Is referendum a good way to take decisions

[h_k_s]

In the discussion about the Brexit, Teralek posted the follwing comment:

[...]
In principle I don't agree with enforcing permanent and deep changes on a country based on simple majorities. The public has whims, a close vote today might have a completely different outcome in 2 months. This isn't like voting for PM where you can change your mind every 4 years, this will have a lasting impact for generations. A decision as such put on referendum should only pass with 2/3 majority. I don't even agree to put such a thing on referendum, some things should be left for the experts. Most of us, me included, aren't experts in economy or even on how to run a country.

To put in referendum the UK membership of the EU, with all the caveats included, such as membership of the single market, is like me putting on public referendum my doctor's diagnostic and prescription... silly.
[...]

As a Swiss citizen, I am used to have almost every topic decided by a vote, so of course, I have problems to agree that we should let difficult/complex decisions to experts:

• Who selects the experts? In most topics, I can find an expert that will support any possible decision.
• Being a (scientific) expert does not remove personal opinions and even if the expertise would be generally accepted, this does not yet guarentee that the expert will push the optimal solution for the country (but perhaps for himself)...
• Perhaps the correct decision is not the "optimal" option of experts - because you have to take into account the acceptability and nobody is forced to be objective anyway (I prefer eating choclate, even if I should eat less sweet. It is my life!)

At the end, delegating power is what representative democracy is all about - then we should decide that all decisions are parlementary (and let them consult whatever experts) and remove referendum rights; this is sort of the normal situation in most democracies worldwide anyway (how often do British people actually vote on a referendum?). This is a legitimate option (possibly adding a referendum of non-confidence forcing re-elections of the parlement), but in the case of Brexit, or of Maastricht in France, this was exactly rejected in favor of a referendum in order to have a broader acceptance... so the delegation seem to actually exactly fail in the most complex and fatefull topics...

Assuming that a referendum is legitimate, it does indeed has weaknesses:

• Decisions close to 50/50 are unduly influenced by the mood of the moment and leave the country devided.
• In a society with the attention span of a Tweet, complex topics are difficult to sell - so simple (simplistic) solutions have a higher chance to win, even if they are not even functioning.
• It bears the risk of dictature of the majority; I live in Switzerland, from the french-speaking minority. In theory there could have a vote where ca. 75% of the (German speaking) voters decide that School must be held in German.

Some elements allow to correct mostly the last danger (dictature of majority), as example:

• A culture of concordence (still quite strong in Switzerland), helps bringing to vote mostly propositions that are somewhat broadly acceptable and have not a part of the country (geographically, culturally) that absolutely cannot tolerate it. Some party try to ignore it, but mostly loose as the people are all aware that they may be the next "minority".
• Federalism: by keeping decision at the lowest possible level, a local community can decide without impacting the neighboring communities

But there is a tendancy that with time: emotions and "tweet"-level deepness of thought is influencing more and more the outcome of referendums. In Switzerland, it is seen by the more frequent adoption in referendum of texts that are not legally sound, for example (I can give examples if requested) and that need to be "hoehorned" into acceptable legal structure before coming into force if we want to keep the core of the system (incl. foreign agreements, human rights) intact. This also happen in elections, by the way, as I cannot explain differently a Trump.

So finally my question:
Are referendum still the ultimate democratical way to get a broad decision for important topics, or do the dangers of emotional moods make it dangerous and it should be eliminated, or significantly modified?
Is it even compatible with democratic rights to forbid referendums? Is democracy actually always the decision of majority, or are there other ways to define it?

Finally: while I like the idea of "such referendums" needing a majority of 2/3... who decides that a referendum is "such"? Then it should be the rule for any referendum, with always "change" requirering 2/3? This will be difficult to keep society moving with such hurdles...
But perhaps a law saying that any result less than 55% must be revoted after 3 months may be interesting.

Although I have no interest in br-exit, I am interested in referendum power.

Certain topics such as capital punishment, abortion, LGBTQ marriage, euthanasia, legal dope, etc. are such hot button/potato issues that legislatures normally get log-jammed when trying to deal with them.

In these specific instances, referendum power by the body politic is the most perfect way to deal with these hot button/potato items.

So, yes, referendum can be and sometimes is a perfect way to "take" legislative decisions.

I only recommend "taking" aspirin however. All other things that you "take" can harm you, especial Tylenol which can easily kill your liver.

[h_k_s]

Herodotus and the Athenians debated democracy as a form of government and referendum as a form of democracy extensively.

From time to time the Athenians discarded their democracy and installed a "dictator" instead.

Right now in the U.S.A., Donald Trump is our dictator. He is cleaning up years of neglect by our democratic republic.

At this moment he is cleaning up the fleecing of America by China, Japan, and Germany. Wish him luck.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The right of initiative is different and possibly more dangerous as it can bypass the professionals.

What if the professionals get most of their 'salary' and future prospects from industry?

[Karpel Tunnel]

The one encouraging thing about the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is that in those states where the voters were familiar with Donald Trump's background, e.g., New York and New Jersey, and knew from experience that he is a sleazy conman, he lost by a wide margin.

Or those are liberal states. I mean, I have no fondness for Trump, but I see a lot of interpretation with bias around him also.

[Karpel Tunnel]

For decades, aggressively anti-majority Liberals have been giving suffrage to their pet minorities. Contrary to their degenerate view of democracy, it is a basic right for a group to vote on new members; this insulting elitist system would only allow a club's ruling partnership to decide that.

It's been quite a while since Republicans especially gave the right to vote to minorities. It's more than the last few decades ago.

[CSE]

The right of initiative is different and possibly more dangerous as it can bypass the professionals.

What if the professionals get most of their 'salary' and future prospects from industry?

Well, yes - this is the advantage of making a counter-power to the elites, when they do not hear clearly (or ignore for other interests) the voice or the people.
But a danger, as a text can become law (in Switzerland, part of the constitution) without any control from judges or political professional or even administration - for example in highly emotional topics.

[Karpel Tunnel]

What if the professionals get most of their 'salary' and future prospects from industry?

Well, yes - this is the advantage of making a counter-power to the elites, when they do not hear clearly (or ignore for other interests) the voice or the people.
But a danger, as a text can become law (in Switzerland, part of the constitution) without any control from judges or political professional or even administration - for example in highly emotional topics.

I don't worry so much about emotion, per se, since I see all interested parties being driven by emotions, just some are more expressive than others about their emotions. But I am not content with referendums either. Not because they are emotional, but because the people can be manipulated also and there is a disconnect between representative democracy and direct democracy. We don't know how to integrate them, so suddenly using a lot of direct democracy, I think, could lead to instability.

One thing I mull over is whether we need more experience of direct democracy and to set up ways to make it less destabilizing. IOW it might be something people would get better at as the instabilities and problems can be brought up each time. Right now it it is the exception and no one really has to take responsibility for it. You could almost call it an expressive political act. If they were regular, perhaps some kind of societal learning process could take place. Or not, I don't know.

I just can't quite take seriously the professionals argument, since, at least in the US, it seems to me they know their bosses - iow the employers these professionals recognize - are not the people but industry, especially the finanace industry. Professional liberals - not even conservatives - took down the Glass Speagal act which led to the 2008 crash, and pretty much any expert could have predicted the problem, it's right there in history. But who is paying the professionals main salaries?

I see no easy answer to this mess.

[Mark1955]

Right now in the U.S.A., Donald Trump is our dictator.

Don't be so hard on yourself, the US constitution is working, as it was intended to do, to control him and appears to be quite successful to date.

[Sculptor1]

It's as if the collective consciousness of white racists is getting together to give the "free world" (snigger!) not one but TWO blond haired fascists.
Which country is next to fulfil Hitler's dream of a master race?

[Sculptor1]

Yesterday Trump
Today Boris
Tomorrow?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders

[CSE]

Yesterday Trump
Today Boris
Tomorrow?
(Link removed)

He was there already... passé!

But the wave of populistic / anticonformist election is interesting (Macron in France, while very different, is also a winner because not from “the system”), let’s see if it leads somewhere or is just a series of flashes that finally does not allow the countries to evolve in a changing word.

[Sculptor1]

Yesterday Trump
Today Boris
Tomorrow?
(Link removed)

He was there already... passé!

So was Boris and Trump.

But the wave of populistic / anticonformist election is interesting (Macron in France, while very different, is also a winner because not from “the system”), let’s see if it leads somewhere or is just a series of flashes that finally does not allow the countries to evolve in a changing word.

Macron is not a blond.

[Steve3007]

At this moment he is cleaning up the fleecing of America by China, Japan, and Germany. Wish him luck.

On the subject of car imports and exports, Trump has simplistically complained that he sees lots of BMWs on the streets of NYC but doesn't see many Chevrolets on the streets of European cities. He concludes that this is due to unfair trade practices. What he fails to realise, or chooses not, is that it has more to do with the fact that US manufacturers make cars for US and similar markets. Wide straight roads and petrol/gasoline at US$2.50 per gallon. Every other vehicle seemingly a truck the size of a small terraced house.

It's hard to make people buy products that are not designed for them. If you want to target a market then make products that are right for that market. Narrow winding streets and petrol/gasoline at US$8 per gallon. And some countries where we drive on the other side of the road (to avoid hitting pedestrians with the whip held in our right hand, apparently). Since his unique selling point, which apparently makes all the negatives worth tolerating, is his supposed business acumen it seems somewhat odd that he hasn't grasped this basic principle of marketing.

[h_k_s]

At this moment he is cleaning up the fleecing of America by China, Japan, and Germany. Wish him luck.

On the subject of car imports and exports, Trump has simplistically complained that he sees lots of BMWs on the streets of NYC but doesn't see many Chevrolets on the streets of European cities. He concludes that this is due to unfair trade practices. What he fails to realise, or chooses not, is that it has more to do with the fact that US manufacturers make cars for US and similar markets. Wide straight roads and petrol/gasoline at US$2.50 per gallon. Every other vehicle seemingly a truck the size of a small terraced house.

It's hard to make people buy products that are not designed for them. If you want to target a market then make products that are right for that market. Narrow winding streets and petrol/gasoline at US$8 per gallon. And some countries where we drive on the other side of the road (to avoid hitting pedestrians with the whip held in our right hand, apparently). Since his unique selling point, which apparently makes all the negatives worth tolerating, is his supposed business acumen it seems somewhat odd that he hasn't grasped this basic principle of marketing.

This response is a rather simplistic microeconomic argument which pales against a much more massive macroeconomic problem, that there is no balance of trade between the USA and these other abusive nations (China, Japan, Germany).

It does not matter WHY there is an imbalance of trade because an imbalance of trade will destroy a nation's economy. This insanity began with NAFTA in the 1980's. It is even worse now with more abusive nations around the world in Asia and Europe.

Tariffs should and must be imposed on goods from nations with a trade deficit with the USA. It does not matter what the perception is regarding the driving force behind the imbalance. Then as the imbalance gradually equalizes the tariffs may then be decreased until and equilibrium between tariffs and balanced trade is reached.

I believe Trump understands this since he is a business mogul. And he is trying to rectify it now, during his current term.

He will probably be re-elected by a landslide like Reagan was. Then he will have 4 more years to further chip away at trade imbalances with these abusive nations like China, Japan, and Germany.

I get that Japanese and German car makes are making some of their cars in the USA. But this is irrelevant when looking at trade imbalances. Apples versus oranges.

[CSE]

h_k_s: i agree that trade inbalance is a problem for a country.
But I do not agree with calling the other countries “abusive”. It is not that Germany or Japan are “cheating” (at least not more than USA; China I leave out, as they are not transparent) to get their export working. It is that they are able to sell product that amercians want more than americans are able to sell products that japanese or germans want.

You can make taxes, but with this you punish unfairly the successul countries, but also your own population (that obviously wanted the import products, and now has to pay more or get inferior local product for an inflated price for lack of choice) and make a protected market, thus artificially making local companies successful without having them evolve to be globally at par with the other countries - so on the long term, you also punish your industry that becomes more and more non-competitive.
The only positive result is on short term, where you perhaps save some jobs... because the costs mentioned are not directly visible - ultimately it is of course the population paying and the jobs massively endangered by large sectorial restructurations when the trade barriers are lifted. But by then, another guy is president and has to deal with it, of course....

The solution to trade deficit is innovation. US has certainly not a negative trade in IT where Google, Apple and co are the most innovative globally. But also innovation means - as mentioned above - making suitable products for export, nothing revolutionary. Study other markets, understand the want of the people there and offer accordingly. This is easier if you have an open mind and a society turned towards the outside and not busy only with national matters.
Another advantage is having an open economy. Without trade taxes, it is possible to optimize your products by making what value added activity can be done locally, and importing what needs to be done in countries with smaller wages. This is the model of big IT companies again, and this is endangered by trade sanctions. Forcing them to produce in the US all steps will just reduce massively their competitivity worldwide.