Should voters be able to decide on issues such as same-sex marriage?

[ShyGuyInChicago]

or other types of laws such as those involving taxes or anything else?

Why or why not?

[Sage]

I can't even believe we're debating whether or not people should be able to vote now.

[Daniel_]

Same sex marriage, yes. Taxes, no.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

I can't even believe we're debating whether or not people should be able to vote now.

I meant should people be able to vote to change a certain law. Such as voting on whether drugs should be legal or on a local tax increase or whether affirmative action should be outlawed.

[Jess]

Yes to same-sex marriage.

No to taxes

[Peace God]

No, it shouldnt really matter what the majority thinks when it comes to civil rights. Look at segregation, look at slavery.

[Sage]

I meant should people be able to vote to change a certain law. Such as voting on whether drugs should be legal or on a local tax increase or whether affirmative action should be outlawed.

The question here is incredibly vague. All the laws you're raising as examples are different. Taxes, civil rights, and substance legality aren't easily comparable.

[Philleeep]

Yes. Equality.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

The question here is incredibly vague. All the laws you're raising as examples are different. Taxes, civil rights, and substance legality aren't easily comparable.

OK, then. When should voters be able to vote on laws/policies? What types of issues should be decided by voters?? Which types of issues should be decided by the lawmakers? I think that many issues should be the choice of lawmakers except for extraordinary circumstances

[Korashk]

No, people should only be able to vote for politicians.

[The Joker]

That would cost too much to set up a poll booth every time an issue came up. That's why we voted in the politicians to begin with.

[Amnesiac]

No, same-sex marriage — really, everything related to government regulation of marriage — is a civil rights/equality issue. People shouldn't get to vote on who has rights and who doesn't.

[nick]

You elect a government based on the policies they announce in advance and have to hope they will stick to their word if and when they get into office. It would be ridiculous to have public referendums on every issue during the course of a parliament.

To be perfectly honest, the public would be far less liberal in their views on many issues than politicians are. An area such as homosexual tolerance and equality for example would make much slower progress if you had to win over a majority of the population. In this country the general public, if allowed a vote, would restore the abhorent practice of capital punishment whereas the policians of any party are never going to bring that back.

[Sage]

To be perfectly honest, the public would be far less liberal in their views on many issues than politicians are.

Depends on the issue. I know in America, the public tends to be a lot more liberal on many issues than their elected representatives.

[Continuum]

That's why they formulated the Congress: to vote which is clearly the best thing to do on such issues, as elected representatives of the people.

[Sith Lord 13]

I feel the voters should be able to vote and decide on any topic they choose to, and leave the rest to the politicians.

[karl]

The only referendum needed in the UK is European membership. The different political leaders won't give the people a vote on it because they already know the answer!

[The Dark Lord]

Yes to same-sex marriage.

No to taxes

Why?

Of course not, its not realistic for a gov't to offer a referendum on every issue. Look at Britain, the coalition wouldn't get their programme of cuts through, taxes would be cut and the deficit would ballon leaving the gov't no choice but to declare itself bankrupt. We vote for the politicians, offering referendums on every issue defeats the purpose of voting.

[chazzrox2]

Yea it would be pretty good for us to have a referendum on everything decided by government but that would be a democracy and i don't think any country actually works under a democracy right now.

A democracy is only suitable for smaller states where every single person votes on every issue raised by a government (according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau), however this can't work on modern day nations as many have a ridiculous amount of people in.

In an ideal world yes we would follow direct democracy but i guess we will have to stick with the sham of a republic most of us here live in. Besides people use the modern day system wrong, they vote for parties, but you're not supposed to.

You're supposed to vote for your favourite representative of you, in your own area as they might not agree with all the ideas of the party a a whole.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Let me add something to this. Since it is not feasible to vote on every issues, which issues should be the choice of the people.

[The Dark Lord]

which issues should be the choice of the people.

Their representative in parliament/congress, nothing more unless it relates to the country's constitution

[Sith Lord 13]

Let me add something to this. Since it is not feasible to vote on every issues, which issues should be the choice of the people.

Anything the people feel strongly enough about to want on the ballot. It should require X number of signatures to get an issue on the ballot, the same number as to get a candidate on the ballot. Any topic is fair game.

[Korashk]

Let me add something to this. Since it is not feasible to vote on every issues, which issues should be the choice of the people.
None of them.

[Sith Lord 13]

None of them.

Why?

[Korashk]

Why?
People are stupid. A constitution that maximizes individual liberty backed by a congress is much more efficient.

EDIT: Maximizes individual liberty and declares property rights absolute.

[The Dark Lord]

People are stupid.

Agree, people wouldn't make the difficult decisions, they economy would simply implode

[Korashk]

Agree, people wouldn't make the difficult decisions, they economy would simply implode
Heh? Statement is a non-sequitur.

[The Dark Lord]

Heh? Statement is a non-sequitur.

Apologies. It should have read:-

I agree, people wouldn't be prepared to make tough economic decisions currently being made by the british gov't, resulting in the economic collasping and Britain would be declared bankrupt

[Korashk]

Apologies. It should have read:-

I agree, people wouldn't be prepared to make tough economic decisions currently being made by the british gov't, resulting in the economic collasping and Britain would be declared bankrupt
Government making economic decisions is a huge part of the problem, but that's an issue for another thread.

[Tankinx91]

No, it shouldnt really matter what the majority thinks when it comes to civil rights. Look at segregation, look at slavery.

This. Couldn't have said it better myself. Why should we have to vote for who gets equal rights and basic civil liberties?

[Amnesiac]

Let me add something to this. Since it is not feasible to vote on every issues, which issues should be the choice of the people.

Issues that don't concern the rights of others.

[Jamie]

Sure. As long as I can cast a ballot over their marriage as well. Since that's generally not possible, then I feel the population should have no control over which group of people receive rights, while the rest are allowed them.

[chazzrox2]

The political world we live in (in Churchill's words) is the worst kind of government which hasn't yet failed... I think this shows that we are just trying to make the best of an already impossible task, the task to control human nature.

An iron fist is usually the most secure way of controlling people and their minds, and makes it very easy for difficult decisions to be put through. Even if the majority were in support of the ideals of the iron fisted leader then it would always come back to "freedom", even people enjoy their lives they still want freedom so they can choose how they enjoy it.