[Addaway] Why this Referendum is anti-Democratic
Addaway
Couldn't decide what to put for pictures so idk... Somerset?
Apologies for the wall of text + rant, will try to add some pictures to break it up soonish
This article isn’t about the specific merits of the arguments in the upcoming referendum on the proposed peace deal with the French, it’s about the concept of having a referendum in this process at all; and my concerns for the precedent that it sets.
First of all, I’m of the opinion that Representative Democracy and not Direct Democracy is the best way to govern the eUK. I think a dedicated group of representatives elected to represent and make decisions on behalf of the eUK can provide effective government. It’s also the way the game mechanics work- we continue to elect Congress Members despite the Dictatorship Module. To adopt a Direct Democracy approach of referendums that all UK citizens vote in is unnecessary for good governance.
From a purely theoretical standpoint I would oppose a referendum on apeace deal because it simply does not fit within the idea of Representative Democracy. The CP is accountable to Congress and it is Congress that should vote on whether to accept a treaty- as they have done for years without issue.
It’s true that you can sometimes have a referendum for issues of such magnitude as for it to be important that each citizen has their own opinion heard. This current deal may well fall into that category. But here’s the thing- should it be entirely up to the CP to decide when to call a referendum, what the question will be, who can vote, how long the voting will be and so on? Because that is what has happened with this current referendum. The Country President has unilaterally declared a referendum and totally bypassed Congress. That’s not democratic- the CP does not have the right to single-handedly declare when and on which subjects the eUK will hold referendums on.
Yes, Rathena was elected on a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum (I think) but like all CP policies that doesn’t mean it just happens. If a CP pledges to NE Ireland and then wins the election , does that mean that the CP then has the right to unilaterally start a war without consulting Congress? No, and the same principle applies to this.
Just because a CP wins the election on a pledge to hold a referendum does not mean they have a unilateral right to strip Congress of its right to approve treaties
It is Congress’ duty to hold the CP to account and to scrutinise their plans, and it is a complete undermining of the system not to submit the plans for a referendum to Congress so that they could be approved in a considered fashion. Congress could have set out specific timings for the vote, and elgibility criteria to ensure that the result cannot be influenced by multi-accounts. None of this has been done by our CP.
What has happened is the CP has created a referendum of which she is in total control of. To this point it is the Executive that has determined every feature of the referendum process on a whim, and could easily change the process at any time it likes. This is, to me, an incredibly dangerous precedent to set.
Yes, I might get attacked for being ‘elitist’ and ‘not wanting to give the people a vote’. It’s very easy to make those arguments, but they are nonsense.
Congress is elected by eUK citizens to hold the CP to account and to take decisions in conjunction with the Executive. Congress is the only check on the power of the CP during a term, and we should not let it be so easily undermined.
Comments
Interesting ideas mate. I could easily see why a referendum would be needed on this topic but no one has asked for one, it was just put upon us. I assume the congress debate on the subject will be/is over so when is this referendum happening? What are the timescales? What will the question be?
So yeah I think this is a very good issue to bring up and I'm sure it would be good to see congress place some parameters of referendums in the future.
I stored some milk in the MU. \o
tl; dr
TL😉R: CP shouldn't do things without useless body of 40 people saying yes.
ey its 30 people in the useless body this time its totally different
o dam that changes everything
I know it terrible to find out what the citizens of the UK want who don't get a chance to enter congress or don't think it's for them you are right.
and you are correct a dedicated group of representatives elected to represent and make decisions on behalf of the eUK can provide effective government they sure can !
This group should always be the same we don't want others braking this little cosy little bond these fine intelligent human beings are a credit to the nation.
~Here Here Addaway a fine voice for Democracy NOT
"I know it terrible to find out what the citizens of the UK want "
We do know what the eUK citizens want.
http://www.erepublik.com/en/main/congress-elections
People voting for the sake of voting , one party could say one month they will kill everyone and they will still get the same votes by their loyal members some who just turn up to vote Articles like this are better http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-cp-france-united-kingdom-renting-agreement-debate--2582951/1/20,
We are so agasint real players having a real say? as opposed to silent part time voters? I think now the community is get smaller its different this is why it better to have Referendums and even going so far as enabling my Patriot Act.
Besides you are missing the point.
If we are going to have referendums then the procedure and structure for them should be approved by Congress to ensure fairness and protection against multi accounts. You yourself have said how much you dislike cheating accounts- yet you are defending a referendum which has no protection against people making multi accounts and influencing the result
Where are all these multis making their voice heard in the Referendum>? I thought their was a birth date in the past that stopped against people making multi accounts and influencing the result?
No you are getting confused between the systems referendum (bill passed through congress with specific timetable and protection against multis) and Rathena's referendum- which has no protection against multi accounts and is subject to her changing the conditions of at will!
Do you really want the CP to be able to decide how the referendum is run at will? with no oversight from anyone?
Anyone can suggest whatever they want to me and you know it very well Addaway. In fact you were the one who suggested me a few things yourself so to say that the referendum is run at will is ludacris!
When is this referendum? What is the referendum question? Have the French congress voted yet? How will the referendum be run?
Enough is enough. You have been pointing shots at my government and me for the last few days and it's about time it stops.
The referendum was my pledge in the campaign. The referendum is democratic. The referendum is about giving every citizen of the UK a chance to have their say on this crucial issue. And you have been mudslinging it ever since I came to office.
I told you yesterday at the PMQs, and I will tell you now - you are undemocratic. Your view of democracy is that Parliament is above everyone and everything. You view of democracy is that 30 people can represent the whole country in every single case, even when it comes to issues of deep national interest. But you are wrong!
When I ran for President, I promised an open and transparent government. And an open and transparent government is being delivered! By holding this referendum. By asking the people what they think. By giving everyone a voice.
I know you don't like the fact a referendum is taking place - and I respect that view - but you are making an elephant out of a non-issue. You are an usurper against this referendum. You are being undemocratic because you want to give away people's right to vote.
Country President is elected by the people, for the people. Parliament is elected by the people, for the people. I am not exclusively accountable to Congress. I am accountable to the people of Britain. Every one of them. And I am using my right, as a democratically elected president, hold this referendum because it is the right thing to do. It is right to consult the public on issues of such important. It is morally and ethically right. And I am not giving up on delivering an open government to the people.
As I said, you are making an elephant out of a non-issue. A referendum is being held to consult the public on this very important issue. That means that every person in the UK will have the right to have their say on things. This is bigger than me as president and than Congress.
"and I am using my right, as a democratically elected president, hold this referendum"
You have no right.
I have every right. I was elected by the people of Britain to be their president and I have the right to consult them on issues. I also regularly consult with Congress.
Let me repeat this again.
Winning an election does not give the CP the unilateral right to impose their policies on the eUK. You have to get Congress' agreement to them. That applies as much for a referendum as it does to any other policy.
The difference is I am NOT imposing my policy on the UK! Quite the contrary - I am consulting with the public via a free and fair public referendum!
Having a Referendum IS a policy
Having a referendum is not an end in itself - the decision made in the referendum constitutes a policy.
It is bigger than us because this issue will define the way Britain heads to in the coming months. And I want to use every opportunity to ask the British people what they think.
Yesterday at the PMQs you accused me of lacking leadership. Today, I am a dictator. Stop flip-flopping. Accept the fact that people will be able to have a vote. Deal with it. Build a bridge.
I am extremely proud that we're having a referendum. It's fair, it's democratic, it's right. And I'm not giving up on it.
As I said in my article, being elected does not give you the unilateral right to carry out your policies.
I think the policy of having a referendum is weak.
Unilaterally carrying out a policy without consulting congress is undemocratic.
Congress WAS consulted! I consulted with Congress every step of the way during the negotiations and you know it! I think your point of view is weak. Having a referendum on this crucial issue is the best thing the government can do.
As far as your other issues are concerned, the cabinet will look carefully into them because you made some good points. We will not allow multis into the process because we'll have a date restriction, for example.
Yes, of course. As I said, we'll have a date restriction whereas accounts younger than, say, 5th of February will not count as eligible.
Can you make sure new player can't vote to ease Addaways mind that it won't be rigged?
But how can it be right that the CP gets total control over this process?
Also, was Congress not consulted each and every step of the way when we were negotiating the agreement? Did I not provide Congress with updates, reports and briefings on how negotiations are going? Did I not show the actual document to Congress prior to it being published in a public article? Yes, yes and yes.
That's not the point. It is Congress' decision whether the eUK signs a peace treaty until such a time as Congress decides to devolve that power to a referendum. The CP DOES NOT HAVE UNLIMITED POWER
No it isn't. It is the decision of the British people. I am legitimately using my right to hold a referendum. I see you like doing things behind closed doors in a darkened room. I don't and I want to take every possible opportunity to consult with the public on our decisions, be it through debates, discussions, Q&As or indeed - a referendum.
"Your view of democracy is that Parliament is above everyone and everything."
You don't understand do you? Mongress is just the tool to piss off the people you don't like, it works too when you are CP (then mongress is the enemy obv).
The problem is that we're not in a democracy we're currently in a dictatorship. Under a dictatorship congress and the CP are irrelevant.
Surely if you want a functional democracy you should overthrow the dictator either that or maybe it's time for our dictator to use the power he has.
Someone is yet to read the constitution
Any Constitution is irrelevant under a dictatorship. The Political Module is dead and redundant.
This game was ruined by the introduction of Dictatorship.
But my meta-game! 😛
The constitution has nothing to do with this game and the developers are unlikely to add new buttons for it. Maybe it's rtime that the non entities that created the constitution started playing the game as is and not some fantasy
But the constitution does have something to do with the game if the dictator follows it... What's your obsession with moaning at/insulting anyone not playing within game defined roles?
Because those people that ignore the game have done nothing but create a self perpetuating crony-ism that feeds off the citizens of eUK like vampires
You know none of that makes sense right?
I agree, the obsession with the meta game makes no sense at all
Following the constitution is what I personally enforce as the Dictator, go figure
You should probably contact most of these country's under dictatorship then,
http://prnt.sc/a4xq9j
I'm sure they would love to here from you about how they are playing the game wrong and how it's all about the buttons.
So you'd rather have only Congress vote on this matter. That much is understood. Yet if Congress decides on a course of action that is against the will of the people, there is no mechanic to remove them, beyond meta laws which would require 66% of the vote against each and every individual member.
So let's say Congress votes on whether to have a referendum. That's another 48 hours of debate, unless it's an emergency proposal, in which case 24 hours. Then another 24 hours of voting. So we've already delayed any referendum by 2-3 days, and given France another 2-3 days of our cash because of bureaucratic inefficiencies brought about by the pedantry of a select few in Congress.
Then we end up with a situation where Congress may vote, possibly with a minority of members actually bothering to vote, for no referendum. This only goes on to delay things further, since then we'd have to have yet another proposal, debate and vote wasting yet more time while France laughs at us and drains our money.
But of course, *everything* has to be done exactly by the book, right? Like the original intent of the Dictatorship with handing dictatorial power to the elected CP. Right?
Tbf Addaway doesn't say that we shouldn't have a referendum on the peace deal
Et tu, Sambo?
Point is, all this bureaucracy is just giving the French a chance to laugh at us.
I'm sure they're already having a good giggle at us. Has French congress voted on this yet? Do we even know that? How much longer do we have to wait for this referendum? What is the question being asked? Who will be running it to make it fair and unable to be tampered with (multi voters etc etc)
Perhaps France doesn't have such an anally-retentive Congress as we do, and don't call for votes every time their CP farts. 😉
Shouldn't have voted in the constitution then