What are peoples thoughts on it on that National Level like Ancient Athens had?

What about an a university level?
-
I think on the national level it would be nice to slowly move more in that direction with the increase in our technology. But the tradition of being a representative democracy, or republic, should still set the precedent.

On the university level I think the our Senate/election committee causing elections to be held up, and doing things like trying to impeach the pirate captain who was elected has gone too far. We have the voting system technology so that for something as small scale as a University we could easily move to a direct democracy without disenfranchising the student voters.

-
I know I’ve encouraged people in a few other threads to e-mail Vice Chancellor Tom Stafford at tom_stafford@ncsu.edu thanking him for putting a halt to elections of the unrepresentative student government that wasn’t playing by the rules, and to encourage switch to a direct democracy if they continue not to comply… and while several people have, I wanted to draw out the issue from other threads on particular candidates like quick or the front page that’s just about when and how to vote, and actually to see what peoples thoughts on a direct democracy for NCSU would be.

(Stafford is responding to the e-mails fairly on the ball and he said he was up for a discussion of the idea of direct democracy for NCSU)

[Edited on March 27, 2006 at 6:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/27/2006 6:33:54 PM

for appropriations stuff it would seem to be a very bad idea.
for everything else i dont see why not. we all manage to get online and register for football tickets, im sure we could get online to vote if the issue mattered to us.
what is the worse case scenario? we have the same people voting then as we do now.

3/27/2006 6:43:56 PM

just get a benevolent dictator, aka pay someone to do the damn job full time

3/27/2006 6:48:43 PM

vote me for dictator 4 life.

im a nice guy, really.

3/27/2006 6:56:15 PM

Just imagine not having to hear about the student senate screwing up, or squabbling, or legislating more rules for us, or reflecting poorly on us, or being unrepresentative and doing the opposite of what people want. Its a fairly powerless group that still manages to make us look bad. You wouldn’t have to worry about bad politicians, or any politicians. Any political move ncsu made would be in its own interest and not resume building. It’s as far removed from having a dictator as possible. Why not just skip the middle man when its a small scale enough operation to do that?

3/27/2006 7:02:12 PM

word.

3/27/2006 7:05:31 PM

Stafford Blows. He's out of touch with the heart of NCSU students.

Quote :

"Students First!"

wtf

3/27/2006 7:05:41 PM

Even if you disagree with stafford, wouldn't a direct democracy put students as first as they can get, rather than senate first students 2nd?

Heres a group for the removal of student senate.
http://ncst.facebook.com/group_profile.php?gid=9569

I've wanted student senate gone for a while now, but it only recently occured to me this better option of a direct democracy.

[Edited on March 27, 2006 at 7:11 PM. Reason : .]

3/27/2006 7:07:30 PM

I completely agree with direct democracy. I should've said so earlier... I just hate stafford. I've had many personal interactions with him in my previously life when i worked at the student center. That man just plain sucks.

3/27/2006 7:11:27 PM

I proposed this in 2004: http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=258453

Here's my post, before the flaming began:

Quote :

" I think the NCSU campus is in a unique position to actually implement a direct democracy effectively. We already hold reliable online elections, why not decide ALL major student government decisions through campus-wide online elections as well, on a weekly or monthly basis. Anyone who doesn't care, can simply not vote. In addition, I say we allow every student to submit legislation for consideration. A smaller version of the student senate would remain in place to manage the system and prevent blatant misuse, but the relative worth of submitted legislation would still be decided by the students themselves(IE, each bill would have to get x number of online 'signatures' to be considered for a vote) A message board would be provided for each bill so that discussion could take place, allowing those with dissenting opinions to attempt to convince the public why said bill is good or bad. LoneSnark noted that such a system wouldn't work for larger populations, but I disagree. NCSU has over 25,000 students. If we could make it work here, we could make it work anywhere. All students have computer access, and are properly trained. In the not so distant future this will be the case for the entire nation. The system we develop could very well be a groundbreaking model. The tech staff of student government is already doing a fantastic job, and I believe they could handle this task. To solve the recent appropriations snafu, a modified version of the voting system could be developed, allowing each student to mark the organizations they feel a personal stake in getting money, and ignore the rest. The students themselves would decide which clubs get the money(still based on submitted proposals from the clubs, of course). A better system would allow the students to determine how much was awarded. Anyway, the details aren't important yet. Student Government, as it stands now, is nothing more than a popularity contest. In real politcs, the candidates have a platform, and the masses pick a candidate that has a platform similar to their own beliefs. They know how the candidate is going to vote, and will be mad as hell if he does otherwise. Student Government is different though. The vast majority of people don't have a clue what the issues are, much less where each candidate stands on them. Therefore representative democracy has failed. The best case scenario is that the people elected just happen to be an even sampling of the population, but this recent African-American controversy leads me to believe this is not so. The bottom line is that for the first time in history we have the ability and resources to conduct a fair, direct democracy of the likes the Greeks could never dream of, in which the voice of each student has a direct impact on ALL decisions made by their government. More than likely, this will result in the same situation we have now, where .01% of the population makes decisions for the rest. But I'm always suprised how active people can be when they feel empowered about issues that matter to them. "

3/27/2006 7:18:01 PM

I don't understand why people think scrapping representative democracy is the better option than scrapping the "representatives." Nor do I understand the point of working so hard to recreate a government that you say has no power in the first place.

Oh, and anyone who thinks Stafford is a friend to the students really just proves how little they know about what goes on behind the scenes. By empowering him on this issue, you're really just giving him leverage to veto every student opinion or decision on the table. I personally don't have a problem with OSC, but with all the crap you guys talk about Student Conduct and you're empowering the guy who's the final say (other than the BOT) on issues of Student Conduct.

Smart.

[Edited on March 27, 2006 at 7:23 PM. Reason : clarify]

3/27/2006 7:20:49 PM

I'm down with an Athens-style governance. Of course, it'd only work in earnst if we had Athens-style people...

3/27/2006 7:23:05 PM

To the contrary, student government has control of a huge sum of taxpayer money, and therefore enormous power in that regard. They're also unlikely to ever oppose any increase in the money they get, since that would reduce the power of their little club. Most students, however, dislike paying such fees for services and clubs they don't use. Therefore the government is fundamentally broken.

3/27/2006 7:25:19 PM

If the representatives turn out to be on the whole bad time and again, then going direct seems like a way to correct that problem. A direct democracy seems like it would always reflect the will of the people, whereas a indirect democracy will only sometimes represent that will.

"Nor do I understand the point of working so hard to recreate a government that you say has no power in the first place. "

You might not understand why people want to put effort into the change, but I don't see how anyone can maintain it would be a change for the worse. While they have little power in the first place, they still manage to screw up enough to reflect poorly on the student body, and tend to seem like resume builders.

The politician element and resume builder part would be removed. Of course politics would still exist if people were actually interested in causes and held rallies on campus and made fliers for their causes and things like that. But that would only be for causes they believed in, not for getting a particular office to list on their resumes.

3/27/2006 7:26:27 PM

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely--I actually do think there's power within Student Government (obviously, I was in it)--but the arguments that many of you make are incongruent. I mean, on the one hand, you elevate Dr. Stafford to high priest, but then you bash Student Conduct (via Dr. Staffords' Student Affairs division).

Quote :

"Pyro: They're also unlikely to ever oppose any increase in the money they get, since that would reduce the power of their little club. Most students, however, dislike paying such fees for services and clubs they don't use"

The latter point isn't a good argument one way or another--I hardly ever took the Wolfline, does that mean I shouldn't pay a transit fee? And what about all the students that don't go to Student Health Services ever? People shouldn't get to pick and choose their fee structure. If you're talking about appropriations, then Direct Democracy would assure that the largest groups (even the ones you don't use), always get the money. So you're talking about groups involved with Greek Life, Agri-Life Council, AASAC, etc. getting the lions share of the money because they're far more organized and can easily turn out voters on the regular. That seems like the opposite of what you want.

As for the fee increase piece...I can't speak to what's been done in the last two years, but I can tell you from my experience that that's not true. The SG fee, which goes predominantly to fund appropriations, hasn't been increased in some time--over the years, they've simply shifted unspent money to provide more money for appropriations. I remember, particularly, the "Students First!" folks in Student Affairs coming to UAB and SG and suggesting fee increases for those two groups and the student leaders flat out rejecting the notion (the rejection from SG came during the Caravano/Quick/Patel tenure, actually).

Quote :

"Supplanter: If the representatives turn out to be on the whole bad time and again, then going direct seems like a way to correct that problem."

Well, again, I don't know about these last few years, but from my experience (and what I hear), this isn't true across the board. The students in CALS for example, which are represented most directly in the college council, hold their student representatives to the fire and will recruit people to run against you if you're misrepresenting the college's interest. Why every college isn't like that, I don't know...but riddle me this...you took the time to write Dr. Stafford to express your opinion, but how many times have you written someone in SG?

Quote :

"Supplanter: While they have little power in the first place, they still manage to screw up enough to reflect poorly on the student body, and tend to seem like resume builders."

There are resume builders...I'm not going to deny that...but I think the shady ones: 1. aren't nearly numerous as you might think and 2. overshadow the ones there to really work for students. I'd parallel it to the situation with most of the traditions that have been impeded (read: eliminated) at NC State--a few idiots ruin it for others.

That's about as even-handed as I can get, I think.

3/27/2006 9:26:41 PM

I didn't mean student fees. I imagine SG has no control whatsoever over transit and student health fees. I meant appropriations, and I would like to see them eliminated entirely.

3/27/2006 9:30:49 PM

^^In your responses to me it seems like we are arguing over how much of an improvement it would be rather than whether or not it would be an improvement.

The direct democracy wouldn't have to go all the way, some student gov could be maintained, or other solutions found to who should do what work. But directly voting on the issues seems like manageable possibility that would be an improvement. Senate the group I really want to see gone... that wouldn't remove all of student gov... the remaining parts could be adjusted somewhat for the new balance, and have most legislative issues go straight to ncsu student public.

[Edited on March 27, 2006 at 10:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/27/2006 10:09:07 PM

Kay_Yow FTW

2nd Place to Gamecat

[Edited on March 27, 2006 at 10:15 PM. Reason : Gamecat pwns j00 all]

3/27/2006 10:14:31 PM

Quote :

"Supplanter: ^^In your responses to me it seems like we are arguing over how much of an improvement it would be rather than whether or not it would be an improvement."

Perhaps I was attempting to straddle the fence a bit too much then, because apparently I wasn't clear...I certainly don't agree that it'd be an improvement.

Direct democracy, in theory, is a great idea, but there's a reason it only works for American Idol voting--it's a horribly flawed system. You suggest that the source of Student Government's power is the fee they collect and distribute thru appropriations, Homecoming, Service Raleigh, et. al. Imagine that money being distributed through a direct democracy system. It'd be controlled by student organizations with the greatest numbers of members. There'd be no check on groups and no opportunity for smaller organizations to stake their claim to Student Government funds.

Essentially, you'd be creating a microcosm of California's system of governance...where special elections and propositions have usurped the power of the legislature and the special interest groups control spending. Before California's governor can even put forward his/her budget, they've got to subtract the 85 percent of the money, which has already been allocated by special elections. Part of the reason California's had to dig itself out of such monstrous debt is because governors continue to spend to further their own agendas. Setting that up at NC State would be disastrous.

If you're thinking of direct democracy as a method of gauging student perspective on issues (i.e., tuition and fee increases, Facebook controversies, et. al.), then you should know that there's already a mechanism for that (woohoo! for my only successful jaunt into the world of Gov Ops). They're non-binding referenda, of course, because it'd be contrary to the Constitution otherwise, but it's as close to direct democracy as it gets.

But yeah....

3/28/2006 9:13:46 PM

here is a hint. it's student government.

it doesn't matter

just abolish the damned thing

3/28/2006 9:25:29 PM

I agree that putting students directly in charge of appropriations would be rather disasterous (sp?) but IF student government does more than that then couldnt we put non budget items up to a vote?

3/28/2006 9:30:05 PM

Quote :

"here is a hint. it's student government. it doesn't matter just abolish the damned thing"

Exactly! I mean, can anyone here validate it's existence ? Can anyone name a function which the student government is needed ? I'm honestly curious, maybe I'm just ignorant. Set me straight, is there anyone here who can defend the need for the SGA seriously?

3/29/2006 12:12:49 AM

I'd like to make it clear that i've only made relative claims about the everyone voting online system as being better than having a senate. How often those votes happen, how much of SG remains, exactly how much better it would be, whether it would be great or a slight improvement, and how much power if any different factions in the new balance would have are all not things I've made specific claims about. Many people have told be it wouldn't be as great as I'm claiming it would be, when in fact I've made no such claims. Better is a relative term. Better relative to having a senate does not equal a claim about greatness.

[Edited on March 29, 2006 at 12:43 AM. Reason : this isn't directed as a response to any specific comment, but a general sentiment in many threads]

3/29/2006 12:42:21 AM

whatever

this will never happen on a grand scale

the electoral college still trumps the popular vote

3/29/2006 10:10:06 AM

^^ I think it could be worked. However, doing away with the senate in its entirety seems excessive. The problems with pure-direct democracy have been demonstrated through history.

I suggest the senate be abolished, for sure, but an executive council should remain (consisting of the President, VP, secretary, and a few other members, maybe totalling 9 or 12).

Laws, or bills, must be submitted [by/through] this executive body and passed with a majority.

All passed legislation will then be submitted to the electronic voting system for approval by the students, who have a month to locate/read/vote on the bill. If half the attended students approve, the bill becomes law.

I don't know how this would work in practice. Hopefully the executive council will only submit laws it reasonably expects to pass (thus pre-shaping its legislation to fit with students expectations). Such a system would avoid the "California problem" of voters simultanious passing conflicting laws because the executive coucil would have pre-filtered out such conflicts. It also eliminates the possibility of voters having laws forced upon them because the executive committee has no override.

Ultimately, the executive council governs, the voters hold the veto.

This system could fail if the executive council becomes disliked to the point students refuse to pass any of their legislation, bringing permanent deadlock until either side relents. Nothing special, it wouldn't be the first time the senate was unable to pass any version of legislation.

This system would have the added bonus of maintaining the current system of "resume building" for the most important posts, keeping interest high, and since the position of senator does not exist anymore, elections for this board would become even more sought.

3/29/2006 10:56:15 AM

lol what "laws"?

the only thing the Student Senate can "pass" are statutes that govern itself (which would no longer exist if it were abolished) and resolutions expressing the "sense of" the Senate (which would no longer exist if it were abolished)...everything else is done behind the scenes

the sheer stupidity of this idea is actually intriguing -- I think we should abolish the Senate right now, just to watch how spectacularly this "direct democracy" idiocy will fail

[Edited on March 29, 2006 at 11:10 AM. Reason : let's do it]

3/29/2006 11:08:44 AM

soon Stafford will be playing his flute while Witherspoon burns

3/29/2006 11:32:26 AM

[quote]Realizing that this part of student government can never change into an effective body to advocate student rights towards the administration & community, achieve a reputation above that of resume builders disinterested in real improvements for the common student, and avoid countless blunders which reflect poorly on the student body such as its failed attempt to impeach the SBP we elected, we advocate that student senate be dissolved and the using of the online voting for system for any issues that arise.quote]

http://ncst.facebook.com/group_profile.php?gid=9569

TGD, how about this for statement of purpose for this group? It avoids the words direct democracy so no false hope of grand changeg. But still allows for issues, should they arise, to be voted on by students rather than a student government.

(although if no issues arise then there is nothing to worry about)

I would like to find the most broadly appealing message for the removal of student senate. And since you are one who dislikes the senate, I'd like to fit your ideas in.

3/29/2006 11:42:10 AM

i like the of a direct democracy - i think tww would actually be a large part in what students used to decide the view on the issue though

3/29/2006 11:46:17 AM

Lets try that post again, this time using real words unlike changeg, and with the quote box working.

Quote :

"Realizing that this part of student government can never change into an effective body to advocate student rights towards the administration & community, achieve a reputation above that of resume builders disinterested in real improvements for the common student, and avoid countless blunders which reflect poorly on the student body such as its failed attempt to impeach the SBP we elected, we advocate that student senate be dissolved and the using of the online voting for system for any issues that arise."

http://ncst.facebook.com/group_profile.php?gid=9569

TGD, how about this as a statement of purpose for this group? It avoids the words direct democracy so theres no false hopes of grand change. But still allows for issues, should they arise, to be voted on by students rather than a student government.

(although if no issues arise then there is nothing to worry about)

I would like to find the most broadly appealing message for the removal of student senate. And since you are one who dislikes the senate, I'd like to fit your ideas in.

[Edited on March 29, 2006 at 12:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/29/2006 12:32:51 PM

Moving to replace representative with direct democracy is easy enough to argue with, but I do think it'd be possible and even beneficial to tilt the balance a little more towards direct democracy than it is now. Wholesale replacement isn't a valid option, but isn't a terrible guide. My main concern is that our society, unlike Athens', would inarguably overlegislate.

3/29/2006 8:51:02 PM

The legislative power of senate is largely just to make rules to govern itself, and senate attracts most of the people interested in doing that sort of thing. If the resume builders became diffused between a largely apathetic group like the student population of ncsu which required different level majorities to pass different legislation, then extra rules/legislation wouldn't come about unless it was really something that could fire up and serve an otherwise apathetic group. I think we'd see less legislation not more, but a higher percentage of good legislation that actually passes (if there can be any good out of students legislating).

3/29/2006 9:22:48 PM

one way to protect against the influence of those currently in student government on a democratic system:
require that everything receive a certain amount of the entire student bodyto be approved. not 50% of the total "voters" like some countries do, as that wouldnt happen, but if you said that everything had to be approved by say 15% of the student body or something like that it could help the situation.

feel free to tear ^ apart.

3/29/2006 10:39:58 PM

direct democracies only work with an extremely informed and educated public. which we have in neither the united states or the ncsu student body.

[Edited on March 30, 2006 at 4:47 PM. Reason : and i support dissolving the senate and making stafford the dictator]

3/30/2006 4:43:06 PM

i could just as easily say:

indirect democracies only work with an extremely informed and educated public who vote the right kind of people in. which we have in neither the united states or the ncsu student body.

if anything, a college campus has an educated public, and with the ability to vote on all the issues (rather than just 1 person who lines up somewhat with what you think on issues) one would have a little more incentive to become better informed.

everyone voting online would be more representative than voting for individuals who only partially agree with you now and can completely change once they are in office.

even with the added incentive I don't think this would be a grand and great change, but it would better relative to the senate we have now.

3/30/2006 4:53:21 PM

^^ interesting side note from class.
evidence suggests that being informed does not change one's view. one reason for this is because we only listen to what we want to listen to.
the above does not really apply to "politics" here at state since classic party id is unrelated to campus politics. but i thought it was interesting.

3/30/2006 6:22:24 PM

Supplanter: my problem has never been with "the Senate" as an institution, pretty much along the exact same lines my problems with Congress aren't "with Congress" as an institution -- it's the people in them.

Now your argument in a nutshell is that the legislature being populated by "resume padders" is an inevitability. I disagree, mostly b/c I'm a firm believer in American exceptionalism and never really get dour when it comes to the American electorate (which would, in a nutshell, pretty much encapsulate 90% of the debates with Gamecat -- so if you can only afford the audio CD, you're not missing much ).

But we've already had people here on TWW, in your Facebook group no less, say that Senate in the past was actually a good institution that got things done (circa 2002ish). What's the difference between then and now?

Now there are really only 3 people who consistently speak up: Erich Fabricius, Tracy Hutcherson and Matt Walton (and out of those three, only Walton could even remotely be accused of being a "resume padder" b/c the other 2 have pretty well-padded resumes already). But back then there were a multitude of strong-headed people in Senate -- Erich Fabricius, but also Kay_Yow, Wolfpack2K, Seth-Setesh, abonorio and at least a half dozen others. No one could secure too much power to themselves personally, so instead people tried to out-compete over who could get more done.

The most effective solution to the "Senate is an embarassment" problem isn't abolishing it for an at-best nominally better-by-the-slightest-degree alternative, but finding someone willing to improve the technical competence of the people in that room. The current Senate President would have been that person, but he's pretty much had to devote his time to cleaning up the assorted messes created by our illustrious Pirate Captain. So the proverbial "old heads" suck up all the oxygen.

There are no benefits to a direct democracy that aren't already present in a representative democracy; by that same token, there are no deficiencies to a representative democracy that aren't already present in a direct democracy. Gamecat has already made this point sufficiently, along with several others. It's simple economics and the consequent rational ignorance.


[Edited on March 30, 2006 at 7:13 PM. Reason : ---]

3/30/2006 7:00:15 PM

Quote :

"Senate in the past was actually a good institution that got things done (circa 2002ish)."

If that was spring or summer then it was before my time. If you admit that was the last time it was good, then you certainly can't blame me for not seeing the potential good in a institution that no one currently attending ncsu, not even graduating seniors, has seen.

(save like 5th/6th seniors or grad students who went to the same college for undergrad & grad or lifelong students etc)

3/30/2006 8:57:52 PM

^
oh no I don't blame you at all, it was "before my time" too (or, rather, in between the two times I was/am here )

I'm just saying let's not completely abolish something that has been around for decades upon decades just b/c it sucks for a couple years...especially when there's an easy solution.

Besides, can you imagine the shitstorm that would have erupted had we abolished the presidency b/c of Bill Clinton or George W...

3/30/2006 9:01:30 PM

I don't know, ppl seem to hate harder presidents they are against than love presidents they are for... if you couldn't unite the hate of both sides you could get a real revolution going.

3/30/2006 9:10:01 PM