http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4589679.stm

Just for the French vote on the new European Union constitution, they have had dozens of debates on television between leading politicians.

Why can't we do that in America! Why is that such a complicated idea? WHy is it that during election time we tell "equivalent' politicans from opposing parties debate key issues?

Why be confined to a few pitiful debates between only the candidiates.

Jeez, I've always believed that there is a 100% correct answer to every problem. There just needs to be a proper way to debate it to figure out what is correct.

A very good reason why there won't be a debate. Why debate if you'll lose?

...

As far as i can tell, in this country there is no stigma associated with refusing to accept a debate with your opponent. As long as this is true, there will not be a significant ammount of debates between politicians.

__________________
"The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind--surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false" - 1984

You don't want that.

I'm very happy Finland isn't voting on it, as otherwise it would never pass. The same would have happened if we would have voted on joining the Euro. Fortunately the people were smart enough to say "yes" to joining the EU.

And how democratic is that?

__________________
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster.
Friedrich Nietzsche

In some cases, the people do not know best. Most of the people who will vote against the EU have no idea what the EU actually is and stands for.
Representative democracy is better than direct democracy is this regard.

I would say, that this reflects the basic problem with the democracy.. The masses don't have 1) the time 2) interest and 3) wisdom to consentrate in the public matters.. Their decisions becames easily uninformed and emotional, before rational, and might not suit their best interest..

This is the reason, why the most important democratic body is not the referendum, but the parlament.. If we can assume, that the representatives wishes the best of their voters, the situation is ideal.. In this case, they don't only represent the will of the people, but they also have the time, interest and wisdom, what the people are commonly lacking..

So commonly, the parlament has the democratic mandate and they have a better understandment of the subject.. If they have a different opinion compared to one shared with masses, it might not be a bad thing.. The difference in opinion might be caused by the difference in understandment..

I believe, that the power and the will must always come from the people.. Still IMHO, the parlament's purpose is to follow the people's will and best interest, not their uninformed opinions.. I do undestand to some extend, if the parlament doesn't want to submit difficult decisions for the masses to choose..

Still, the ultimate and the last democratic mandate is the referendum.. The EU consitution is a huge deal, which will change the nature of the European countries.. For this kind of changes, the ultimate mandate would be preferable.. It would give the European Union the ultimate democratic mandate to exist..

The decision to make is both difficult and huge, requiring both understandment and democratic legitimacy.. The question is truly a difficult one..

- BtD

__________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
[George Orwell, 1984]

Do you ever watch C-Span for what happens daily in both the Congress and the Senate? That's what they do: they debate. Not to mention there's also quite a lot of debate on the political talk shows between various Senators and Congressmen and other elected officials.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

The debate on Crossfire, O'Reilly, etc. is a disgrace to the notion of intellectual, moderated debate. It's nothing more than partisan hackery designed to a.)entertain to the viewer b.)intellectually challenge them as little as possible.

CSPAN is a great network, don't get me wrong, but it hardly impacts the electorate because so few people watch it.

The Democrats and Republicans have jointly made it extremely difficult for third parties to participate in the major presidential debates. If there's one thing the two parties agree on, it's keeping other candidates out.

And then you get the staged town hall meetings, where Bush only puts in his supporters to make himself look better.

It's all an act, and unless the American people ask for change the two parties will keep the charade up.

__________________
Proudly a "South Park Republican"

I agree, but this is the price we pay for efficiency. True democracy will never work because it cannot be implemented. Unfortunately we will have to deal with the system we have, or an equvalent one. The EU is even MORE undemocratic than our own system, it relies heavily on "Eurocrats" designing and implementing policy with little public debate.

"I agree, but this is the price we pay for efficiency. True democracy will never work because it cannot be implemented."

Actually... it CAN be implemented and it is ALL Al Gore's fault... he created the internets!

Through the ability of connectivity we possess, EVERY american citizen could vote on every initiative brought forth.

That is true democracy... but we would have to disband the federal, state, and local governments....

so get busy!

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds