Demand signed by half a million can force national referendum

[I&R ~ GB]

I&R ~ GB logo <http://www.iniref.org/>

Over a million citizens of Italy are using their democratic right to
demand a countrywide referendum.

"On Friday, three truckloads of petitions signed by 1.2 million citizens
were delivered to court officials in Rome. The petitions demand a
referendum be held calling for the end of the electoral system giving
the top vote-getting party a bonus of seats in Parliament."

*Why in Britain do we voters NOT have a similar right to propose and
obtain a referendum?
*
Sample report: http://newsok.com/article/feed/302625

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

Basic presentation <http://www.iniref.org/steps.html>

Sign up for reform <http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/dd-gb/>

Campaign aims, principles: Discuss <http://iniref.wordpress.com/>

[AndyW]

On 03/10/2011 16:37, I&R ~ GB wrote:
> I&R ~ GB logo <http://www.iniref.org/>
>
> Over a million citizens of Italy are using their democratic right to
> demand a countrywide referendum.
>
> "On Friday, three truckloads of petitions signed by 1.2 million citizens
> were delivered to court officials in Rome. The petitions demand a
> referendum be held calling for the end of the electoral system giving
> the top vote-getting party a bonus of seats in Parliament."
>
> *Why in Britain do we voters NOT have a similar right to propose and
> obtain a referendum?

Because we would weekly have a petition with enough signatures to
overturn X Factor judging, football referee decisions etc.

Andy

[I&R ~ GB]

No, the threshold for citizens' proposals should be set high enough to
prevent trivial or malicious ideas from going to referendum.

Also, we suggest using the "indirect" citizens' initiative" so that
proposals if endorsed by a large number of voters then go to council or
parliament which must debate and decide on the proposal. (This gives
rise to public information and wider debate.) Only if the authority
rejects the proposal can a referendum be held.

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum

Campaign for direct democracy in Britain

http://www.iniref.org/

[I&R ~ GB]

Jim Hawkins wrote:

> I&R ~ GB wrote:
>> I&R ~ GB logo<http://www.iniref.org/>
>>
>> Over a million citizens of Italy are using their democratic right to
>> demand a countrywide referendum.
>>
>> "On Friday, three truckloads of petitions signed by 1.2 million
>> citizens were delivered to court officials in Rome. The petitions
>> demand a referendum be held calling for the end of the electoral
>> system giving the top vote-getting party a bonus of seats in
>> Parliament."
>> *Why in Britain do we voters NOT have a similar right to propose and
>> obtain a referendum?
>>
>

> Because Joe Public is a cultural, economic, scientific, constitutional and
> political ignoramus, and who, moreover, is at the mercy of relentless
> propaganda from the media.
> Referenda are an abrogation of parliamentary responsibility.
> We vote for those we think are more intelligent, knowledgeable and wiser
> than we are.
> Let our MPs get on with it, taking full responsibility for their actions,
> and never being able to make the lame excuse "We only did what the
> referendum told us".
>
> Jim Hawkins

I&R ~ GB iniref.org replies:

The electorate is responsible for what is done in politics. Voting once
every five years for a politician is not an effective way to run our
common affairs. Partial direct democracy, which we recommend, enables
the electorate to raise important issues (in between elections) which
politicians have neglected and also to veto unwise government policy.

See FAQs (frequently asked questions) via our web page
http://www.iniref.org/ir+r09summer.html

[I&R ~ GB]

------------------

>> The electorate is responsible for what is done in politics.

Do you disagree?

Voting
>> once every five years for a politician is not an effective way to run
>> our common affairs.
>

> That is an opinion. Many people would not agree.

You are in a minority. Most people would prefer to be able to intervene
on some important public issues in between elections. Repeated survey of
British adults confirm this.

>> Partial direct democracy, which we recommend,
>> enables the electorate to raise important issues (in between
>> elections) which politicians have neglected and also to veto unwise
>> government policy.
>

> Constituents, either individually or in concert, are quite able to make
> representations to their MP should they feel the need. Your so-called
> 'partial direct democracy' is an attempt to replace representative democracy
> with something which has more in common with mob rule. It is not only
> dangerous, but an unnecessary waste of time, resources and money.
>
> Jim Hawkins

The proposal for partial direct democracy (at www.iniref.org) is
explicitly *not* meant to replace the existing indirect democracy of
parties and parliaments. MPs usually follow their party whip. Most
people judge that we, the electorate, need more control over what our
politicians get up to. Having citizens' initiative and veto-referendum
would be a good start. Your ideas are more dangerous because our
governance is inadequately "checked and balanced".

[I&R ~ GB]

> And how do you suppose the results of referenda will be 'adequately checked
> and balanced' ? By MPs deciding whether to ignore them or not ?
> Another danger of the scheme is that it offers the media and the vested
> interests controlling them new opportunities to increase their subversive
> influence beyond their wildest dreams. The results of referenda will not
> reflect the views of the public so much as those of the tabloid press
> barons.
>
> Jim Hawkins

iniref replies:

Checks and balances are methods for the use of employers, in this case,
electors. We give our MPs a job to do over a five year period and we
may wish to change or add to our instructions during that time, by
putting on a brake (check, veto) or putting forward a proposal (balance).

The results of referenda are there for all to see and "we the people"
can judge and have to live with the decisions which we made. We can
adjust or correct our own decision if need be, using direct or indirect
democracy.

The media barons -- see recent NOTW et al scandals in UK -- will try to
influence governments for their own benefit. Joe Public has a healthy
scepticism of the mass media. In places where direct democracy is in
place the people have learned to recognise manipulation by the press.

It is much easier for a powerful, rich concern to "nobble" a minister or
a few politicians, perhaps on a mediterranean yacht -- also see recent
case of laws which were bought by paying peers -- than it is to bribe
the whole electorate.

I&R ~ GB Citizens' Initiative and Referendum

Campaign for direct democracy in Britain

http://www.iniref.org/

[I&R ~ GB]

>> Checks and balances are methods for the use of employers, in this
>> case, electors. We give our MPs a job to do over a five year period
>> and we may wish to change or add to our instructions during that
time, by
>> putting on a brake (check, veto) or putting forward a proposal
>> (balance).
>

> So your checks and balances are to be achieved by additional referenda ?

>
>> The results of referenda are there for all to see and "we the people"
>> can judge and have to live with the decisions which we made. We can
>> adjust or correct our own decision if need be, using direct or
>> indirect democracy.
>

> Yet more referenda !
> I can hear the protests - 'Oh no, not another referendum. Why can't they
> make up their own bloody minds and just get on with it !'

>
>> The media barons -- see recent NOTW et al scandals in UK -- will try
>> to influence governments for their own benefit. Joe Public has a healthy
>> scepticism of the mass media.
>

> No he doesn't. It's precisely where he gets his 'opinions'.

>
>> In places where direct democracy is in place the people have learned to
>> recognise manipulation by the press.
>

> How do you know ?

>
>> It is much easier for a powerful, rich concern to "nobble" a minister
>> or a few politicians, perhaps on a mediterranean yacht -- also see
recent
>> case of laws which> were bought by paying peers -- than it is to bribe
>> the whole electorate.
>

> And how will 'direct democracy' make such corruption less likely ?
>

iniref:
The false prophecy of "too many referenda" is often used by opponents if
strong democracy. This is a red herring.

We propose "partial direct democracy", combining tools such as the
citizens' law proposal with our existing system of parliament and
government. So most day to day governing is done as before. To start a
citizens' initiative takes a lot of work, many voter endorsements must
be gathered. So trivial proposals very rarely go forward, they are
filtered out at an early stage. Healthy controversy, of course, may occur.

To get an idea about how this advanced democracy works in practice, for
example the effects on public knowledge, corruption, quality of press
reports, read a few of our texts such as:

Basic presentation http://www.iniref.org/steps.html

and if you want to learn more about how CIR works in practice try;
http://www.iniref.org/dd5countries.pdf

[I&R ~ GB]

In our last message

"iniref:
The false prophecy of "too many referenda" is often used by opponents if
strong democracy. This is a red herring. "

should read

iniref:
The false prophecy of "too many referenda" is often used by opponents OF