Representative Democracy.

The original of this page was lost in a HD crash.  I have attempted to recreate the content.  Any reader who has a copy of the original is requested to mail it to me. June 2000

In most of the wealthy nations of the world we have "representative democracy".

"Representative democracy" must always be distinguished from "democracy" (or "True Democracy").  "Democracy" requires the possibility that all citizens should have the right to directly vote on all community matters.  This includes legislative, judicial and executive decisions and appointments.

At the time of formation of the existing "representative democracy" nations (except Switzerland & Iceland, and many US states), citizens had no choice.  They had to choose the "representative" style of democracy rather than "true" style of democracy because the nations were too large and communications too slow for all citizens to vote directly on each piece of legislation.

Over the past few decades, things have changed.

It would now be possible for all interested citizens in a modern technological state to vote on all important legislation.

They could do it by using the internet and email.  Security is not an issue.  Our Banks trust encryption and passwords sufficiently to transfer billions of dollars annually using public key encryption.

All that must be done by the government is establish a PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) for all taxpayer/citizen voters.  (As a bonus, the PKI would identify citizen's signature on tax refund cheques.)  Access is not a problem - private enterprise could provide email access to all voters in churches or schools at a fraction of the cost of existing electoral arrangements.

The elected representatives of Western Democracies are not in a hurry to relinquish their grasp on power.  They have become accustomed to the wealth and power conferred by their status as "people's representatives".  By their actions they seem to be consolidating their positions with legislation designed to centralize power and diminish individual liberty.  The formation of the EU is an example of centralism.  Legislation controlling guns or enforcing the use of seat belts and airbags is an example of diminution of public liberties.

Our representatives defend their failure to give direct democracy with spurious arguments.

The European legislators try the tactic:

We must unite so that Europe can become an economic rival to the USA.
If that is so, then why is the EU doing worse economically than the UK?

Seat belt legislation is defended by misleading arguments:

Enforcing belts reduces the public cost of hospitals, and what about drink driving, I suppose you would want to legalize that too
In Australia, compulsory third party insurance pays medical bills deriving from car accidents.  Car accidents are no cost whatsoever to the public health system.

Drinking is a proven risk factor to both the driver and the public at large.  Prohibiting drinking prevents drivers from involuntarily infringing other person's rights to safe roads.

Enforced wearing of seat belts is killing thousands of drivers and pedestrians and cyclists each year, (although nobody in power dares to admit it).

When a horror gun killing happens, control advocates call for further restrictions on guns.  They do not look at the circumstances.  They do not attempt to explain their logic.  They are like the teacher who punishes the whole class for the act of one person.  Statistics indicate that liberalizing gun laws is the solution to violence in our community.

One of the BIG LIES that politicians will employ is that:

Direct democracy is mob rule.  We must have cooler heads in control.  Our wisest minds must rule uninfluenced by the changing passions of the moment.  For instance, only under Representative Democracy would a popular president who was guilty of perjury be removed from office.
To misquote Mandy Rice-Davies:
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they..