I find that the Irish abortion referendum is a perfect example of why I dislike referenda in principle.

The notion that a woman who was brutally raped ought to follow-through with a pregnancy because 51% of the country's voting population arbitrarily wills it is absurd and illegitimate to me.

In contrast, the UK through representative democracy abolished the death penalty at a time when the vast majority of the population were in favour. If one examines the process leading to that decision it is hard to argue that it wasn't a thoughtful and legitimate move in spite of its lack of popular support.

RC8 wrote:

I find that the Irish abortion referendum is a perfect example of why I dislike referenda in principle.

The notion that a woman who was brutally raped ought to follow-through with a pregnancy because 51% of the country's voting population arbitrarily wills it is absurd and illegitimate to me.

But thats likely to be fixed by the referendum. Where as there is no way either of the ruling parties would ever take action on their own because they are too afraid of the catholic backlash and because the parties themselves are full of backwards pricks.

Mirth wrote:

I think that's veering into hyperbole territory. Switzerland have held 180 referendums in the last 20 years and I doubt you'd accuse them of any of the above!

Actually Switzerland offers a lot of good examples why direct democracy can be very dangerous.

Qwiss! wrote:

RC8 wrote:

I find that the Irish abortion referendum is a perfect example of why I dislike referenda in principle.

The notion that a woman who was brutally raped ought to follow-through with a pregnancy because 51% of the country's voting population arbitrarily wills it is absurd and illegitimate to me.

But thats likely to be fixed by the referendum. Where as there is no way either of the ruling parties would ever take action on their own because they are too afraid of the catholic backlash and because the parties themselves are full of backwards pricks.

I don't completely disagree, referenda are sometimes useful tools to push the right legislation in the face of broken political systems, but don't forget that the Irish constitutional ban on abortion came to be because it was approved through a referendum. 

Consider also that countries like Canada and the United States - where abortion became legal thanks to court rulings - were able to offer abortion to their citizens in spite of popular opinion being against it at the time. This, like the death penalty example I mentioned earlier, was only possible due to a lack of referenda / direct democracy.

Coombs wrote:

I don't think that empowerment is necessarily a silver bullet. I actually don't think all people want to be empowered, that some genuinely want to be led, and that they derive a sense of empowerment from being followers.

Empowerment is not about leading for me, it's about having a quantum of actual power that you can mobilise to affect the world, for instance by contributing it to representatives you can trust.

Our democracies, majoritarian or otherwise, really don't provide that. Mainly because the process of representation itself has been captured.

RC8 wrote:

Qwiss! wrote:

But thats likely to be fixed by the referendum. Where as there is no way either of the ruling parties would ever take action on their own because they are too afraid of the catholic backlash and because the parties themselves are full of backwards pricks.

I don't completely disagree, referenda are sometimes useful tools to push the right legislation in the face of broken political systems, but don't forget that the Irish constitutional ban on abortion came to be because it was approved through a referendum. 

Consider also that countries like Canada and the United States - where abortion became legal thanks to court rulings - were able to offer abortion to their citizens in spite of popular opinion being against it at the time. This, like the death penalty example I mentioned earlier, was only possible due to a lack of referenda / direct democracy.

Fair points but take Britain and the Iraq war as a counter example. If that had been put to a referendum there is no way they'd have ended up in that war. Same with a lot of countries participation in wars.

Democracy is imprefect anyway. I prefer direct democracy for big issues though. Although check back after the appeal the 8th referendum I may have changed my mind.

If you're going to debate which system of governance is best, this thread will go into 100s of pages. Holding a referendum is just another tool - some times it can work well, other times not. What I'm against is the notion that referendums should never be allowed under any circumstances.

Maybe they might be useful, but only if you can get a 2/3rds or 3/4s majority. 50-50 should be out of the question entirely in my mind.

The one benefit that comes to mind is that it allows people to vote on an issue that their political party doesn't support, so it allows you to continue to vote for a party that suits you rather than having to switch to another party that you find distasteful over a single issue. i.e. a eurosceptic Labour supporter may have been forced to vote for the Tories or UKIP simply over Brexit, and evidently many did.

That being said, I think the main issue with all forms of democracy is that anything that can be corrupted and manipulated will be. That, and the masses are generally idiots.

I personally feel tinkering with the formal aspects of democracy is relatively pointless while actual economic power, in a form that can be mobilised, remains sequestered by a small elite.

As far as I've observed in a couple of decades of politics-watching, electoral reform, citizen referenda etc are a technocratic rabbit hole of debate that attracts a particular kind of abstract "systems thinker". There are a lot of interesting ideas floating around but not much that's a practical remedy for what afflicts us, and is driving us towards crisis.