In claiming a need for all so-called Democratic governments to practice what they preach: namely a government Of, By and For the governed, a desirous look into the process of the Referendum Vote should be examined. The present comments are not meant to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject, just a cursory exploration.
Some are fearful of permitting the population at large to have the dominant say in government matters and claim, in a sense, that the majority of citizens represent a pool similar to a village of fools, idiots or misguided innocents that should know better but don't and therefore need a Representative body of those who view themselves as being above and beyond the norm in intellect, perspicacity and wisdom. But these so-called intellectually elite fail to say, in the same breath of lofted self-ordained analysis, that they are elected to serve as a Representative by this same ignorant village collective. In short, they want us "everyday village people" to acknowledge they have a judgment exceeding that which few of us have or could ever hope to collectively administer in the form of a law that would benefit all. The logic of those running for and acquiring a political position is astounding:
1st, they want the village idiots to be intelligent enough to recognize their own ignorance and stupid enough to believe in the need for (a fractionated form of) Representation.
2nd, they want to be chosen as a Representative by the village idiots who are claimed to be unable to make relevant choices.
3rd, they want to be viewed as some especial figure of humanity that is immune from the same influences which make everyone else common-place dumb and are thus better suited to make choices for the village commoners.
Whereas I used the phrase "process of the Referendum vote," this process generally takes the form of the general populace casting a vote for or against a proposal intended to become a law. And with this said, our examination must state that it is the present process of the Referendum vote which can lead to ill-productive results and not the intent of a Referendum itself.
The present Referendum process is ripe with activities that lead the public astray in a multitude of forms such as misleading, inaccurate, or partialized information being publicly provided. This far too often permits singular, one-sided perspectives being promoted by those with the financial means to make their interest heard above all, and thus become a law with detrimental effects a real possibility for one unsuspecting group or another. It is akin to a chest thumping primate that is using a fist-full of leaves (financial support) to wield a measure of intimidation with information that sounds good, but is twisted for personalized motivations.
Clearly, the Referendum voting process as presently practiced needs to adopt a true Democratic formula in terms of a Cenocracy, instead of the various nefarious unaccountable activities being used that reek of early religious separatist movements that contoured their beliefs with various interpretations of biblical doctrine and definitions of God as well as morality... all according to the exhortations of a dominant speaker with one or more personal self-aggrandizing motives.
Even in a culture advocating free speech as if it is a great beacon of illumination, it is important to note how many people -wrongly- equate this with greater truth. Free speech does not guarantee more honesty in expressions, only more expressions honestly permitted to be given... whether they be true, false, or a little bit of both.
Historically, the citizenry is credited with being unable to make the "right" choice to be enacted into law and must therefore be spoon-fed and led by the hand so as to make the appropriate step forward. (This is why women were not allowed to vote and had to fight for the right to do so. It is also why the Negro and Native Americans were not permitted to vote in early American history. The so-called "intelligent" legislative bodies of men thought and felt they were better suited to make rational, informed, and of course, self-centered interests which typically revolved around some commercial enterprise.)
It's alright, or so politicians claim, that this same infantile citizenry is mature enough to give their lives for a cause, but the cause itself must be defined by those who likewise claim themselves to be better in making sound judgments. On the one hand you are proclaimed a patriot and can give your life for your country, but you're too stupid to make rational decisions particularly because you are too dumb to recognize that you're not dying for your country but for some political/commercial interest that is defined as "your country" by those who dupe you into sacrificing your life for their selfish interest. Many, not just politicians... but the citizenry themselves, cite (think/feel) that the average person... even when provided ample information as to the better choice, will make a poor choice. Examples that may be given include the choice of healthy food versus notoriously bad food such as that labeled junk or fast-food; alcoholic beverages versus healthier selections such as water or fruit juices; smoking versus non-smoking, etc... There are many other examples that might be given, but the point is straight forward: many people still make a poor choice even when they are provided with a more suitable choice. Some will even defend their poor choice by citing some reference that provides them with an excuse to make the choice they want, thus using what they think provides a valuable argument such as "everything is bad for you so I might as well eat/drink/do whatever I want."
Indeed, let us include the fact that one of the "poor" choices being made is the many forms of Democracy being touted as the best choice often aligned with some national resource, cultural expression or presumed ideological preeminence. However, it actually is not being chosen, but being forced onto the people through law, public education and observed nationalistic inclinations. The people are not given an opportunity to vote on the retention of one or another forms of government in a National (or International) Referendum. And, much less, there is no exploration or discussion of a better form of social self-governance model. In order for the application of even a trial basis of a new ideology, an entire nation must be omni-laterally subjected to a Revolt... a form of public self-assertion which is subjected to systems of government which have built-in mechanisms to thwart the people from acquiring a greater Redistribution of socio-political power such as is being described by a Cenocratic formula of social self-governance. Systems of present Authority are designed to deliberately keep the people subjugated into varying forms of ignorance, naivete', and dependency.
At present, most people are not aware of the word "Cenocracy", much less its generalized description as a formula for developing a greater standard of Equality, Justice and Liberty. When one speaks of a needed Revolution, the general mindset is to turn to definitions evoking images of violence, even though Cenocrats find the thought of needing to use violence as an aberration of thought and not a preference for unleashing a rationale for the usage of an Anarchy. The call for a violent over-throw of a government, because of its obstinance to the Will of the People is not advocated. There is of a process for conducting a Revolution, an improvement of the social self-governing "contract", which removes present authoritative offices from of its present position of having "power of attorney" over the people. In order for the people to acquire the needed intelligence, wisdom and foresight to serve the best interests of itself, it must be given the same amount of time opportunity that has been given to those within the structures of government design which minimize the people from making their own collective decisions.
The Peoples Cenocratic Referendum process can not use the "get-enough-signatures-from-registered-voters" methodology employed by present government structures before a process of referendum takes place. Such a process does not permit the usage of a discussion forum other than that which one might call a word-of-mouth procedure, where inaccuracies of information can easily be transmitted. Such a methodology quite clearly resembles a means of placing an obstacle in front of the people like a legislative filibustering tactic. A Cenocratic process of Referendum will permit discussion and voting as a legalized method of legislation... and not as some auxiliary "Hail Mary" (American football), do -or- die component of wishful thinking exercise. Such uses of the Referendum are nonsense. The collective voice of the people to be used as a viable process of law-making must become actualized and fully realized. The presently practiced ancient forms of subjugating Monarchial rule set into a modernized context of patriotic embellishments and labeled one or another form of Democracy; must be overthrown by the peoples of the world making a Declaration for Greater Independence through an enhanced formula for Self-Representation, by an equalized Redistribution of socio-political power to collectively choose their own destiny and not be legislatively forced, economically manipulated, or administratively cajoled into accepting, adopting and referentially addressing systematized formulas of self-denial, self reproach, and self-immolation.
But politicians are not exempt from this activity of error selection. While on an individual level each of us, when confronted by a circumstance that forces us to make what we think is the best choice, will choose what is at least the lesser of two evils, collectively, the result may be the opposite of what we chose since the resulting tally of choices selected may favor a majority that is wrong. And even when the choice is found to be wrong, those who chose it may not support the other choice because in so doing, they feel they are pointing out some highly undesirable characteristic of themselves. In short, the poorest choice is selected and the more favorable one is denied to be implemented, even when no other alternative is available. Such people would rather everyone suffer for their poor choice then take the initiative to try the alternative. While neither may be perfect, one is slightly better than the other, at least from the perspective of providing some for all instead of the previously desired most for a few. Voting in the present form of the Referendum processes frequently leads to selective qualities for short-term, gaudy gains with little interest in helping the most for long-term sustained gains.
Some might say that in order to help people make better choices that are not simply extensions of personal greed, they need to be better educated. However, the so-called educated protest groups of 2011 known as "Occupy," would seem to refute such a proposal. That is if we are to believe in the journalistic interpretation that those who were protesting were more educated than predecessor protest groups. Clearly then, this educated lot chose to protest in search of better personal accommodations in terms of pecuniary advancement by attacking those or that they perceived were involved in keeping them in a state equated with some measure of poverty. Their protests were akin to a knee jerk reaction that once executed, became spent with little accomplishment to the desired end. Many observers viewed their protests little different than a temper tantrum. They held their breath waiting for "the establishment" to give in to their multi-faceted demands, but it is they who ended up gasping for air and grappling reflectively with the short-sighted impulsiveness they engage in.
A referendum vote must therefore include the provision of adopting the alternative if and when the initially chosen perspective falls short of expectations that are clearly defined... because the expected end-result may be intentionally undermined by those wanting the public to cry-out for a return to a system of governance where the few have learned to acquire what they desire most, at the expense of the many. Yet, if the alternative proves likewise faulty, a combination should thus be adopted for applied and not merely philosophical consideration. A beginning new formula of Referendum will be a learning process, as will the adopted ideas of a collective population. A level of patience must be applied in such a learning process, as that which is permitted in any process of training and education. One can not expect perfection from a new born babe learning to walk, talk, and feed itself. A new form of government is new, in many senses. The old must give way to the new, as all of life eventually does.
Many "common" people dislike the idea of a referendum because they, like many politicians, think other so-called "normal" citizens do not think clearly. Though they may interact with them socially or casually such as talking across a fence between yards, or at some other form of social gathering, they would not like to see the other person's view-points made into law. People can be very distrusting of other peoples' judgments with respect to enacting a widespread edict of governance, even though they may live with them, work with them, play with them, or else-wise. Indeed, even so-called professionals debate the merit of other professionals' perspective, intelligence, logic and even common sense. Nonetheless, they learn to work together to achieve needed goals. The common person can likewise develop the needed professionalism for using a Cenocratic form of governance. Keeping the everyday person in a semi-state of self-governing enfranchisement is anti-thetical and outright destructive to that needed by an evolving species.
So what in the world can we do to instill more democracy, in terms of developing a viable nation-wide Referendum, if the people themselves are leery about initiating one since they may have had a poor experience with the trials and tribulations with a city, county or state-wide example? How do we keep a Nation-wide referendum from becoming a disenchanted source of citizen-directed social self-governance? Clearly, we need to establish not only a law that enables the citizenry to have a Bill-of-Rights mandated form of Referendum, but that the provisions of the Referendum are laid out in unambiguous terms. For example, if a bill to be voted on provides illusions of gain where none exist in the first place, then that being voted on is itself a means to perpetuate an illusion. Such illusions must be tested for viability. Another example would be to have a Referendum vote on what is and what is not a good religion or business... though this could be extended into other considerations as well. In short, voting on whether to accept or deny the existence of some illusions might forcefully direct a society on a singular vein of perspective... after they learn what others trolly think and do not even consider about a given topic. Not that it would necessarily be bad, but it could lead to devastating effects such as a single-mindedness that a certain people are chosen... and have the right to choose for others... Which of course is that being practiced today by "Representative" forms of government. Such a way of (political) life becomes accepted as "The" truth frequently justified as the best way based merely on the "evidence" called a tradition.
This single-mindedness, for example, is being exercised without approval by American Unions that spend millions of employee paid dues on politics which Union leaders think is appropriate, without asking for confirmation or approval from those that paid the dues. In other words, there is no referendum taking place amongst the employees, just as there is no referendum taking place amongst the citizenry.
See for example:
2 November 2012 Last updated at 12:04 ET A group of Swiss environmentalists has collected enough signatures to force a national referendum on immigration. The Ecopop group says natural resources are under increasing pressure from over-population. It wants annual population growth through immigration capped at 0.2% and a tenth of foreign aid to be used for birth control measures abroad. Switzerland now has a population of eight million people - almost a quarter of them foreigners. Ecopop gathered a petition with 120,700 certified signatures - easily passing the 100,000 threshold needed for a referendum on the proposed new law. "The pressure on land, nature and the countryside is considerable, and quality of life is continuously deteriorating due to a lack of living space," said Ecopop member Philippe Roch, a former director of the Swiss environment department. The group insists it is opposed to all forms of xenophobia and racism but says Switzerland must limit immigration to avoid urbanisation and to preserve agricultural land. Under the Swiss system of Direct Democracy, referenda take place up to four times a year. Correspondents say the initiative reflects growing concern in Switzerland about overcrowding. The population has risen by more than 140% since 1990. In April, the Swiss government agreed to re-impose immigration quotas on workers from central and eastern EU countries - a decision criticised by EU officials. Until 2011, Switzerland had a quota of 2,000 residency permits per year for citizens of the so-called "A8" nations, which joined the EU in 2004. The right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP), which blames rising rents and crowded transport on immigration, has also gathered enough signatures to force a referendum on tougher immigration quotas.