I agree that most people are not going to research the intricacies of a particular issue, and that there is little point if their vote is unlikely to make a difference, but surely that is also the case for General elections? Even more so in fact?!<BR/><BR/>In reality those people who are interested would do the research and launch campaigns to persuade voters. It doesn't matter if those who don't care don't vote since they will accept the result - referendums give those who do care a chance to have their say.<BR/><BR/>As for juries, is that not basically Parliament, or your local council? I.e. representatives who make a decision?Vindicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13966077915620078085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6061413341671693609.post-7222373047133078542009-03-07T18:36:00.000+00:002009-03-07T18:36:00.000+00:00I'm warming to the idea of a directly elected exec...I'm warming to the idea of a directly elected executive, but I'm still fundamentally opposed to widespread referenda.<BR/><BR/>Even if information is widely available, there is still a serious risk with direct democracy that people will take little notice of it and cast an ill-considered vote. The two biggest reasons for that are time shortages (the average person can't dedicate as much time to researching the issues as a full-time representative) and rational ignorance (if your vote is one of many millions, it is logically a waste of time to extensively research an issue when your vote is exceedingly unlikely to make a difference).<BR/><BR/>If there's a reason to take a particular decision away from elected representatives, I'd much rather see it given to a jury than put to a referendum.Paul Locketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201807319614893054noreply@blogger.com