Democracy: Participatory vs Representational

Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Aussie

Re: Democracy: Participatory vs Representational

Post by Aussie » Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:02 pm

freediver wrote:Sure. Under representative democracy, bills need support from over 50% of sitting MPs to pass. Under a delegable proxy system, they need support from 50% of the population. They could theoretically pass with only one MP in support. In this regard the system is much closer to direct democracy. It probably ticks all the boxes from the definition you gave.
You still have not explained how that works in terms of nuts and bolts.

User avatar
IQS.RLOW
Posts: 19345
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
Location: Quote Aussie: nigger

Re: Democracy: Participatory vs Representational

Post by IQS.RLOW » Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:16 pm

That's because it doesn't work.

It would be like having a referendum for every piece of legislation before the lower house.
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia

User avatar
freediver
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Democracy: Participatory vs Representational

Post by freediver » Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:17 pm

Aussie, I think I posted a link to the article earlier on.
It would be like having a referendum for every piece of legislation before the lower house.
No it wouldn't. For starters, there is no requirement for people to vote on each piece of legislation. As I explained, it combines the benefits of direct and representative democracy.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 14801
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: Democracy: Participatory vs Representational

Post by Rorschach » Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:23 pm

You're going to have to post that link again Fd.
The only example I've seen of it is representative members delegating their votes via proxy to another member.

How to you differentiate representative democracy from your delegable proxy system where in actuality the majority of the electorate delegate responsibility to their elected representative anyway?
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD

Aussie

Re: Democracy: Participatory vs Representational

Post by Aussie » Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:24 pm

freediver wrote:Aussie, I think I posted a link to the article earlier on.
It would be like having a referendum for every piece of legislation before the lower house.
No it wouldn't. For starters, there is no requirement for people to vote on each piece of legislation. As I explained, it combines the benefits of direct and representative democracy.
Yes you did.....but it is bereft of the practical details which is what I've been chasing you for.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 14801
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: Democracy: Participatory vs Representational

Post by Rorschach » Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:36 pm

I think Aussie is right... more detail re the nuts and bolts is required.

I suspect after reading it all one would ask why they needed a delegate to hold their proxy in the first place... why not just vote directly.

Electorates are divided in a manner supposedly to even out the numbers which is why country electorates as so much larger than city electorates. Hence their representatives or delegates "hold" a certain amount of proxies/votes.

CIR enables issues of concern to voters to have them addressed directly by the people, this system avoids the issue of having every decision by parliament decided by the people directly. just the important ones... or those deemed important by the people.
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD

User avatar
freediver
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Democracy: Participatory vs Representational

Post by freediver » Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:10 pm

You're going to have to post that link again Fd.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-refo ... proxy.html
How to you differentiate representative democracy from your delegable proxy system where in actuality the majority of the electorate delegate responsibility to their elected representative anyway?
In practice, less than half of voters actually support their local candidate as a first preference, and they do not get to choose on which issues. You get a very limited set of people to choose from, and no further say in how they represent you. Under voting by delegable proxy, there would be about 100 viable candidates to choose from, and you can change your vote as often (or inoften) as you like.
I suspect after reading it all one would ask why they needed a delegate to hold their proxy in the first place... why not just vote directly.
You can effectively achieve that if you wish, but most people would prefer to delegate. Even when you only vote once every 3 years and it is compulsory, we are lucky to get 95% turnout. How many people want to vote directly on every single bill before parliament?
Electorates are divided in a manner supposedly to even out the numbers which is why country electorates as so much larger than city electorates. Hence their representatives or delegates "hold" a certain amount of proxies/votes.
Yes, they do their best to work with an inferior system.
CIR enables issues of concern to voters to have them addressed directly by the people, this system avoids the issue of having every decision by parliament decided by the people directly.
So does voting by delegable proxy - in a much more refined and responsive way.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests