Direct Democracy at party and national level

[urban genie]

Is it a bad thing?

Labour members are now exercising direct democracy in some CLPs and it is being attacked by those affected.

But it is the purest and original form of democracy and is it so bad to use it at local party level to decide who will be your voice in the national respesentative democracy elections we vote in.

Some detractors call it a system to purge at local level, but in effect it is people having the power to choose and should be available in all parties to all members if we truly want an open and honest system.

The reforemdom was direct democracy but some would argue that proves representative is better.

And yes we can refer to field, shuker, ryan and now Chris Leslie, who have insulted and dissmissed and ignored their CLPs and are now being informed that confidence is lost and through direct democracy these CLPs are exercising ther only was to express their lack of faith in the representatives they have.
Bit I really want to discuss the actual form of democracy we want direct where the people choose on issues outright or representative where we choose someone, who during a term can actually dissapoint you.

Would itbeing ised at national level work? Or do we need a represensatative for us to decide as is the system now?

I fully expect at least 5 on here to disagree with me and maybe 3 agree on it's use by labour CLPs atm as I agree with it but in general is it a good thing as the referendum fallout has been such a shambles

 

[aguero93:20]

We now have the technology available to use direct democracy at all levels, I'd like to see more of it with less power given to the ideologues and walking egos at the top of political parties.

 

[Damocles]

We now have the technology available to use direct democracy at all levels, I'd like to see more of it with less power given to the ideologues and walking egos at the top of political parties.

I've put a lot of thought into this idea.

Firstly, you can't make an electronic voting system secure. Not really. And if you do then it's basically an expensive piece of paper.

Secondly, direct democracy is great for large scale issues but for things like small or technical changes in law or amendments to current legislation, it doesn't really work. Studying these issues and understanding them in context is a full time.job and I worry that people wouldn't be able to do this and live their lives, instead becoming more swayed by fashion.

With that said, if the people want to be swayed by fashion then they can. I mean it's their society to fuck up.

 

[BobKowalski]

Representational democracy is my preference. Direct democracy is just a fancy name for mob rule.

 

[urban genie]

Representational democracy is my preference. Direct democracy is just a fancy name for mob rule.

What about the swiss model?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I've never been quite sure how it would work. Who decides what issues go to a public vote and how they are framed? Because it seems to me that a lot of issues are beyond the power of any one government anyway (e.g. energy prices, whether other governments agree to a trade deal), and lots of other issues are mutually exclusive. So no doubt both lower taxes and greater spending on public services would receive overwhelming support, yet it's impossible to do both. The other risk is that you end up with such low turnout from voter fatigue and lack of publicity of particular issues, that it allows special interest groups to dominate the polls.

 

[urban genie]

I've never been quite sure how it would work. Who decides what issues go to a public vote and how they are framed? Because it seems to me that a lot of issues are beyond the power of any one government anyway (e.g. energy prices, whether other governments agree to a trade deal), and lots of other issues are mutually exclusive. So no doubt both lower taxes and greater spending on public services would receive overwhelming support, yet it's impossible to do both. The other risk is that you end up with such low turnout from voter fatigue and lack of publicity of particular issues, that it allows special interest groups to dominate the polls.

What if it is seperated between local and national level?

Could council policy be put forward to be decided by the people of manchester or major planning or transport decision be put out for residents to decide?

While at national level we keep representative democracy?

 

[BobKowalski]

What about the swiss model?

The Swiss model seems to work well. I recall reading that they have decided to rerun a referendum as incorrect data was published which is a commendable way to run these things. The Irish seem to have a handle on how to do it properly as well in that everyone knows what will happen in advance of the vote.

That said I still oppose them. I prefer the system of voting for people whose job it is to represent us and has the knowledge and time to do so competently. If I am ill I see a doctor. I want a house designed I see an architect. If I want the country governed competently I want someone whose job it is to do so. I don’t want Mrs Miggins weighing in with her expert opinion on my illness, my house or the technical points of a trade bill.

I want oversight of the elected representatives and I want the option to dismiss them via a vote if they prove incompetent or corrupt or whatever. I don’t want asking every 5 minutes on what they should do next.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The problem with a party model like Labour’s (or any other political party that’s member driven) is that there’s two elements involved. There’s the mass membership who exercise some control over the CLP and then there’s the PLP, where MP’s are responsible to the electorate in general. So in Chris Leslie’s CLP I think there were 30 people involved in the vote of no confidence of which 24 didn’t support him. In Joan Ryan’s case it was 94 against 92. I’ve no idea how good they were as MP’s but to potentially have a good constituency MP deselected by a relative handful of people on ideological grounds is wrong in my view. And for MP’s not to have the final say over who leads them in Parliament is also wrong as they’ve got to have confidence in that leader and many clearly don’t have that at the moment.

As for wider local democracy we said we didn’t want a mayor but got one anyway.

 

[bluethrunthru]

This gives you an interesting insight into the vote against Joan Ryan and how its not as the nay sayers would have it a concerted momentum effort to oust anti-Corbyn MP's but local members not happy with their MP's action in bringing false charges against a member of antisemitism and also that her actions brought the local party into disrepute. As this original meeting was reported on an Al-Jazerra documentary that would explain why the Iranian state TV had an interest in the conclusion of the no confidence vote.

https://electronicintifada.net/blog...oust-labour-mp-who-faked-anti-semitism-charge