It’s always astonishing to me how many Americans support “direct democracy” as opposed to representative. Mob rule plays out time and time again without representative democracy
No, mob rule plays out time and again without limited government. Whether legislation is direct or representative doesn't really matter, but in either direct or indirect democracy, election timing and structure (e.g., staggered six-year terms in the Senate for representative democracy, and supermajority or pass-twice-with-specified-interval rules for certain major changes in direct democracy) can.
Mob rule plays out with representative democracy too. Disinformation can get a mob boss elected and that mob can trample on minority groups freedoms.
It's the disinformation that is the issue. In both cases, the distortions will manifest.
Compared to a dictatorship, democracy is 'better', as at least you get the opportunity every few years to have your views acted on by the politicians. But then, sometimes you don't. And if your views are on the fringes, your views will never be acted on.
Either way, a definition of bullying is someone using their power of consequences (whether it's a beating or emotional blackmail, blackmail, or fines or prison et al) to make others do what they want - which is what democracy delivers to the victors.
Still pondering and wondering about better ways....
That sort of system has many flaws but I would take it much rather then the US system.
In fact the Swiss system is based on the US, just with more direct democracy and a far less powerful president.
I would actually argue that the removal of presidential powers is the most important thing. Having all your top ministers be selected by the one popular vote for president is pretty insane when you think about it.
In Switzerland the top ministers are from 4-5 different parties and they have to work together every day. The departments are not fixed and switch about between people and parties.
We voted on 6 weeks mandatory vacation and the people voted against it.
The parliament wanted to join the EU in the 1990, the people rejected it.
Also, often you end up putting your faith into parties rather then people and the people are compromised by party policy anyway. That you are voting for free thinking individual is mostly a fantasy.
It was really mostly because people didn't like the architecture. Muslims in Switzerland are freer then in many other countries in Europe and for every 'evil populist' law that Switzerland made you will find that 10 populist proposals have been rejected (left and right wing).
Also, lets remember that Minarett are something people like, they are not required or in any way limit religious freedom of Muslims.
So yes, we had like 4 Minaret and they wanted to build 2 more and can't. Populism has truly made live hell.
What is the mechanism for creating or disbanding ministries?
The 7 Top Minister (Bundesrat elected by Parliament) pick a ministry and the select based on how long they have been in.
So in the beginning you might get something unpopular like military but after a couple years you can switch to interior minister.
Because they don't get replaced as often as US presidents they can have a much longer term view. In fact they hardly get replaced at all, mostly they just retire.
I prefer to be governed by a lottery system with checks to insure loyalty and capability.
Purely out of interest, do you see yourself as more part of the mob, or more part of the representatives?
If the US switched to direct democracy tomorrow, I'd bet the same issues would pop up, just in a different form.
Representative government does nothing to stop that, except insofar as representation is non-proportional, and allows Y to do that instead of X, giving tyranny of the minority instead of tyranny of the majority.
The solution you are looking for is limited (either absolutely or procedurally) government, not representative over direct democracy.
See the demographics of protesters, they are all but the two groups above.
Being unfortunate to live 13 years in Russia, I can tell the trick: the initial "ignition source" might've been the middle age welfare receivers, but later on it was pivoted towards the usual malcontents under the cover of commotion.
Simple as hell trick, but yeah, it gave France hell.
The threat of mob rule you described, is only there if you allow it to be forcefully/artificially instated through psyops/political technologists/disinformation
Both of those demographics do in fact use Twitter, quite a bit actually.
The fact that most states have at least some degree of it, and the people don't use it to abolish itself in favor of purely representative democracy.
And they all contain the mechanisms by which, if people didn't like them, they could be undone.
> By the same argument, we can conclude most Americans are deeply paranoid about the dangers of direct democracy because the founders of the US were.
No, you can't, because to be “by the same argument”, you'd have to. show that, in a case where it was procedurally possible for the people directly to institute or remove direct democracy, they generally choose to avoid it entirely. Which is exactly the opposite of reality.
And the evidence is that they have it and choose to keep it, since its existence allows them to remove or further limit it should they wish to.
Not sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing, but to state my position explicitly direct democracy is the final form of decline for civil republican government. After that you’re headed for authoritarianism, be it left or right.
“Should they wish to” is frankly wishful thinking.
You so realize that you are literally making my point that direct democracy has significant support?
> “Should they wish to” is frankly wishful thinking.
I think you are confused about the subject: that they manifestly don't wish to is my entire point.
The last sentence I wrote was perhaps me misunderstanding your phrasing. I’m operating from a prior that direct democracy is very bad, and should be avoided.
Rhetorically what I meant was that “should they wish to” is not a meaningful distinction, since they would never wish not to [operate via direct democracy once that Pandora’s box is opened].
This can be seen especially well with the Supreme Court, which is arguably the single most undemocratic American institution. In the Progressive Era, SCOTUS was castigated by the left for slowing down the reforms, and eventually adopted the "judicial restraint" stance. Then the Civil Rights era came, with SCOTUS often the driving force - and now it was a good thing that it was forcing the hand of state legislatures regardless of popular support or lack thereof. Similarly, when you look at it from the right, the positions were essentially reversed - under FDR the right expected the courts to fight back against populism, in the Civil Rights era the right expected those same courts to defer to state legislatures.
More recently, in the 90s-10s period, it has been on full display - just take any op-ed with obvious partisan bias about any major Supreme Court decision. If the author agrees with it, they will usually exalt the wonders of an unelected body keeping the mob in check. If the author disagrees, then they will rant about how SCOTUS is undemocratic and thwarts the will of the people. Sometimes, the same author will write several op-eds over time, with varying position depending on the case.