Electoral apathy?
Wallace-Macpherson
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: in...@iniref.org
Low turnout is again anticipated for local and "regional" elections.
Reasons for this are no doubt complex.
We suggest that, by improving the chances to participate in politics in
effective ways, apathy and alienation would be reduced, quality of
governance improved.
See our proposal for citizens' initiative and binding referendum at all
levels of government http://www.iniref.org
Sincerely,
Wallace-Macpherson
Wallace-Macpherson
syk
far more effective would be to hypothecate all taxes and support the
hypothecation with manadtory six year jail sentences(re remission) for
miscreant suits who tried to 'bend' the hypothecation
>
the rar4son we self-serving organised gangs is that they have a better
chance of grabbing control of the spending power
Wallace-Macpherson
Postal voting helps but turnout still slumps
vonroach
wrote:
>I'm pleased to say I've never once suffered from an attack of apathy
>at an election. However, I do suffer from antipathy at every election.
>The greatest threat to your few remaining freedoms and liberties
>no longer comes from external enemies but from your own govt...
Amusing, Labor gets an ass-kicking with a nationwide conservative win and
suddenly it is `voter apathy'. Left wingers all sing the same songs.
Wallace-Macpherson
Elements of direct democracy such as citizens' law proposal were put forward
as antidote to apparent lack of interest in politics. Voters across the political
spectrum were addressed, not only potential Labour voters.
Message-ID: <3EB1147E...@inirefREMOVE.org>
Support for (and opposition to) the idea of improving public involvement in public
affairs can be found across the political spectrum.
More about these "Elements of direct democracy" at http://www.iniref.org
Wallace-Macpherson
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
Would it not be good idea for a party that recieves say 20% of the
vote should get 20% of the seats on the council?
On Thu, 01 May 2003 14:35:25 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson
<m...@inirefREMOVE.org> wrote:
.................
Here`s to the day
When all are free
To think,to speak,
Or just to be!
..................
vonroach
>Elements of direct democracy such as citizens' law proposal were put forward
>as antidote to apparent lack of interest in politics. Voters across the political
>spectrum were addressed, not only potential Labour voters.
>Message-ID: <3EB1147E...@inirefREMOVE.org>
>
>Support for (and opposition to) the idea of improving public involvement in public
>affairs can be found across the political spectrum.
But, but Wally, are you absolutely certain the participation of apathetic,
disinterested voters (probably also poorly informed) is a desirable thing.
Also would it not be easier to buy the vote of this type of voter by some method
(bribe, subsidy, ,,,) than the vote of an interested, informed voter.
Murphey's Law and possibility of Unintended Consequences deserve consideration
in this at first glance `admirable' purpose.
vonroach
wrote:
>The lesson which our politicians choose NOT to learn is that whilst
>there are many voters who indulge in 'apathy', there are growing
>numbers who suffer 'antipathy'.
Humm, hummingbird, wouldn't you say that the `apathetic' are seldom aware that
they are `indulging themselves'? On the other hand, `antipathy' could be
directed at the electorial process or a party involved. The former would lower
participation, but the latter might increase participation - many voters cast
their vote against something or someone rather than for something or someone.
The goal of many politicians is to fool and mislead voters, not to `learn from
them'. Politics is not a learned profession; you are thinking of statesmanship
and leadership.
vonroach
wrote:
>On Fri, 02 May 2003 11:38:06 GMT, vonroach <vonr...@earthlink.net>
>penetrated the ether with:
>argh hhhmmm argh -erm.
>
gaffaw fap fap
vonroach
>Would it not be good idea for a party that recieves say 20% of the
>vote should get 20% of the seats on the council?
>
Tends to be a bit more complicated than that. If two parties each
receive 49% of the vote, and a third party received 2% of the vote, then the
third party could determine policy, and one or the other near-majority party
would be disenfranchised. Also one should consider if `the council' speaks for
a geographical area or the residents within an area; otherwise a populous area
could easily dominate a sparsely populated area. There are many checks and
balances to be considered.
Wallace-Macpherson
be decided by the people. Most of the countries which were freed from soviet
dictatorship around 1989-90 found it necessary to put their proposed new constitutions
to the people. Many of the states which are candidates for the European Union will ask
their people for approval, and in some cases (Slovenia at least) the result will be or
was legally binding. In Britain too, referendum has been used for important decisions.
So if you think that people of a polity should *not* be able to co-decide on public
issues, Roach, then you are way out on a limb.
Our suggestion for Britain is to combine citizens' proposal (initiative) and binding
referendum with the existing system of parties and parliaments. We so aim to improve
public decision-making in ways which you appear to approve of. For instance, there
would be better information about important issues. Also many people would be
motivated to take an interest, because it would be clear that they have a meaningful
role to play in politics, reducing political "apathy". If you looked you would see
that this works in other countries! See http://www.iniref.org
As far as bribery of power-holders is concerned, it is easier for rich and powerful
"interest groups" to nobble one or a few politicians and/or civil servants, than it is
to sway the voting behaviour of a whole population and electorate.
Wallace-Macpherson
vonroach
wrote:
>The greatest threat to your few remaining freedoms and liberties
>no longer comes from external enemies but from your own govt...
And those who pose as friends such as French, Germans, and the totally
irrelevant Belgians.
vonroach
wrote:
>So if you think that people of a polity should *not* be able to co-decide on public
>issues, Roach, then you are way out on a limb.
>
A limb known as individual liberty, where I don't care to be crowded by a Union
(European or any other).
>As far as bribery of power-holders is concerned, it is easier for rich and powerful
>"interest groups" to nobble one or a few politicians and/or civil servants, than it is
>to sway the voting behaviour of a whole population and electorate.
Doubtful in this age of electronic media with advertising and propaganda
campaigns. The politicians and the `interest groups' are often in cahoots in
their attempt to `guide' public opinion. Powerful interest groups are usually
represented by equally powerful lobbyists who are often ex-politicians.
>Wallace-Macpherson
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
wrote:
>On Fri, 02 May 2003 22:34:43 +0100, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Would it not be good idea for a party that recieves say 20% of the
>>vote should get 20% of the seats on the council?
>>
>Tends to be a bit more complicated than that. If two parties each
>receive 49% of the vote, and a third party received 2% of the vote, then the
>third party could determine policy,
In the final analysis it is a majority of council members who
determine policy and the near majority party party who have to accept
defeat by that majority.
>and one or the other near-majority party
>would be disenfranchised. Also one should consider if `the council' speaks for
>a geographical area or the residents within an area; otherwise a populous area
>could easily dominate a sparsely populated area.
My suggestion is made on the supposition that fairly determined
boundaries exist.
> There are many checks and
>balances to be considered.
I would say that democracy must reflect the will of the majority with
constitutional safeguards for the minority and liberty of the
individual citizen.
ukmp.
ukmp
Here`s to the day
when all are free
to think,to speak
or just to be!
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Sat, 03 May 2003 17:19:36 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson <m...@NO.SPAM.iniref.org>
> wrote:
>
> >So if you think that people of a polity should *not* be able to co-decide on public
> >issues, Roach, then you are way out on a limb.
> >
> A limb known as individual liberty, where I don't care to be crowded by a Union
> (European or any other).
Is not the ability to veto government law, and to make own law, a _gain_ of individual
liberty? That is what we at www.iniref.org are proposing. Further, international treaties
such as those involving the European Union, could also be changed by citizens' initiative
and referendum (I&R).
> >As far as bribery of power-holders is concerned, it is easier for rich and powerful
> >"interest groups" to nobble one or a few politicians and/or civil servants, than it is
> >to sway the voting behaviour of a whole population and electorate.
>
> Doubtful in this age of electronic media with advertising and propaganda
> campaigns. The politicians and the `interest groups' are often in cahoots in
> their attempt to `guide' public opinion. Powerful interest groups are usually
> represented by equally powerful lobbyists who are often ex-politicians.
Counterbalancing the "advertising and propaganda" are the informational and citizen
empowering properties of the new electronic media. Most people don't believe what they
read or see in the mass media, nor what politicians tell them. But, without any direct
democracy such as I&R, they are powerless (in between elections) to act on public issues
which concern them.
Wallace-Macpherson
vonroach
>On Fri, 02 May 2003 23:26:19 GMT, vonroach <vonr...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 May 2003 22:34:43 +0100, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>Would it not be good idea for a party that recieves say 20% of the
>>>vote should get 20% of the seats on the council?
>>>
>>Tends to be a bit more complicated than that. If two parties each
>>receive 49% of the vote, and a third party received 2% of the vote, then the
>>third party could determine policy,
>
>In the final analysis it is a majority of council members who
>determine policy and the near majority party party who have to accept
>defeat by that majority.
>
Not completely factual. A near majority accepts defeat and another near majority
must compromise its agenda with a tiny minority, otherwise irrelevant. Almost as
ridiculous as when a super majority (60%) is required and the majority is
obstructed by the minority.
>
>>and one or the other near-majority party
>>would be disenfranchised. Also one should consider if `the council' speaks for
>>a geographical area or the residents within an area; otherwise a populous area
>>could easily dominate a sparsely populated area.
>
>My suggestion is made on the supposition that fairly determined
>boundaries exist.
Then who is to look out for the rights of the sparsely populated area vs the
populous area?
>> There are many checks and
>>balances to be considered.
>
>I would say that democracy must reflect the will of the majority with
>constitutional safeguards for the minority and liberty of the
>individual citizen.
>
Easy to say, a bit more difficult to bring about.
>ukmp.
>
>ukmp
>
>Here`s to the day
>when all are free
>to think,to speak
>or just to be!
To be or not to be, that is the question.
Frank Sinatra : Do be, Do be, Do.
vonroach
wrote:
>Is not the ability to veto government law, and to make own law, a _gain_ of individual
>liberty?
Unfortunately the final word is reserved for a branch of the government - the
judicial authority who interpret laws, constitutions, treaties, etc. To `make
one's own law' makes one an outlaw until the judge and /or jury has their say.
Wallace-Macpherson
a) You have dodged my question.
b) We could introduce citizens' initiative and binding referendum (I&R) in Britain. It
would function as it does in, say, Switzerland or Slovenia. Law resulting from an
initiative-proposal approved by referendum might be challenged in the courts. This would
most likely occur if a matter of constitution were involved. So what?
Wallace-Macpherson
John Youles
<m...@iniref.org> tapped out on the keyboard:
The UK Independence Party is in favour of citizens having the power to put
things to a referendum.
--
John Youles
j-dot-youles-at-ntlworld-dot-com
http://www.ukip.org/
Bill McLaren
>Amusing, Labor gets an ass-kicking with a nationwide conservative win and
>suddenly it is `voter apathy'. Left wingers all sing the same songs.
Well I can't speak for other areas but certainly in North Ayrshire
(where I was an election agent for one of the councilors) we, Scottish
Labour, didn't get anything close to "an ass-kicking".
From memory (I don't have the results to hand) we lost 3 wards, one to
an independent and 2 to SNP. This takes us from 24 out of 30 to 21/30.
What's more at least one of those can be put down to a local problem
within the party that will be fixed before the next election so I can
guarantee we will get that ward back.
"My" councilor increased his majority from roughly 500 last time to
roughly 600 this time despite a lower turn out (down by roughly 300)
and an independent who was the daughter of a de-selected ex-labour
councilor from the neighbouring ward (which was the ward I was
referring to before).
As for apathy, yes I'd say there was. Even a major push on postal
votes didn't help much. We put out 3400 postal vote forms around the
ward, approx 690 got postal votes but of those only about 450 bothered
to return them. That pushed the total turnout at the election to just
over 50%. A lot of the people I spoke to before the election were
saying things along the lines of "Labour will win anyway so I don't
need to bother voting", that is the problem we have to get over here.
---
Bill McLaren Mobile 07979 605124
www.misknw.org.uk Fax 01294 469748
uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk
wrote:
>On Sun, 04 May 2003 10:29:04 +0100, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 May 2003 23:26:19 GMT, vonroach <vonr...@earthlink.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 May 2003 22:34:43 +0100, uk...@otherdayjob.gravytrain.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>Would it not be good idea for a party that recieves say 20% of the
>>>>vote should get 20% of the seats on the council?
>>>>
>>>Tends to be a bit more complicated than that. If two parties each
>>>receive 49% of the vote, and a third party received 2% of the vote, then the
>>>third party could determine policy,
>>
>>In the final analysis it is a majority of council members who
>>determine policy and the near majority party party who have to accept
>>defeat by that majority.
>>
>Not completely factual. A near majority accepts defeat and another near majority
>must compromise its agenda with a tiny minority, otherwise irrelevant.
A near majority must compromise its agenda if it has not recieved the
support of the majority of the electorate through the ballot box.At
the end of the day policy is made by a majority of votes in the
chamber,be those votes politically aligned to a near majority party or
independant members.This is a fundamental principal and cannot be
undermined for the sake of political expediency..
ukmp
.................
Here`s to the day
sam
> Low turnout is again anticipated for local and "regional" elections.
> Reasons for this are no doubt complex.
>
> We suggest that, by improving the chances to participate in politics in
> effective ways, apathy and alienation would be reduced, quality of
> governance improved.
>
> See our proposal for citizens' initiative and binding referendum at all
> levels of government http://www.iniref.org
Why do you contend that asking people to vote in referenda would be
any more democratic than other political processes? Is there evidence
that single issue campaigns involve previously not very interested
electorates at anything other than a superficial level, often
involving prejudice?
Wallace-Macpherson
Our proposal to integrate some procedures such as citizens' initiative with
the existing parliamentary system involves much more than asking people to
vote in referenda, as the present government may do (e.g. on the Euro). We
do _not_ propose to abolish or weaken parliament, rather to enhance
governance with some new procedures. These may be called checks and
balances, they strengthen democracy. Parliament and government, and local
councils etc. would continue to legislate and govern most of the time. But
the electorate would have the power to intervene, through carefully
regulated and, indeed, well tested procedures. These could include the
facultative (veto) referendum, by which a government bill may be blocked
(e.g. poll tax law); referendum on international treaties and constitutional
matters; initiative, a sort of petition, which if supported by many voters
would be put before parliament, and could go to referendum if rejected.
To your second question. Perhaps you would like to offer us a research grant
so that we could answer fully. There have been studies which compare places
with different "amounts" of democracy. In those with more direct democracy,
there was more happiness (life satisfaction), less tax evasion and more
economic prosperity, if I recall correctly. From other evidence I'm pretty
sure that living in a "political culture" in which people expect to have a
say in governing, through the sort of procedures which we propose, is
associated with deeper awareness of public affairs, and greater sense of own
responsibility.
Wallace-Macpherson
Wallace-Macpherson
> On Mon, 05 May 2003 09:42:01 +0200 in uk.gov.local, Wallace-Macpherson
> <m...@iniref.org> tapped out on the keyboard:
SNIP
> > b) We could introduce citizens' initiative and binding referendum (I&R) in Britain. It
> > would function as it does in, say, Switzerland or Slovenia. Law resulting from an
> > initiative-proposal approved by referendum might be challenged in the courts. This would
> > most likely occur if a matter of constitution were involved. So what?
> >
> > Wallace-Macpherson
> >
> >
>
> The UK Independence Party is in favour of citizens having the power to put
> things to a referendum.
>
> --
> John Youles
> j-dot-youles-at-ntlworld-dot-com
> http://www.ukip.org/
I can add that two well-established British political parties included the promise to
introduce citizens' initiative and referendum in their last election manifesto. Anyone care to
guess which parties?
Wallace-Macpherson
sam
> Our proposal to integrate some procedures such as citizens' initiative with
> the existing parliamentary system involves much more than asking people to
> vote in referenda, as the present government may do (e.g. on the Euro). We
> do _not_ propose to abolish or weaken parliament, rather to enhance
> governance with some new procedures. These may be called checks and
> balances, they strengthen democracy. Parliament and government, and local
> councils etc. would continue to legislate and govern most of the time. But
> the electorate would have the power to intervene, through carefully
> regulated and, indeed, well tested procedures. These could include the
> facultative (veto) referendum, by which a government bill may be blocked
> (e.g. poll tax law); referendum on international treaties and constitutional
> matters; initiative, a sort of petition, which if supported by many voters
> would be put before parliament, and could go to referendum if rejected.
>
> To your second question. Perhaps you would like to offer us a research grant
> so that we could answer fully. There have been studies which compare places
> with different "amounts" of democracy. In those with more direct democracy,
> there was more happiness (life satisfaction), less tax evasion and more
> economic prosperity, if I recall correctly. From other evidence I'm pretty
> sure that living in a "political culture" in which people expect to have a
> say in governing, through the sort of procedures which we propose, is
> associated with deeper awareness of public affairs, and greater sense of own
> responsibility.
>
> Wallace-Macpherson
That people are happier when in control of their own destinies is
indisputable, I would think. However, the more layers of government
there are, the more complex things tend to become. Devolved government
in the UK has offered citizens the chance to get more involved, but I
suspect that few previously apolitical people have bothered. Those
countries which have referendums don't seem particularly joyous places
and, even where voting is supposed to be compulsory, have falling
participation levels. The referendums I've observed - in Switzerland,
for example - are heavily balanced in favour of the well financed
interest groups. I suspect that such forms of participation are
esssentially illiberal.
Wallace-Macpherson
The new parliament of Scotland and Welsh assembly are added layers of the
representative system - more administrators, more MPs. So, saying that people do
not get involved in devolved government cannot be used as an argument against the
elements of direct democracy which we propose, e.g. citizens' initiative and
citizen-triggered referendum. I think that in Wales and Scotland there have been
some attempts to improve on the Westminster model in _consultation_ of citizens
but there is still no real direct democracy at all.
> Those
> countries which have referendums don't seem particularly joyous places
> and, even where voting is supposed to be compulsory, have falling
> participation levels. The referendums I've observed - in Switzerland,
> for example - are heavily balanced in favour of the well financed
> interest groups.
You yourself wrote that "That people are happier when in control of their own
destinies is indisputable" and the research which I cited has shown that more
direct democracy correlates with greater life-satisfaction. The study compared
Swiss cantons. My impression of the Swiss in Switzerland is different to yours.
People seem more self-confident as citizens, and much less "subjects" of some
ruler or regime. I think that your comment "referendums I've observed ... are
heavily balanced in favour of the well financed interest groups" would not stand
up to closer examination. A number of citizens' initiatives - not "well-financed"
- have prevailed in referendum.
>
> I suspect that such forms of participation are esssentially illiberal.
Evidence, please.
Regards,
Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org
http://www.sztaki.hu/servlets/voting/call
e-mail: in...@NO.SPAM.iniref.org