Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (412)	11/24/2000 8:44:29 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 37826

Thanks Greg.

To: Greg or e who wrote (412)	11/24/2000 6:57:37 PM
From: SofaSpud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37826

"Enough is enough." Quite right. A phrase that won't leave my head is "the consent of the governed." The trend in recent years has been to infer that consent for everything the governing party does has already been granted by virtue of the fact that they have the majority in parliament. And what the heck, it sounds like a nice arrangement for them, doesn't it? So who needs "direct democracy." In the main, direct democracy usually refers to: - referendums -- governments may be required to submit legislation to binding referendum if a certain number of signatures are obtained; - citizen initiative -- citizens draft a law and put it on the ballot; if it passes in the election, it must be enacted by the legislature. In the dozen or so years since direct democracy became topical in Canada, there have been perhaps three main arguments against it: - it's government by poll (which became a particularly telling insult during the later Mulroney years). "You can't have people just voting on every issue" is thought to be self-evident; - it is somehow inconsistent with the parliamentary system, usually trotting out Edmumd Burke; - it facilitates the tyranny of the majority (but it also lets special interest groups foist their agendas on us -- I've never managed to reconcile these two). The fact of the matter is that those who benefit from the present system don't want any interference. Imagine thinking that some ordinary citizen might create a law, when their betters in parliament and the PMO haven't deigned to do so. Of course, you're supposed to elect a local MP who will introduce and push forward the legislation you want. And they actually say that with a straight face. The only thing more rare than a successful opposition private member's bill is one from a government backbencher that cabinet doesn't support. (As for electing a local member who will represent your interests regardless of the party's direction, just ask John Nunziata about that.) Remember Proposition 13 in California? It forced a cut in property taxes. After it passed, you would have thought the world was coming to an end. Last I heard, though, lots of people still wanted to live there. Most U.S. states that have some form direct democracy require the support of a certain percentage of eligible voters, or some higher percentage of the number of people who actually voted. Every name on the petition is checked against the voters list -- it isn't a Doris Day joke where you go to a website and vote 100 times. It's tough to get an initiative on the ballot; and tougher to get them passed. The Liberals don't give a flying fig about the consent of the governed. You think peddling kiddie porn should be criminal -- you bad dinosaur, you. You think that anyone who shows up on the beach saying the word 'refugee' shouldn't live at taxpayer expense indefinitely -- you racist, you. The parties are having an increasingly hard time being "national." Exactly one party is running candidates in all 301 ridings this time, but their track record in western Canada makes their claim to being "national" pretty tough to swallow. So how about trying to change the system so that you don't just disenfranchise everyone who doesn't happen to support the winner? So lets have referendums. Let people propose laws. Hey - maybe we could even have some discussions about policy that ascend to the level expected of competent adults? In the present system, with increasing polarization and increasing disenchantment, referendums and initiatives could serve as a safety valve for our democracy. Scary, huh?