Chance to lobby for more, direct democracy

[INIREF*I&R ~ GB]

*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>

[Andy Wainwright]

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.

[Andy Wainwright]

On 04/11/2012 13:05, soupdragon wrote:
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB <info...@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.

[INIREF*I&R ~ GB]

soupdragon wrote:
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<info...@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.

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
<http://www.iniref.org>

<http://www.iniref.org/carta.htm> Election campaign call
<http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb> Sign up for reform

[INIREF*I&R ~ GB]

soupdragon wrote:
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in

> news:afn879...@mid.uni-berlin.de:

>
>> soupdragon wrote:
>>> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<info...@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.

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum
Campaign for direct democracy in Britain
<http://www.iniref.org>

http://www.iniref.org/steps.html Basic presentation
http://www.iniref.org/case.html The case for more democracy

[soupdragon]

INIREF*I&R ~ GB <info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:afqeodFfvffU1
@mid.uni-berlin.de:

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.

[INIREF*I&R ~ GB]

soupdragon wrote:
> INIREF*I&R ~ GB<info...@OUTiniref.org> wrote in news:afqeodFfvffU1

> 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.