At 07:17 AM 11/8/97 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
>At 09:27 AM 11/7/97 -0500, "Thomas Lunde" wrote:
>
snip
>I believe that honesty and objectively of the kind needed
>to govern for the common good is beyond individual human
>capability.
>
>If civil society has any chance at all to survive the
>coming century (damned unlikely), it involves setting
>aside fairy tales left over from the 18th century
>Enlightenment -- it involves understanding the true
>nature of humans and learning to govern for the common
>good. Thus, the key to our collective survival lies in
>the new discipline of Evolutionary Psychology.
>
>See "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer" at:
>http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.htm
snip
We at Canadians for Direct Democracy (CDD) have a different, and, we think,
more practical viewpoint.
A vast amount of the abuse of our governments/governance systems stems from
lack of accountability to ANYONE
The Swiss have had government accountable to the people for 130 years;
Rossland B.C. for 7 years; Pitt Meadows B.C. for a few months; and on Nov
3/97 N. Vancouver, B.C. set up a Task Force to study Direct Democracy (DD).
DD is basically a SYSTEM of popular initiative and veto, binding
referendums, double majority and spending limits (see Appendices and website
- some U.S. states, mainly the westcoast ones, have a hodgepodge of
referendums that are up for the highest bidder)
Rossland and Swiss experience indicates that in less than 5 years of an
adjustment period, government changes drastically for the better
Only after a basic adjustment such as this has been made, do I think that
more advanced governance systems are practical - the work of Wilber and
Raven (see website) would tend to suggest that "holarchic" or "cha-ordic"
(chaos/order)(the Internet is one of the few examples of this in practice)
systems may be a promising direction.
"Canadians for Direct Democracy" is a non-profit group formed recently,
inspired by Brian Beedham's 12-page article "Full Democracy" in the Dec
21/96 London Economist (see website).
I append a few extracts from the website, which give a brief outline of the
principles of CDD
Colin Stark
Vice-President
Canadians for Direct Democracy
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
*********************************************
Appendices
Mission Statement of CDD
Our aim is to improve the democratic process in Canada through
citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend,
introduce and remove policies and laws.
Principles of Direct Democracy
1.The Popular Veto - when 1% of the voters challenges a law or policy by
petitioning government, a binding referendum vote (local, regional,
provincial or national) must be held. If it passes, the law is struck down.
This process happens about four times a year in Switzerland.
2.The Popular Initiative - when 2% of the voters demands a new law or policy
by petitioning government, a binding referendum vote must be held. If it
passes, it becomes the law.
3.The Double Majority - this means that a referendum must get more than 50%
of the total votes; it must also get more than 50% of the votes in more than
half of the designated regions.
4.Strict spending controls - prevent one side from "buying" the vote. Quebec
already has such controls in place.
5.Proportional Representation - in its pure form gives each party the number
of seats in parliament proportional to the percentage of votes the party
receives.
------------
Advantages of Direct Democracy
Allows the voice of the people to become the Law.
Helps people feel that their vote counts, so that they take a keener interest.
Makes government pass laws under the threat of a popular veto.
Curbs the dictatorial tendencies of party leaders, the Prime Minister and
Cabinet, and top bureaucrats.
Forces lobbyists to try to influence all the people rather than just the
elite who hold power.
Makes difficult issues more likely to be faced, since citizens can bring
them to referendum. In Canada only government can call referendums.
Gives a fair allocation of seats to all parties through proportional
representation.
------------
Questions about Direct Democracy
Will the majority tyrannize weak minorities?
No. This has not happened in Switzerland.
Will the cost be too high?
No. Referendums can be held on voting day at minimal expense, and
referendums would cost
much less than the non-elected Senate.
Will direct democracy weaken the power of governments?
Yes. Many Canadians would consider this desirable because our political
system lacks accountability.
Don't ordinary citizens lack the time, intelligence, and wisdom to make good
decisions?
If this is true, then democracy of any kind is a poor system.
Would referendums solve complex issues?
Experts agree that complex issues like sovereignty must be broken down into
several simple questions before being put to the people. Putting the
Charlottetown Accord to a vote in 1993 was not an appropriate use of the
referendum process.
----------
Summary of the Objectives of Canadians for Direct Democracy
CDD wants government to introduce a system of binding referendums, whereby
citizens can introduce Popular Initiative and Popular Veto, subject to the
Double Majority.
CDD wants strict spending controls on referendums so that one side cannot
"buy" the vote.
CDD supports continuance of the House of Commons under some form of
proportional representation.
end
=====================
Colin Stark
Vice-President
Canadians for Direct Democracy
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
