Thank heavens for that!

[leicsmac]

I do think the FPTP and party system in this country is wildly unrepresentative and a broken system, but what do we replace it with, if we chose to do so?

I do like the idea of independent representatives being elected by their constituencies and voting based on their own beliefs, rather than toeing the party line though.

[Captain...]

How is that true if every MP voted based on their beliefs and not on the Party political line you're still just as likely to get a majority for or against.

Party politics encourages politicians to be dishonest about their beliefs so how on earth can we trust them to be telling the truth when they're systematically voting for something they don't believe in and if they do get a smack of conscience and vote honestly they are often vilified.

I do not know how anyone can approve of such a system.

The problem is not every decision has 2 options, for example benefit reform, a 40% want much stricter benefits, cutting what is given out and making it harder to qualify, 40% support much more generous provisions of benefits and 20% support no change, if nobody budges then there are no benefit reforms even though 80% are not happy with the current system. Without a majority rule government the easiest thing to do is nothing and maintain the status quo, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but when change is needed for the good of the country it can seriously delay any decision making. As much as I do support what your idea I can also see the argument against, this is where we need to foster an atmosphere of cooperation and everyone working together for the good of the country and not their party.

[Captain...]

I do think the FPTP and party system in this country is wildly unrepresentative and a broken system, but what do we replace it with, if we chose to do so?

I do like the idea of independent representatives being elected by their constituencies and voting based on their own beliefs, rather than toeing the party line though.

To be honest do we really need politicians to actually make the decisions any more? Surely with technology we have now we could implement a truly democratic system of voting on all policies, the politicians are there to act on it propose action and facilitate it, but it really wouldn't be that hard to create an app or a website where people can actually express their views on every policy and vote on it. The danger would be the media and sexing up of certain proposals, or an x factor style approach, but true democracy would be for everyone to have a voice rather than giving it to someone else to hopefully represent it how you want them to.

[MooseBreath]

To be honest do we really need politicians to actually make the decisions any more? Surely with technology we have now we could implement a truly democratic system of voting on all policies, the politicians are there to act on it propose action and facilitate it, but it really wouldn't be that hard to create an app or a website where people can actually express their views on every policy and vote on it. The danger would be the media and sexing up of certain proposals, or an x factor style approach, but true democracy would be for everyone to have a voice rather than giving it to someone else to hopefully represent it how you want them to.

I was just thinking the same thing. Politicians do seem like an unnecessary and inefficient and often dishonest barrier between the generation and action of ideas. It would seem more democratic to allow people to vote on policies themselves.

[davieG]

The problem is not every decision has 2 options, for example benefit reform, a 40% want much stricter benefits, cutting what is given out and making it harder to qualify, 40% support much more generous provisions of benefits and 20% support no change, if nobody budges then there are no benefit reforms even though 80% are not happy with the current system. Without a majority rule government the easiest thing to do is nothing and maintain the status quo, this is not necessarily a bad thing, but when change is needed for the good of the country it can seriously delay any decision making. As much as I do support what your idea I can also see the argument against, this is where we need to foster an atmosphere of cooperation and everyone working together for the good of the country and not their party.

I doubt any policy would be simplistic as that there would be detail in there that individuals/groups could negotiate in or out without compromising their principles and if it did come to an impasse then the elected PM could have the deciding vote.

[MooseBreath]

I think I just became a fanboy of direct democracies. Switzerland do it to some degree. Of course the danger is in the tyranny if the majority, but there must be some way around that even if it involves a compromise between direct and representative democracy.

[leicsmac]

The only problem I can see with direct democracy in this fashion is powerful interests using the media to influence people into voting for a particular policy. This happens already to a certain degree, but this approach would really exacerbate the effect IMO.

That said, I think it is a great idea.

[davieG]

Would more people vote, if yes would it include more or less people that really haven't a clue what they're voting on?

Would people vote on the principle or the detail, if it's the detail would it involve being able to vote out aspects that you don't agree with.?

Most things these days are extremely complex would people take the time to get fully conversant with the detail?

Would we ever get the true picture on what we're voting for, e.g does anyone really know if we're better or worse off in the EU, I certainly don't and I've read a fair bit about it, every aspect is counter-argued by one side or the other?

[MooseBreath]

Would more people vote, if yes would it include more or less people that really haven't a clue what they're voting on?

Would people vote on the principle or the detail, if it's the detail would it involve being able to vote out aspects that you don't agree with.?

Most things these days are extremely complex would people take the time to get fully conversant with the detail?

Would we ever get the true picture on what we're voting for, e.g does anyone really know if we're better or worse off in the EU, I certainly don't and I've read a fair bit about it, every aspect is counter-argued by one side or the other?

Yeah a full direct democracy would be dangerous. In our country giving full power to the people would be giving full power to the media. But I'm sure we can work a bit of direct democracy into the system, giving people more say while not completely letting them loose.

[Captain...]

The only problem I can see with direct democracy in this fashion is powerful interests using the media to influence people into voting for a particular policy. This happens already to a certain degree, but this approach would really exacerbate the effect IMO.

That said, I think it is a great idea.

The problem is I can't see any government effectively giving up power, and it would need to be incorruptible, from a logistical point of view, which would be difficult.

The worry would be things like deporting that terrorist chap, who we weren't permitted to by Europe court of human rights, if something like that was left to direct democracy, because of the sensationalist nature and the spin put on it by the papers, it would be impossible to have a fair vote. This would be true of all decisions around sensitive issues, I think there is certainly a way that we should be able to influence the path our country is taking.

How about the people's veto.

Basically every bill gets a public review and then a 3 day period in which people can register their disapproval or approval, if over 50% of the population vote to veto it then it gets sent back to the commons, kind of like the house of lords, but fair and democratic.

I don't know whether 50% would be too difficult to achieve for practical reasons, or depending on how many people buy into it, or maybe say 1 million people register disapproval it remains open for another 3 days, and if it attracts 10 million no votes then it is sent back to the commons.

[davieG]

Yeah a full direct democracy would be dangerous. In our country giving full power to the people would be giving full power to the media. But I'm sure we can work a bit of direct democracy into the system, giving people more say while not completely letting them loose.

Considering how all parties seem a tad reluctant to hold referenda I can't see any of them getting any where near this idea, how many years would it take them to agree on the structure and content of a question that requires a simple yes/no answer.

[leicsmac]

The problem is I can't see any government effectively giving up power, and it would need to be incorruptible, from a logistical point of view, which would be difficult.

The worry would be things like deporting that terrorist chap, who we weren't permitted to by Europe court of human rights, if something like that was left to direct democracy, because of the sensationalist nature and the spin put on it by the papers, it would be impossible to have a fair vote. This would be true of all decisions around sensitive issues, I think there is certainly a way that we should be able to influence the path our country is taking.

How about the people's veto.

Basically every bill gets a public review and then a 3 day period in which people can register their disapproval or approval, if over 50% of the population vote to veto it then it gets sent back to the commons, kind of like the house of lords, but fair and democratic.

I don't know whether 50% would be too difficult to achieve for practical reasons, or depending on how many people buy into it, or maybe say 1 million people register disapproval it remains open for another 3 days, and if it attracts 10 million no votes then it is sent back to the commons.

Bolded part seems reasonable - bills get made by politicians, but at least in this case every one would be able to be vetoed by direct democracy.

Tricky part would be establishing the numbers necessary to veto/approve/whatever each bill.

[MooseBreath]

We already have e-petitions where any petition that gets 100k votes will be discussed, problem is it can then be dismissed quickly and easily and that's that.

[davieG]

We already have e-petitions where any petition that gets 100k votes will be discussed, problem is it can then be dismissed quickly and easily and that's that.

I thought it was can not will get discussed.

[MooseBreath]

I thought it was can not will get discussed.

Maybe it is, I'm not sure. Either way it's a bit of a waste of time.

[Reynard Bleu]

The thing that really get my goat with all politicians is the way they insist they know what is best for me. Especially the privileged spivs who have never been hungry or skint or in danger etc. I had it all the time in the army from the faceless bean counters in the MoD and its the same with the mealy mouthed fools in Government posts (past and present) few really have any idea what its like to be just an ordinary bloke/woman tryng to do their best in a constantly trying and testing world. Taking your tie off and rolling your sleeves up when it gets hot is not showing the 'common touch' or getting closer to the public.

What we need is a Supreme Soviet drawn from the prolateriat... oh no no no, that doesnt work either.