Van: Andres Espino <ima_very_cool_cowboy@...
> People get to vote for somebody, but often their vote carries no
> deciding weight on final issues, because those elected representatives
>do what they think is best or most profitable for their constituency.
[constituency=voters] In the netherlands there's even a law, that says
reprezentatives should make their own decisions, even if that means
going against the wishes of the voters
>In a TRUE DEMOCRACY (and I don't actually know any offhand)
switzerland comes close
> all the people would cast votes for all major issues of government.
> It simply isn't practical.
"under mussolini the trains ran on time"
> Can you imagine every issue that now passes before a parliament
> having to be voted on by everyone nationwide?
I think referenda can be a great tool, especially in cases with a
clearly naturally limited set of choices (do we want nuclear arms in
our country?), especially when the lines of division do not coincide
with party-borders (like legalizing drugs or basic income).
Because of the referendum, the swiss were the last to give women
full voting rights (better late than never).
In at least one kanton there have been referenda about individual
stay-permits for immigrants... which is taking it too far IMHO
>On a city level, can you imagine every decision whether to add
> or move a traffic light
A referendum on removing *all* traffic lights seems feasable
> modify city services and so on..
> meant you had to gather everyone in the city and have them vote on it?
I don't understand what you're saying
Of course, there should be some limits to referendum. It can't
simply ask wether people want more subsidies and less taxes.
It shouldn't ask wether the constitution should be violated