[Marcarc]

I would tend to disagree with the above, movements result from numbers, not lack of them. If 100 people show up at these meetings then its going nowhere. As we discussed on another thread, the PQ benefitted from our 'first past the post plurality' system which gave them power, yet not the majority of the vote. However, you still need substancial numbers to get to that point. Personally, that is why I like direct democracy at the municipal level initially. It only takes one person (me) to run on such a platform, yet if the numbers are there for support it goes nowhere. If this group is not politically active then they become another lobby group like the Council of Canadians, which does good work at showing problems, but we in canada certainly don't need more people showing us the problems, they seem quite evident. The solutions are more complex, and I won't deny that it is possible to enact significant change outside the political arena, but it takes a lot of work and to my mind the central issue IS political, especially in Quebec. I'm not a Quebecer so that is just my opinion, if they had a forum like this one I'd be on there spouting direct democracy.

[wadestock]

The above about Switzerland was extremely thought provoking.<br /> <br /> The general public has to be well informed and must achieve a consensus on key issues, then any such form of referendums, actions, or "direct democracy" has a chance. But key to having any chance of this happening is to be already operating within an environment where people can be cognizant of, understand and appreciate the advantages of quality products and services.<br /> <br /> Here in the US Ross Perot tried to champion the idea of "town hall meetings" on serious national issues. He was generally received as a crack pot and the idea considered impractical. <br /> <br /> The US exemplifies a misinformed general public, which historically champions individual selfish interests. The impact of direct democracy in the US would most likely exacerbate gluttonous dysfunctional capitalistic behavior. <br /> <br /> In short, our founding fathers had a pretty good notion that individual freedom was important, but then went overboard in terms of defining a government system which would ultimately stifle itself, be uncreative, and not equipped to promote quality products and services. Consequently, here in the US we have probably one of the best forms of non-government on the planet...which has very casually allowed the formation of runaway, irresponsible capitalism...largely to the detriment of the population at large....and while consuming the world's resources irresponsibly and inefficiently to boot.<br /> <br /> So how do the people get their sites directed to the proper information, and then subsequently achieve consensus on worthwhile objectives? I hope that somehow good sense and good information ultimately prevail, but at best this is a slow and tedious process, often stifled by confusion and mass misinformation. <br /> <br /> I personally don’t buy that the masses can get us to the promised land. A good government has to ultimately recognize (through whatever means) that the most important goal is to run itself like a competent business and that it also promote the creation of other competent businesses within the private sector for the self preservation, long term success, and promotion of quality products and services that specifically benefit the people. There are many concrete specific things government can do to inspire free enterprise to be responsible and to be HELD responsible for delivering quality products or services to the citizenry. <br /> <br /> Only after a long time of appreciating what such “good business” has to offer can the masses have a reasonable chance (at least statistically) of making strong positive contributions to the overall equation. By the way, this feedback is very very important, but notice that even in the case of quality business, it is the BUSINESS which most likely starts the positive ball rolling. <br /> <br /> Although I don’t know the details of what’s going on in other countries, I get the notion that countries like Switzerland and other European nations have begun going down this type of road. The potential for direct democracy is thus much higher in these environments because they have avoided the trap of irresponsible self-destructive capitalistic environments and see more clearly what the long term advantages are of quality products and services. <br /> <br /> In summary, I see the advantage of direct democracy as a necessary feedback loop to say, “yes we get the advantages of quality products and services”...thus further supporting those best business practices. But this takes an informed consumer and a smart consumer. Meanwhile, at the top, the government must already be running itself like a smart informed business and also promote quality products and services within the private free enterprise sector. <br />

[Marcarc]

Wow, I didn't think anybody would dig up this old thread again. <br /> I don't even know where to start with the idea that the whole impetus of government should be to function like a business. That's the most ludicrous thing I ever heard, a business is designed to make profit, pure and simple-who thinks that that is the aim of government??<br /> <br /> As for the other comments, they are a variant of comments we've already addressed, the "people are just too dumb for democracy". That's fine if you believe that, just don't be surprised when not everybody falls into line. The simplest reply is simply that people are expected to be knowledgeable enough to vote, so what's the difference between learning the issues to support a representative, and learning the issues to actually vote on them.<br /> <br /> Canada is not the democracy America is, again, go read the comments. The latest example I think I posted elsewhere but will repeat it to make a point. Liquified Natural Gas terminals are inherently dangerous, in fact a documentary was just made on them. In Maine, every town along the coast had a referendum on whether they should allow one in their backyard, they all voted against it except one, where I believe they are building, but facing several lawsuits. That's democracy. Across the border in New Brunswick Jim Irving, head of Irving oil went to see the Mayor of Saint John, informing him that not only were they building a LNG terminal, but they wanted a huge tax break worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The council had until midnight to make their decision, of course when Irving talks, people listen.<br /> <br /> Not only did they receive the tax breaks, which necessitated the provincial government rewrite the tax laws, but they now will have an LNG terminal thanks to NB taxpayers, and a terminal which will create, at most, 20 jobs-less than most tourist attractions.<br /> <br /> This isn't 'a bad exception', this is a true analogy. When government attempts to screw over americans, they have something to fight back with, and they have a means to at least impact the agenda. Of course in the media we only hear what they want us to hear, not the stuff that takes place every single day. In Canada, when the government does something, there is no mechanism, there is no means for canadians to DO anything except try to get publicity and hope to god the government listens. Usually they don't. Go look at virtually every government policy and typically they are the exact opposite of what most canadians hold as 'values'. <br /> <br /> So some people can hold to the line that we need great smart intelligent politicians to make our decisions for us, or we can look at that OTHER idea-called democracy.