*By-elections* for the UK parliament (House of Commons) are coming up soon, in Corby, Manchester, Penarth (Wales), Croydon and Rotherham. You can help to build the citizens' lobby and campaign for more, direct democracy.
A GUIDE FOR VOTERS, NON-VOTERS AND THE UNDECIDED
Simply giving away your vote at an election once every few years, then having no say during the years between, cannot be regarded as effective democracy.
In contrast partial direct democracy enables every citizen to take part in developing policy and deciding important public issues while keeping tabs on MPs and government. The "tools" for this have been tried and tested they include the law-proposal, the veto-referendum, the constitutional referendum and the recall of elected officials.
Politicians are in the main opposed to this type of democracy. Parties and government act to hinder reform so to achieve progress will need lobbying and campaigning.
Below we will show that, however you judge our politicians and governments, you can help to promote the introduction of new democratic tools such as citizens' law proposal, the veto referendum plus the MP-recall.
Let's say that your intention is:
1) I will not vote in the forthcoming election
According to a survey of over 1000 declared non-voters a large majority felt that if direct democracy for citizens were available then they would make use of it (no sign of apathy here).
Recommendation: Join our open campaign for genuine democracy reform. Here are some links to help you make a start: Web site index <http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html> Brief <http://www.iniref.org/steps.html> Case <http://www.iniref.org/case.html> Join <http://www.iniref.org/form.html> Take a look at our proposed Constructive Protest Vote <http://www.iniref.org/tactic2.html>. Contact us if you need to know more and tell us how you get on.
2) In my home constituency I will probably vote for a candidate on election day
Recommendation: Ask your favoured candidate about her/his attitude to democracy reform. Show our Statement on Democracy by ... prospective members of parliament <http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm> and ask your candidate (who may be your sitting MP) to sign up! Also, feel free to join our Campaign <http://www.iniref.org/action.html>.
3) I am undecided about whether to vote or not. I know of no political party which represents my wishes
From our review of manifestos and their public statements we are not convinced that any political party with a chance of gaining power would introduce the genuine citizen-led democracy which we propose. Even though three-quarters of adults (in repeated opinion surveys) approve. When the "powers that be" oppose reform, much can be achieved by campaigning and protest.
Recommendation: Read our general election strategy for democracy <http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm> and think it over. Maybe you will decide to vote for a candidate or political party as the "least bad" evil (then see 2. above). Or maybe you will take up our appeal to non-voters: convert your ballot into a CONSTRUCTIVE PROTEST FOR DEMOCRACY <http://www.iniref.org/tactic2.html>
-------------------------------------------------------
I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
<http://www.iniref.org>
> *By-elections* for the UK parliament (House of Commons) are coming up
> soon, in Corby, Manchester, Penarth (Wales), Croydon and Rotherham. You
> can help to build the citizens' lobby and campaign for more, direct
> democracy.
> A GUIDE FOR VOTERS, NON-VOTERS AND THE UNDECIDED
> Simply giving away your vote at an election once every few years, then
> having no say during the years between, cannot be regarded as effective
> democracy.
> In contrast partial direct democracy enables every citizen to take part
> in developing policy and deciding important public issues while keeping
> tabs on MPs and government. The "tools" for this have been tried and
> tested they include the law-proposal, the veto-referendum, the
> constitutional referendum and the recall of elected officials.
> Politicians are in the main opposed to this type of democracy. Parties
> and government act to hinder reform so to achieve progress will need
> lobbying and campaigning.
> Below we will show that, however you judge our politicians and
> governments, you can help to promote the introduction of new democratic
> tools such as citizens' law proposal, the veto referendum plus the
> MP-recall.
> Let's say that your intention is:
> 1) I will not vote in the forthcoming election
> According to a survey of over 1000 declared non-voters a large majority
> felt that if direct democracy for citizens were available then they
> would make use of it (no sign of apathy here).
> Recommendation: Join our open campaign for genuine democracy reform.
> Here are some links to help you make a start: Web site index
> <http://www.iniref.org/index.enter.html> Brief
> <http://www.iniref.org/steps.html> Case
> <http://www.iniref.org/case.html> Join <http://www.iniref.org/form.html>
> Take a look at our proposed Constructive Protest Vote
> <http://www.iniref.org/tactic2.html>. Contact us if you need to know
> more and tell us how you get on.
> 2) In my home constituency I will probably vote for a candidate on
> election day
> Recommendation: Ask your favoured candidate about her/his attitude to
> democracy reform. Show our Statement on Democracy by ... prospective
> members of parliament <http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm> and ask your
> candidate (who may be your sitting MP) to sign up! Also, feel free to
> join our Campaign <http://www.iniref.org/action.html>.
> 3) I am undecided about whether to vote or not. I know of no political
> party which represents my wishes
> From our review of manifestos and their public statements we are not
> convinced that any political party with a chance of gaining power would
> introduce the genuine citizen-led democracy which we propose. Even
> though three-quarters of adults (in repeated opinion surveys) approve.
> When the "powers that be" oppose reform, much can be achieved by
> campaigning and protest.
> Recommendation: Read our general election strategy for democracy
> <http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm> and think it over. Maybe you will
> decide to vote for a candidate or political party as the "least bad"
> evil (then see 2. above). Or maybe you will take up our appeal to
> non-voters: convert your ballot into a CONSTRUCTIVE PROTEST FOR
> DEMOCRACY <http://www.iniref.org/tactic2.html>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
> Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
> <http://www.iniref.org>
I think in referendums any vote to allow something should be worth double that to ban something.
Western politics has become bogged down with government interference in personal freedom and red tape for business. As far as I'm concerned, if OBL really was responsible for 9/11 , he was very successful, pushing progressive politcs off the agenda and replacing it with opressive, defensive cyncism and nostalgia.
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB <infoT...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:afn6o1Fnqv6U1
> @mid.uni-berlin.de:
>> *By-elections* for the UK parliament (House of Commons) are coming up
>> soon, in Corby, Manchester, Penarth (Wales), Croydon and Rotherham. You
>> can help to build the citizens' lobby and campaign for more, direct
>> democracy.
>> A GUIDE FOR VOTERS, NON-VOTERS AND THE UNDECIDED
>> Simply giving away your vote at an election once every few years, then
>> having no say during the years between, cannot be regarded as effective
>> democracy.
> Sure it is. It's worked for 400 years. We vote them in to do the job and,
> if they are no good, we vote them out again.
>> In contrast partial direct democracy enables every citizen to take part
>> in developing policy and deciding important public issues while keeping
>> tabs on MPs and government.
> ..as well as pandering to every petty prejudice and all sorts of bigotry.
> It all ensures that you, the voter, will be subject to the will of
> determined minorities to impose their policies on the rest as referendum
> fatigue ensures very low turn-outs.
True comments. The USA has a lot of very silly laws because of this.
We need not only a bill of rights but one much stronger than those found anywhere else in the world, to protect people from the loony element politicians and those stupid idiots who vote for them.
soupdragon wrote:
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<infoT...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:afn6o1Fnqv6U1
> @mid.uni-berlin.de:
>> *By-elections* for the UK parliament (House of Commons) are coming up
>> soon, in Corby, Manchester, Penarth (Wales), Croydon and Rotherham. You
>> can help to build the citizens' lobby and campaign for more, direct
>> democracy.
>> A GUIDE FOR VOTERS, NON-VOTERS AND THE UNDECIDED
>> Simply giving away your vote at an election once every few years, then
>> having no say during the years between, cannot be regarded as effective
>> democracy.
> Sure it is. It's worked for 400 years. We vote them in to do the job and,
> if they are no good, we vote them out again.
>> In contrast partial direct democracy enables every citizen to take part
>> in developing policy and deciding important public issues while keeping
>> tabs on MPs and government.
> ..as well as pandering to every petty prejudice and all sorts of bigotry.
> It all ensures that you, the voter, will be subject to the will of
> determined minorities to impose their policies on the rest as referendum
> fatigue ensures very low turn-outs.
With direct democracy as we propose it any person or group can put forward a public proposal. That is good democracy.
soupdragon writes "determined minorities ... impose their policies on the rest"
This is complete nonsense. All of the people (electorate) decide whether or not to accept proposals. It is a MAJORITY decision.
>> soupdragon wrote:
>>> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<infoT...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:afn6o1Fnqv6U1
>>> @mid.uni-berlin.de:
>>>> *By-elections* for the UK parliament (House of Commons) are coming
>>>> up soon, in Corby, Manchester, Penarth (Wales), Croydon and
>>>> Rotherham. You can help to build the citizens' lobby and campaign
>>>> for more, direct democracy.
>>>> A GUIDE FOR VOTERS, NON-VOTERS AND THE UNDECIDED
>>>> Simply giving away your vote at an election once every few years,
>>>> then having no say during the years between, cannot be regarded as
>>>> effective democracy.
>>> Sure it is. It's worked for 400 years. We vote them in to do the job
>>> and, if they are no good, we vote them out again.
>>>> In contrast partial direct democracy enables every citizen to take
>>>> part in developing policy and deciding important public issues while
>>>> keeping tabs on MPs and government.
>>> ..as well as pandering to every petty prejudice and all sorts of
>>> bigotry. It all ensures that you, the voter, will be subject to the
>>> will of determined minorities to impose their policies on the rest as
>>> referendum fatigue ensures very low turn-outs.
>> With direct democracy as we propose it any person or group can put
>> forward a public proposal. That is good democracy.
> In what way is pandering to petty prejudices 'good democracy'?
>> soupdragon writes "determined minorities ... impose their policies on
>> the rest"
>> This is complete nonsense. All of the people (electorate) decide
>> whether or not to accept proposals. It is a MAJORITY decision.
> The nonsense is yours. As you know too well from the Swiss and US
> experience - but conveniently avoid - 'all the people' do not decide.
> Only those who turn out get to make that decision as referendum fatigue
> ensures low turn-outs, sometimes in the teens percentage. The net result
> is a multitude of silly 'laws' that no one really wanted - whether it's
> making it a criminal offence to hang out your washing on the wrong day,
> or making it illegal to teach Darwinism in school.
> That is not a MAJORITY decision, as you claim. A MAJORITY decision is
> if over 50% of ALL the electorate, not just those who turned out to
> vote decide.
> The only true democractic referendum process is one which ensures a
> mandate must be obtained - over 50% of the ELIGBLE electorate must
> accept the proposal irrespective of turnout. Only that way can the
> true will of the people be heard. Anything else is just pandering to
> the bigots.
If you demand this very high hurdle for then you must apply the same conditions to INdirect "representative" democracy. Governments in UK have often been formed with far less than a majority of eligible voters, sometimes with a minority of votes cast. An election which does not produce a decision by 50%+ must, according to your "logic", be annulled.
Political representation of the people of the UK has to date been weak to abysmal.
Re. your point about trivia and "bigotry" being produced by direct democracy, this does not fit the facts. With citizens' initiative all fields of politics, local and central, can be addressed for proposals or veto. Where this sort of democracy is available, in many countries, it has in the main, tens of thousands of times, been used for reasonable propositions. If given responsibility for common affairs most people use this with care.
In direct democracy, hurdles for proposals and for ballot turnout should be reasonable. What you suggest has been shown to be unworkable.
>>> soupdragon wrote:
>>>> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<infoT...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:afn6o1Fnqv6U1
>>>> @mid.uni-berlin.de:
>>>>> *By-elections* for the UK parliament (House of Commons) are coming
>>>>> up soon, in Corby, Manchester, Penarth (Wales), Croydon and
>>>>> Rotherham. You can help to build the citizens' lobby and campaign
>>>>> for more, direct democracy.
>>>>> A GUIDE FOR VOTERS, NON-VOTERS AND THE UNDECIDED
>>>>> Simply giving away your vote at an election once every few years,
>>>>> then having no say during the years between, cannot be regarded as
>>>>> effective democracy.
>>>> Sure it is. It's worked for 400 years. We vote them in to do the job
>>>> and, if they are no good, we vote them out again.
>>>>> In contrast partial direct democracy enables every citizen to take
>>>>> part in developing policy and deciding important public issues while
>>>>> keeping tabs on MPs and government.
>>>> ..as well as pandering to every petty prejudice and all sorts of
>>>> bigotry. It all ensures that you, the voter, will be subject to the
>>>> will of determined minorities to impose their policies on the rest as
>>>> referendum fatigue ensures very low turn-outs.
>>> With direct democracy as we propose it any person or group can put
>>> forward a public proposal. That is good democracy.
>> In what way is pandering to petty prejudices 'good democracy'?
>>> soupdragon writes "determined minorities ... impose their policies on
>>> the rest"
>>> This is complete nonsense. All of the people (electorate) decide
>>> whether or not to accept proposals. It is a MAJORITY decision.
>> The nonsense is yours. As you know too well from the Swiss and US
>> experience - but conveniently avoid - 'all the people' do not decide.
>> Only those who turn out get to make that decision as referendum fatigue
>> ensures low turn-outs, sometimes in the teens percentage. The net result
>> is a multitude of silly 'laws' that no one really wanted - whether it's
>> making it a criminal offence to hang out your washing on the wrong day,
>> or making it illegal to teach Darwinism in school.
>> That is not a MAJORITY decision, as you claim. A MAJORITY decision is
>> if over 50% of ALL the electorate, not just those who turned out to
>> vote decide.
>> The only true democractic referendum process is one which ensures a
>> mandate must be obtained - over 50% of the ELIGBLE electorate must
>> accept the proposal irrespective of turnout. Only that way can the
>> true will of the people be heard. Anything else is just pandering to
>> the bigots.
> If you demand this very high hurdle for then you must apply the same > conditions to INdirect "representative" democracy. Governments in UK > have often been formed with far less than a majority of eligible voters, > sometimes with a minority of votes cast. An election which does not > produce a decision by 50%+ must, according to your "logic", be
annulled.
Your logic is flawed. Your claim is that politicians are not representative of the people, yet your 'plan' is to replace them with
something even less representative. General elections since 1945 have
normal historical turnout range of 73 - 84%. Your proposal has decision made on the basis of a turnout of, on some occassions, less than 18%.
MPs in FPTP will get through with around 40% of the poll giving them
30-35% of the total electorate. Many referenda can't even match that
figure for turnout, let alone support.
> Political representation of the people of the UK has to date been weak > to abysmal.
Your opinion. Hardly fact. My MP does an excellent job at local levels.
Those that don't, the opportunity is there every 4-5 years to give them the boot. We will see what happens to Nick Clegg & Co when the
time comes for them to face their 'maker' at the polls.
> Re. your point about trivia and "bigotry" being produced by direct > democracy, this does not fit the facts.
Err, yes they do. In Switzerland there are a bewildering array of
petty canton laws ranging from making it an offence to hang out your washing on a Sunday to the bigotry-inspired ban on minarettes. In the US, your 'direct democracy' has resulted in states passing laws making it an offence to teach evolution in school.
Your notion that somehow your proposal will lead to a rosier world
is nonsense. It just leads to sillyness and bigotry.
And, of course, someone will have to pay for it all. Who will that be? The taxpayer.... again?
> In direct democracy, hurdles for proposals and for ballot turnout should > be reasonable. What you suggest has been shown to be unworkable.
On the contrary, what I propose are entirely workable and have a track record of success. They were used to tame the zealots in the trades unions who would try and push through change without truly consulting
the membership. It requires a turnout of 33.3% and a majority of 66%
to instigate any change. Otherwise the proposition falls. It's not
the 50% of eligible electorate I mentioned, nor is it even as high
as the general election, but it is a whole lot more representative
than proposals that could see 9% of the electorate imposing something
in everyone else as a result of indifference through referendum fatigue.
>>>> soupdragon wrote:
>>>>> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<infoT...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in
> news:afn6o1Fnqv6U1
>>>>> @mid.uni-berlin.de:
>>>>>> *By-elections* for the UK parliament (House of Commons) are coming
>>>>>> up soon, in Corby, Manchester, Penarth (Wales), Croydon and
>>>>>> Rotherham. You can help to build the citizens' lobby and campaign
>>>>>> for more, direct democracy.
>>>>>> A GUIDE FOR VOTERS, NON-VOTERS AND THE UNDECIDED
>>>>>> Simply giving away your vote at an election once every few years,
>>>>>> then having no say during the years between, cannot be regarded as
>>>>>> effective democracy.
>>>>> Sure it is. It's worked for 400 years. We vote them in to do the job
>>>>> and, if they are no good, we vote them out again.
>>>>>> In contrast partial direct democracy enables every citizen to take
>>>>>> part in developing policy and deciding important public issues
> while
>>>>>> keeping tabs on MPs and government.
>>>>> ..as well as pandering to every petty prejudice and all sorts of
>>>>> bigotry. It all ensures that you, the voter, will be subject to the
>>>>> will of determined minorities to impose their policies on the rest
> as
>>>>> referendum fatigue ensures very low turn-outs.
>>>> With direct democracy as we propose it any person or group can put
>>>> forward a public proposal. That is good democracy.
>>> In what way is pandering to petty prejudices 'good democracy'?
>>>> soupdragon writes "determined minorities ... impose their policies on
>>>> the rest"
>>>> This is complete nonsense. All of the people (electorate) decide
>>>> whether or not to accept proposals. It is a MAJORITY decision.
>>> The nonsense is yours. As you know too well from the Swiss and US
>>> experience - but conveniently avoid - 'all the people' do not decide.
>>> Only those who turn out get to make that decision as referendum
> fatigue
>>> ensures low turn-outs, sometimes in the teens percentage. The net
> result
>>> is a multitude of silly 'laws' that no one really wanted - whether
> it's
>>> making it a criminal offence to hang out your washing on the wrong
> day,
>>> or making it illegal to teach Darwinism in school.
>>> That is not a MAJORITY decision, as you claim. A MAJORITY decision is
>>> if over 50% of ALL the electorate, not just those who turned out to
>>> vote decide.
>>> The only true democractic referendum process is one which ensures a
>>> mandate must be obtained - over 50% of the ELIGBLE electorate must
>>> accept the proposal irrespective of turnout. Only that way can the
>>> true will of the people be heard. Anything else is just pandering to
>>> the bigots.
>> If you demand this very high hurdle for then you must apply the same
>> conditions to INdirect "representative" democracy. Governments in UK
>> have often been formed with far less than a majority of eligible
> voters,
>> sometimes with a minority of votes cast. An election which does not
>> produce a decision by 50%+ must, according to your "logic", be
> annulled.
> Your logic is flawed. Your claim is that politicians are not
> representative of the people, yet your 'plan' is to replace them with
> something even less representative. General elections since 1945 have
> normal historical turnout range of 73 - 84%. Your proposal has decision
> made on the basis of a turnout of, on some occassions, less than 18%.
> MPs in FPTP will get through with around 40% of the poll giving them
> 30-35% of the total electorate. Many referenda can't even match that
> figure for turnout, let alone support.
>> Political representation of the people of the UK has to date been weak
>> to abysmal.
> Your opinion. Hardly fact. My MP does an excellent job at local levels.
> Those that don't, the opportunity is there every 4-5 years to give
> them the boot. We will see what happens to Nick Clegg& Co when the
> time comes for them to face their 'maker' at the polls.
>> Re. your point about trivia and "bigotry" being produced by direct
>> democracy, this does not fit the facts.
> Err, yes they do. In Switzerland there are a bewildering array of
> petty canton laws ranging from making it an offence to hang out your
> washing on a Sunday to the bigotry-inspired ban on minarettes.
> In the US, your 'direct democracy' has resulted in states passing laws
> making it an offence to teach evolution in school.
> Your notion that somehow your proposal will lead to a rosier world
> is nonsense. It just leads to sillyness and bigotry.
> And, of course, someone will have to pay for it all. Who will that be?
> The taxpayer.... again?
>> In direct democracy, hurdles for proposals and for ballot turnout
> should
>> be reasonable. What you suggest has been shown to be unworkable.
> On the contrary, what I propose are entirely workable and have a track
> record of success. They were used to tame the zealots in the trades
> unions who would try and push through change without truly consulting
> the membership. It requires a turnout of 33.3% and a majority of 66%
> to instigate any change. Otherwise the proposition falls. It's not
> the 50% of eligible electorate I mentioned, nor is it even as high
> as the general election, but it is a whole lot more representative
> than proposals that could see 9% of the electorate imposing something
> in everyone else as a result of indifference through referendum fatigue.
Soupdrag repeatedly presents an extreme or ridiculous case (alleged to exist by Sd) and hypthesises that the same could occur in Britain or UK. Extremely unlikely.
Worse, Sd falsely represents the proposals of I&Rgb at <www.iniref.org> "politicians are not representative of the people, yet your 'plan' is to replace them with something even less representative."
We propose to combine elements of direct democracy with parliamentary democracy. This would bring better control of politicians by their boss (the electorate) and enable more effective and representative public participation in public affairs.
