|
| |
|
Narrow Election Results
When a major legislation such as Health Insurance Reform in the United
States of America is decided by a narrow margin of 219 to 212 it illustrates
that the process can hardly be called democratic.
This margin of 7 votes actually means that a change of heart by only four
parliamentarians would have been sufficient to turn the result on its head. This
means that a mere one per cent of those voting were enough to swing the result
of the vote one or the other way.
All too often elections now lead to very narrow majorities in favour of the
winning side. This is the natural outcome of the necessity to cater to the
voters in the centre of the political spectrum who are needed to swing the
pendulum one way or the other. Policies are fine-tuned to the point very
differences between the two competing camps are small enough to attract enough
voters to cross the line dividing the opposing camps but at the same time not
upsetting the natural constituents of each party. The only major remaining
difference are the personalities of the two opposing sides.
Often
elections result are decided by a tiny margin - even 51 per cent of votes in
many cases. In some election systems the winner does not even carry any majority
as all but still is given untrammelled power for a considerable period of time.
A tiny majority of citizens should not be allowed to rule over a bloc of
citizens that is of nearly the same size. The introduction of direct democracy can protect the
'minority' from being ruled by a government that can hardly called
representative. Putting all decisions to a referendum and only enacting
measures that have a substantial majority behind them would help to develop a bipartisan political culture
where issues are debated and they are decided upon on their merit rather
than party politics.
Holding votes on all major policy
issues would place severe constraints on governments that are not backed by a
majority of the popular vote.
|
| |
|
Decisions you would be able to influence:
By giving the
reader examples of recent policy decisions we highlight the dramatic
impact the introduction of Direct Democracy would have on the
political life of all countries.
All the following decisions where taken without the participation of
the affected citizens. Some - if not most - were highly
controversial and have a negative effect for at least some major
parts of the country's population.
The present system of government
not
only leaves the citizens powerless in the face of a never-ending
tide of legislation, it also inevitably leads to
inefficient use of taxpayer's money and a steady erosion of civil
liberties.
Full list of
decisions the citizens could influence
■
GENERAL
Nuclear Powers impose further sanctions on Iran
Should former politicians be allowed to cash in from books and lecture
tours?
Unequal regional distribution of tax burden
Forum demands that climate tax be redistributed on global basis
■
CLIMATE CHANGE AND POPULATION
Cap-and-Trade of Carbon Permits and ideal vehicle for fraud
Green Energy plan may cost 17 times more than its benefits
■
EUROPE
European Council
members must put interest of the Union above those of their own
countries (Lisbon Treaty, Article 9)
EU prepares
expanded sanctions against Iran
MEP wants tax on carbon-intensive products
EU wants introduction of body scanners on Airports
■
UNITED KINGDOM
Minister
states: British forces will be among the last to come home from
Afghanistan
Wind farms will
increasingly dominate most picturesque landscapes
7.6 billion car trip entries stored by police
■
DEUTSCHLAND
Solar
Subventionen
erreichen 85 Mrd. Euro
Neue Steuer auf USB Medien
Hartz IV Empfaenger zahlen nicht fuer Strom, Gas
■
OESTERREICH
Transparenzkonto: Parteifinanzen ausgenommen
Feinstaubkompetenz fuer Laender und Gemeinden
Mehrwertsteuergrenze manipuliert
|
|