What Are Your Thoughts on Referendums. Are Voters Given Enough Say in The Countries Decisions? E.g. Refugee Intake

[Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 10:06
Last edited 30/06/2016 - 10:20 by 1 other user

I was really surprised recently when someone disagreed with me on referendums. I had pretty much assumed that nearly everyone would feel that the voting proletariate are not being listened to enough by our politicians on issues such as refugee intake and the like. Wouldn't you like to be asked (via a referendum) about some/certain issues? With a referendum on refugees for example perhaps a range from no refugees to allowing some and another option to allow all. I feel we the voters are often not listened to at all but rather being told what will be by political parties.

Someone argued that this is why we vote for a political party and so we should leave the… burden of decision making entirely to the party. I do believe that the overall running of the/a countries should be done by the political party (infrastructure and the like) BUT that on certain contentious issues - people should be encouraged via referendums to have their say. I suggested that around 10 referendums should be allowed each year. What could be more fair???

Are my feelings on the matter so at odds with most people?
Shouldn't the government be somewhat bound by the feelings of the majority via official voter referendums?

*My 1st poll folks - no nastiness please, I'm just reviewing my thoughts on such things.
Will appreciate sensible comments that will either sway or support my thoughts.

Poll Options

  • 156
    Yes - we should have more referendums. The people should have an official say.
  • 180
    No - we should not have more referendums. The government should make these decisions entirely.
General Discussion

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2016 - 13:09

    There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of what a referendum is in Australia.
    A referendum is held when Parliament is considering a change to our Constitution.
    The Constitution cannot be changed without approval of the public, so that is gathered by a referendum vote.
    A plebiscite is a vote on an issue that is not going to affect a change to the Constitution and it can be territorial, state or federal.

  • bringbring on 01/07/2016 - 13:25
    +2

    Wow, 71-70 currently. About as close to the wire as referendums normally come. Personally I don't want the lay public making important decisions. The republican movement is OK and kina irrelevant, but something like refugees… noooooo. Ironically it is the areas which have low immigration which will vote with their racist hearts (cough cough rural QLD cough)

  • c0balt on 01/07/2016 - 15:58
    -1

    I want a referendum on if capital punishment should be brought back.

    • Serapis on 01/07/2016 - 18:46

      no.

  • VBO on 01/07/2016 - 16:43
    +1

    Let's have a referendum on this.

  • adante on 01/07/2016 - 17:38

    Someone argued that this is why we vote for a political party and so we should leave the… burden of decision making entirely to the party.

    I'm skeptical that is actually his opinion… but if so then presumably this decision making includes the burden of choosing leadership? I hope he likes autocracy because that's how you get autocracy.

    Churchill said it best made it famous:

    Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others

  • Serapis on 01/07/2016 - 18:45
    +1

    Referedums are largely impractical and costly. This is why we vote on a government, they get 4 years not to stuff up. Depending on how they perform, we either keep or oust them.

    That and a large chunk of your average voters don't have the knowledge or interest in politics. A lot would object to being forced to go to polls 10 times a year (nearly once a month if you think about it)

    Would be chaos if we had to vote on everything 'important' because
    1. Importance is largely subjective and
    2. Do we want stability and policies that work in unison or policy which decidedly changes after every scandal / media hype / change in popular opinion?

    Maybe if the country ran like a DAO (Decentralised Autonomous Organisation), your system might work (that in itself is only in its infancy and has large problems).

  • 2real4u on 01/07/2016 - 23:01

    Sorry I had to..

    http://m.imgur.com/lSNVhBS

    Hung vote?

  • Jackson on 01/07/2016 - 23:09
    +1

    Was on 98 a piece before I voted, probably the only time my vote will ever count for anything!

  • p1 ama on 02/07/2016 - 01:23
    +2

    I'm extremely worried about this wave of populism that seems to be taking grip of the world. The answer to this question is no, no, no. People should NOT be given more say because most people are idiots who are easily manipulated, do not understand the consequences of what they are voting for and, generally, are not experts making informed decisions. Let me give you a few examples to tell you what I mean:

    1) If a majority of Australians believe that slavery is okay, does that mean slavery is okay?

    2) If a majority of Australians believe we should cut taxes to a flat rate of 10%, does this mean it is good economic policy?

    3) If a majority of Australians believe that schools should be paid for by parents, does this mean it is right?

    The answer to all those three questions, obviously, should be of course not. We live in a representative democracy where we can choose WHO represents us, not WHAT they do. This means that we elect based on promises, trust and whether we believe in their plan.

    To use your refugee analogy, what expertise do most average Australians have on the matter to give them any right to have their say? I would go so far as to say that allowing people to vote in this way will increase the wave of stupid populism that we are already seeing, will drive economies into the ground and will further marginalise people who are already marginalised.

    • gimme on 02/07/2016 - 10:12

      Amen! You won't get any upvotes here as it makes too much sense.

  • btst7000 on 02/07/2016 - 02:44
    +3

    Yes, referendums are expensive right now, but it is not technically difficult to create a system in which we can all vote online - in that case, citizens could either a) vote on policy individually or b) allow somebody else to vote for them (e.g. a senator could vote for everyone who chooses them). That could lead to a more practical direct democracy.

    voteflux.org has more info on the subject

  • truemana on 02/07/2016 - 07:53
    +1

    Referendums are great, but generally the majority should not be able to decide on the rights of a minority, e.g. gay marriage and refugee intake. We elect people to represent us to the best interests of the country. Sometimes what the electorate want is not what is in the best interests of themselves individually or even the country (e.g. Brexit).

  • Jabba the Hutt on 02/07/2016 - 10:00
    +1

    Every system of government is kinda crap, but there's perhaps a 'less worse' alternative to the two poll options:

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/citize…

    The current representative system has very limited public engagement, but the trouble with the direct system is that for each decision on complex matters to be well-informed, the entire voting public has to engage with the issues in some detail, notionally requiring hundreds of millions of man-hours (not expecting much, eh?). If that doesn't happen, then it wouldn't necessarily be all that different from what we have now - shallow, silly campaigning followed by a vote.

    The 'citizen jury' is sort of a middle ground between those extremes. At first, it seemed to me they'd have the character of an acrimonious local council meeting, but after hearing how they functioned in practice, it sounds like something worth experimenting with more broadly.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2016 - 14:06

      This contribution to me really made sense with both your comment and after having listened to the program. I was initially concerned that the content may swell strongly towards the left due to my opinion of some ABC/SBS somewhat blatant left wing attitudes, (with the media in general followed closely behind).

      So far there have been many weighty' and interesting comments supporting each opinion including arguments for not having referenda which I do not entirely disagree with. This ABC program was inspiring and allowed/covered each position fairly IMO but if I may be honest - I still lean towards some/limited referenda via community. I am certainly more aware of the complexities!

      I hope others will have a listen to the ABC link you so kindly provided Jabba and many thanks for this relevant and informative information!!!

      I had no idea this poll would create such interest and qualitative/intelligent comments. Hoping to see more.

      Thanks folks.

  • Mysterious Laptop on 02/07/2016 - 17:48
    -1

    AUSEXIT, I've always wanted Australia to be a republic with no nanny state.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2016 - 18:46
    +2

    We live in a country where we believe we (collective) are well educated and can make informed decisions.

    We aren't and we don't.

    In an ideal situation where we spent as much time on Women's Weekly and the sports pages as we do on business reports and political news, referendums would be revolutionary.

    • [Deactivated] on 03/07/2016 - 01:40

      Through all of the comments, I have to admit - I've learned that I was perhaps overrating the median level of education/intelligence etc of the average voter.

      You make a fair point - thank you for adding your comment.

  • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2016 - 18:59

    Seen someone writing about an "OPT-IN" requirement for any legitimate government, legal system, land ownership, education scheme etc.
    IE. From young adulthood you can Opt-in to a countries systems, and Opt-out at anytime.

    And further, an Opt-in/out Global collaborative choice or self design of legal, property, border etc inclusion/exclusion. And such a system having superior status to local systems, and it's own clout to back it up globally.

    Now that's worth considering in a referendum, and I would consider it probablly a positive for freedom.

    Any thoughts?

  • Aneurism on 03/07/2016 - 00:33

    I don't think referendums should be acted on unless there is a clear winning potalicy. (as an arbitrary number maybe 75%+).. otherwise it just creates uncertainty and disunity.

  • jonathonsunshine on 03/07/2016 - 02:32

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/why-election…

    Interesting article/opinion piece I read the day after brexit. Basic gist is that "the system" is keeping us in the dark, career politicians are totally removed from the general populace and that general elections and voting are increasingly flawed because the people are ill-informed.

  • [Deactivated] on 03/07/2016 - 09:01
    +1

    So you essentially want direct democracy?

    It's fine to have referendums when you think your side will win. What happens when increasingly extreme referendums get past and put into effect? Capital punishment. Blasphemy laws. Extreme restrictions on immigration. Extreme surveillance methods. Tyranny of the majority is a real thing & considering the leaning towards authoritarians around the world that scares me. Representative democracy is perfectly fine if the people become more involved. The system doesn't need to be changed, the participation needs to be increased. And not by voting on online petitions which are entirely useless unless you're some prude who wants a magazine with a bikini model on the cover censored because children.

    • Shamdog on 04/07/2016 - 09:03

      Great point. The key takeaway is for people to become more involved. If government's do not fear its citizens, they are free to do as they choose.

  • syousef on 03/07/2016 - 09:04

    I don't have an answer for you. But I do know that a significant proportion of the Australian voting public can't even be bothered taking the time to understand what party believes what. The number of people that are literate enough to understand the complexities of what would be the subject of these referenda is unfortunately not large. People end up asking their friends on Facebook "who/what should I vote for?" as if they're deciding which footy club to back before a match they've been asked to see last minute with friends. It's true that the current system doesn't allow for much choice and it's a sham of a democracy but even if these people were given the opportunity to fix that right now, they wouldn't be in a position to determine their futures. Unfortunately that includes people close to me.

    How many people even know what science funding this government has cut for example?

  • Starcraftmazter on 03/07/2016 - 10:50

    Absolutely

    In Switzerland, anyone can call a referendum on anything (with enough Signatures) at any level of government - from local to federal.

    The mere threat of referendums keeps politicians honest, by ensuring they do not try to do anything people would not support.

    Democracy is worth any cost.

    • icejester on 04/07/2016 - 01:41
      -1

      Sometimes the masses are not right
      People are gnerally easily fooled by illusions and fear

      • Starcraftmazter on 04/07/2016 - 21:37

        But what I'm hearing is, "I know better than everyone else".

        • icejester on 13/07/2016 - 23:12
          -1

          Not everyone else but a large portion I'd say
          It's fine and dandy to say everyone is the same but the reality is we are not
          The brexit was the good example of the large portion of people not understanding the full consequences of their vote. Most people tend to vote depending on 1 or 2 issues important to them such as immigration or job security or centrelink payments etc.

        • Starcraftmazter on 15/07/2016 - 22:48

          @icejester: And they have every right to do this.

          I think brexit was an excellent decision, which will bring massive benefit to the UK. Hopefully it will be the start of the liberation of Europe from modern fascism.

  • Shamdog on 04/07/2016 - 09:02

    To be honest, we, as the citizens of this great country should be the ones dictating or guiding the outcomes of our elected Government's policies. Whilst referendums and plebiscites are obviously expensive, there are ways to overcome this more efficiently and effectively. Surely an app that requires a 100 point ID verification will eliminate or at the very least minimise fraudulent voting? The only way for our country to move forward is for its citizens to be listened to. It has become increasingly evident that any government we choose to elect is incapable of making the choices and decisions that matter, for example gay marriage, refugee intakes etc. I dunno…I just feel that we are stagnating as a country as politicians are either too scared or incompetent to take us forward or are in power to substantiate their own agendas. Just my two cents…

  • poppit88 on 05/07/2016 - 00:03

    If our pollie's had one ounce of sense they'd make these decisions in a sensible manner on our behalf.

    The sad reality is they're busy in fighting and trying to score points with each other. The latest scandal of the medicare texts being one of them. Do they actually think we're that stupid??? Clearly they do.

    And they wonder why they're losing votes to minor parties in droves.

    People are sick of it. Our last functioning government was under Howard. Since then it's been a free for all.

    Until these people get out of their thought bubbles, and actually get in touch with what the people on the ground actually think and feel it's going to continue on, in the same fashion.

    And I wonder if we're ever, ever going to get a politician who is actually going to stand up and say it like it is.

    I don't particularly agree with the policies of Pauline Hanson, Derryn Hinch or Jacqi Lamby. But I'll say this - they at least speak their mind, say exactly what they think - at least you know where you stand.

    These other muppets seem to think the population is clueless, stupid and will just vote blindly without thinking.

  • altomic on 05/07/2016 - 01:47
    +2

    I'm just disappointed by the voters who are "born and bred liberal or labor" supporters and just vote for "their" party with out any understanding of the platform. My parents (in their 70s) will vote liberal regardless. The libs could run with a platform for compulsory euthanasia for 65+ people and my parents would still vote for them. We need greater clarity in political party preelection promises (rather than the vague scare mongering so often exhorted) and voters should be better informed. I applaud more independents when they maintain a rational and pragmatic position. However I recognise that it is an incredibly complex situation in running a country and you can't please all of the people all of the time.

    • Make it so on 05/07/2016 - 13:35

      I agree with you. It is hard to know what parties are actually about, and it sometimes feel like we live in a mock-democracy, with election outcomes determined more by media and scare-tactics than anything. It's hard to police "election promises", but some standardised, comparison-friendly way would help a lot.

      Perhaps if people were better informed, referendums would have more meaning. People can't (shouldn't) be expected to vote for things they cannot understand.

    • poppit88 on 05/07/2016 - 13:36
      +2

      OMG - the person who votes liberal or labour because their parents did. "I was born into a labour family or I was born into a liberal family." You weren't born into either - you were born into a family.

      I suspect there are entire swathes of voters who still think like this. (Or Actually, who don't think.)

      Anyway, we end up with the governments we deserve - because people vote for them.

    • ozhunter on 06/07/2016 - 04:17
      +2

      The libs could run with a platform for compulsory euthanasia for 65+ people and my parents would still vote for them

      Doubt it and that's a very extreme example.

      I've always voted Liberal and from what I've seen from Labor, I will definitely continue to do so.

      • Max Power on 06/07/2016 - 13:40

        Doubt it and that's a very extreme example.

        I think you missed the point and the joke.

        • ozhunter on 06/07/2016 - 14:34

          Probably lol, but I was aware that he was saying that his grandparents would vote for Liberal which would in result force them to die.

      • BuyoTheCat on 07/07/2016 - 12:05

        OMG. I am going to give out flyers that Libs are going to euthanize everyone 40+. put them last!

  • Bystander on 11/07/2016 - 10:25
    +1

    It has been suggested above that we should choose a party and then leave them to run the country for the rest of their term. And at the end of that term we can decide whether we are satisfied with their performance or whether we should vote the other party in. But that system doesn't work. Especially when there are some policies on both sides that I strongly disagree with. There's currently no possible way for the average voter to have a say in individual issues. Typically politicians only respond to lobby groups and donors and the party whip.

    The political system we have for the House of Reps is flawed. Thankfully the Senate is somewhat more democratic and that's where we see people expressing their opinions and voting for a wider range of parties.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join