Tag Archives: Freedom of expression

No representation during a referendum?

Posted on by

Some people who planned to vote no during the referendum on marriage (22 05 2015) without distinction of sex (gender) have said that they had no representation among political parties on this subject. That is, they noted that while they and (as it turned out) 3 of every 8 people who voted chose no, all the political parties had encouraged people to vote yes.

Representation

We ordinary people do not get to vote on legislation. One or 3, 4, or 5 TDs represent each of us in the Dáil, and there the TDs vote for or against each Bill. A substantial part of the time the TDs misrepresent the people or misrepresent some of the people in their constituency.

Senators are not directly elected, except for the 6 from the university constituencies. So people say that the Senate misrepresents the people a lot of the time.

As we can not vote on legislation, we need legislators to represent us.

Referendum

In the referendum, a voter gets to vote directly on the proposed change. The proposed change has always been about the Constitution.

In a referendum, you vote on the proposed change. You represent yourself. The ballot is secret. You do not have to vote in the way that the government speakers, or any other politicians, tell you. At the marriage referendum 3 of every 8 people ignored the politicians. At other referenda even more people have not voted as the politicians told them.

You do not need a person or a political party to represent you during the campaign leading up to the day of the vote in a referendum.

Trouble with politicians and referenda

That politicians would take a role in leading or directing the votes of the people in referenda has caused trouble.

The Constitution rules that any change to it requires the vote of the people. This is because the constitution is a set of rules that limit the laws that the Dáil and Senate can pass, and limit the way the Government and its departments administer the law. The limits are generally to stop the State from infringing the basic rights of the people. Accordingly there is sense in changes to these limiting rules being only with the approval of the people.

Government ministers and other politicians often give their views on the most sensible way to vote, and this means to vote yes. Their opinions are not necessarily more sound than anyone else’s view, but if most of the Dáil thought that a No vote was the most sensible, they would be unlikely to hold a referendum.

So politicians campaign to the people in most referenda, to vote yes. People have become used to this, and they partly identify the referendum or the campaign or debate with the politicians. Governments have on some occasions campaigned strongly, and on 2 European integration referenda have given us the vote a second time to get us to change from No to Yes.

It was right that people became annoyed at the Dáil and Senate sending us the vote a second time. Some people have thus come to see a referendum as a thing that the politicians foist on us the people, instead of a rare opportunity to vote directly on an important issue.

Some people have compounded the identification of a referendum with the political parties by changing their vote at the next general (sometimes local) election away from the parties that called the referendum. Some people have treated some referenda like a general election, that is, an opportunity to vote against the present government.

Thus politicians have been too involved in the votes in referenda. In response some of the voters have pushed back at the politicians. This was quite fair when voting in elections. But ordinary people pushing back at politicians by their vote in a referendum has greatly damaged those voters’ concept of the rare vote that you can make directly, in a referendum. These pushes reinforce each other and make them stronger, a vicious circle.

Valuing the direct vote of a Referendum, and not needing representation

While any voter may consider some or even most referenda a mistake or a waste of time and money, some subjects reserved to the vote of the people in a referendum are really important aspects of our society or our State on which it is wonderful to vote.

If you plan to vote in one way, and you see that all the political parties have favoured the opposite vote, it is natural to feel a little more alone. Yet I think that the view, of hoping that some politicians would support the vote that you plan to make in the referendum, is a mistake. The view of identifying the attitudes of politicians with the issue to be decided in a referendum is a product of the unproductive mutual pushing by the politicians and the people as I wrote in the last section.

My impression of the campaigning in the referendum for equality in marriage is this. Although the political parties stated clearly that they favoured us voting Yes, and they all had posters on lampposts, they did little further campaigning. I saw more Yes posters from the organisations for equality and for LGBT rights than from the parties. The No posters were fewer than the Yes total, but nearly as many as the political party Yes posters. Nearly all the person-to-person and media campaigning was from groups with specific interests in a No vote or in a Yes vote. Thus the campaigning in this referendum was little to do with politicians.

I was very glad to hear Micheál Martin TD who leads Fianna Fáil tell the interviewer on RTÉ Radio 1 at lunchtime on Sunday 24 05 2015 that there is no need for political parties to be on each side of a referendum vote.

So, most important in a referendum is that you represent yourself. It is a better state to represent yourself than to have someone represent you (they often misrepresent you).

We think…so freedom of expression is good for you

Posted on by

I think.

Other people think and, though not exactly the same as my thoughts, I think people’s schemes of thinking are fairly similar.

I think mostly about doing things, about their advantages and disadvantages. I will later do only a very small portion of these things.

The actions that I later do: while I do some of them soon after I think, there are many that I only end up doing months or years later. For some, the opportunity or the need for the action has not come yet.

From their conversation, I understand that other people do some similar thinking. Their conversations include talk of actions, and alternative actions, of which I have not thought. Some of these are about situations or opportunities that had not come to my mind before I heard them from others.

The bulk of thoughts are about situations and questions that I never face in person

My own spontaneous thoughts about actions in various situations, coupled with what I hear from others about similar and some quite different situations, have throughout life stimulated me to think about the choice of actions in situations that neither I nor the people I meet have experienced.

From that thinking I decide that one or more actions would be wiser than some of the other actions.

I reach these judgements about what I should do, many without testing the choice as I have not faced that situation. I reach judgements that some actions and plans are more sensible and rational than others. I hear other people in conversation also make these judgements. So, much as other people judge things, when I decide that an action or plan is the wise choice, I see my judgement as being a wise choice for people in general.

Thinking is also about knowledge

Some of the time I think about facts about parts of the world, about what is real knowledge about the world. This is important sometimes for the judgements about the right thing(s) to do in a situation.

I, and other people, make judgements about others’ judgements

I come to think that some actions are right for people in various situations (some I have faced, and some not).

I may make sensible judgements, or I may make judgements that are wholly or partly mistaken. I hear other people also considering these matters. They make judgements about what is best to do in situations. As people do not all reach the same conclusions on how best to act (or on what is true), I and every other person can make judgements about other people’s judgements (both their moral judgements and their factual judgements). If you think your idea is right, that implies that you think a contrary idea is at least partly wrong.

Some people don’t approve of people making judgements about other people. Here I am not writing about making judgements about other people, about the person. I only make judgements about people’s ideas or views. If I decide that one judgement or idea of a person is wrong, that is not a judgement that the person is a bad person.

Improving my judgements with help from other people

With people reaching different judgements, some people think that the other people’s rights to hold their own views means it is not correct to say to them that there is any fault with their ideas or judgements.

I think a lot about facts that I can never check out myself; and I reach judgements on what it’s best to do in situations I have not faced. I have reached these judgements in as rational a way as I can. I have a critical voice inside my head that sometimes asks the rest of my mind if I might have things wrong.

My internal critical voice has sometimes led me to change my view. But it is part of me. It can never criticise my views as objectively as another person could. So I value other people’s judgements on my ideas, because I want to get as close as I can to the sensible and correct judgement.

I welcome other people telling my views are wrong. I look forward to their rational arguments or evidence that point to the weak parts of my ideas.

I want this, because I want to reach more sensible ideas. If you respond to the great diversity of people’s judgements by never criticising an idea with which you do not agree, you contribute to other people remaining mistaken. And the social rule to avoid criticising other ideas contributes to you remaining mistaken.

I do not notice people giving the view that it is good to keep to mistaken thinking or actions.

Freedom of expression helps other people

I want to improve my ideas and judgements. I can improve them a lot by myself, while never conversing with other people. But to be sure of improving my ideas, I need to live in a society where people are free to express criticism of my views. These other people who would be criticising my views would be helping me. People have helped me in this way.

I am not alone on this desire about society. I know lots of other people who also want society to have a rule in favour of freedom of expression. If I express my views about their ideas, I could be helping them.

People’s first response to criticism of their ideas is often to feel uncomfortable. But it is not the person’s only reaction. After some seconds or minutes people may listen. At the end people often say that they value the criticism of their idea.

Freedom of expression helps societies

In a society, people will have different views on a lot of subjects. Variety on some subjects may not cause trouble to other people and so not to the society. But there are sure to be some subjects on which it is important that most or all of society will agree, the subjects where people’s actions can harm others or interfere with their rights.

If criticism of other people’s ideas is muted because of a rule that such criticism is wrong, the difficulties that come from lack of agreement will persist.

The people who may end up having to change their views will do this most easily and peacefully if the process of change is peaceful, and if it is a normal process and not one commenced particularly for the particular subject. In other words, criticism and discussion of ideas should be going on all the time in the society.

Freedom of expression is good for all of us, all of the time.