Supreme Court Nomination Circus

Do not know what happened decades ago but the problem with the US Supreme Court is that judges are unelected and only an expression of the preferences of a small number of politicians. At least their terms should be limited so that a healthy rotation is possible.

Constitution in time of Plutocrats and Celebrity Politics

Direct Democracy would help to alleviate the worst problems associated with growing Inequality and the Celebrity culture (promoted by the very few plutocrats who control our media). More rigorous control of terms, dispersing power away from single individuals (see Ancient Rome with two Consuls, or Switzerland with a collegium of ministers instead of a President) would be additional safeguards.
New York Times: Our Constitution wasn't built for this

Turkey Referendum - Fake Democracy wins (again)

Another narrow result demonstrates the worst aspect of Fake Democracy. That important decisions such as constitutional 'reform' (if you can call it that) can be decided with a margin of less than 2% (measured by the percentage that has to flip to the other side)means that there is insufficient backing. The same could have been said about the British Brexit referendum last year - but with the proviso that all the decisions related to the EU had not been made under rules that would have required a qualified majority (two thirds or maybe even 75%).
Erdogan Wins Constitutional “Reforms”, Allowed to Rule Until 2029: Opposition Challenges Vote | MishTalk

Supreme Court Appointments - USA

Does it make sense to give life-time appointments to Judges? To keep them independent it would be enough to appoint them for a 10 year term, not renewable so there is no posturing to get re-appointed.
The Real Reason to Watch the Gorsuch Hearings

Reflections on the Brexit Referendum

A narrow result in a referendum about the constitution should always require a meaningful quorum. In most countries election results are regularly decided by the thinnest of margins. But the UK referendum about Brexit leaves a somewhat sour taste as the majority of 52% has defeated a minority of 48%. So there is quite a split among the citizens, and a different result would just have meant that the roles are reversed.

There are several lesson from the whole exercise:

The development of the EU and its institutions proceeded with little regard to the wishes of the electorate. Regular consultations on major steps forward should have been submitted to a referendum in all the member states, with a significant quorum (2/3?) as safety valve.

It should not be at the pleasure of a Politician whether or not a referendum takes place. If we want to live in a proper democracy the consultation of the citizens should be governed by mandatory and predictable rules. Otherwise the often mentioned objection to Direct Democracy - that it can be abused by Governments and referenda become plebiscites - will always have to be taken seriously.

Reflections on the Brexit Referendum

A narrow result in a referendum about the constitution should always require a meaningful quorum. In most countries election results are regularly decided by the thinnest of margins. But the UK referendum about Brexit leaves a somewhat sour taste as the majority of 52% has defeated a minority of 48%. So there is quite a split among the citizens, and a different result would just have meant that the roles are reversed.

There are several lesson from the whole exercise:

The development of the EU and its institutions proceeded with little regard to the wishes of the electorate. Regular consultations on major steps forward should have been submitted to a referendum in all the member states, with a significant quorum (2/3?) as safety valve.

It should not be at the pleasure of a Politician whether or not a referendum takes place. If we want to live in a proper democracy the consultation of the citizens should be governed by mandatory and predictable rules. Otherwise the often mentioned objection to Direct Democracy - that it can be abused by Governments and referenda become plebiscites - will always have to be taken seriously.

Party Cronies rule our Lives

In Austria the Chancellor is replaced at the drop of a hat. Party hacks decide he is no longer useful to keep them in power and he must go. In comes a political novice, never stood in an election, has zero mandate to rule as helpless citizens watch in disbelief.
In Italy a young politician close to the Prime Minister is allowed to manipulate the decades-old constitution. Main purpose to provide a safe and comfortable life for the ruling parties. At least there will have to be a referendum on the changes - but is it not all-too-easy to get the desired result? Is the required Quorum demanding enough (two thirds in favour, with at least 50 percent of those eligible to vote turning up? regional preferences catered for?)

Constitutional Change needs to be handled with Care

Changes to the Constitution must not be allowed to dictated by the political Establishment. There needs to be a mandatory consultation of the Electorate. At the same time only a qualified majority - including one supported by a qualified majority of regions - must be a binding requirement. Manipulations such as this one would not be possible.

Poland's new Leaders take aim at Democracy (Bloomberg)

Turkey - three democratic deficits

1. Changing the Constitution should only be possible after stringent tests
2. Term limits have to be set
3. Power of a single individual must be constrained

Defective Constitutions support Oligarchies

A recent study from Princeton and Northwestern concluded that the United States is an “oligarchy” ruled by a small group of wealthy elites and interest groups. Is one of the 'fathers' of the US Constitution to blame for this? (Mises Institute).

Faulty Political System contributes to Inequality

Why are Inequality Levels skyrocketing? (The Big Picture)

Initiative calls for lowering 5 per cent hurdle in Zurich town council

Many countries have a minimum hurdle that parties have to exceed before they are allocated seats in the national or local parliaments. Now there is a new initiative in the City of Zurich that calls for the lowering of the threshold to 2 per cent making it easier for smaller parties to gain a seat in the town council. Without taking a view on the merits of this initiative we are convinced that all constitutional changes should be subject to a vote in a referendum and that it should not be left to the established political parties and politicians to decide what changes are adopted.

Charter Cities - good idea but not so new

Paul Romer's concept of 'Charter Cities' that operate outside the dysfunctional tangle of a country's existing rules is an idea whose time has come and fits in very well with Dirdem's vision of Direct Democracy. But one must remember that the concept is not that new: the city states in Ancient Greece and the independent City-States in Italy and Germany during the Middle Ages were to all intents and purposes precursors of the Charter City that Romer postulates.

Wikileaks and the case for Open Government

In the age of the internet there is no reason why not all government communication should be published - ideally in real time. All contact with lobbyists for example would be brought out into the open, as would be internal discussions within or between government departments. The only exception should be items relating to national security or ongoing legal proceedings. Complaints about excessive volume of documentation miss the point - computer memory is very patient, cheap and requires very little maintenance. And no one has to read the files if they are of no interest to him.

Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Merkel, Blair, Bush, Putin - common thread

The common thread uniting these names is the fact that they have excessive powers in our 'representative' democracies. No single person should have so much power as any of these 'leaders' unites in his hands. A collegiate form of government would avoid a personality cult (who needs first ladies?) and ensure that government affairs of the executive branch are run on a professional basis - like the post office for example. No one cares about who runs that institution - as long as it is managed effectively. A 'President' or 'Speaker' could be nominated or elected on a rotating basis who would be 'primus inter pares' for a period of one year. In addition to this college of officials we would have a comprehensive form of direct government that would be an additional safeguard against the concentration of power in the hands of one individual or party. Extensive public participation in the formulation of new laws would also help to make decision-making more rational and avoid expensive mistakes.

Berlusconi accused of buying MP's votes

In a system of direct democracy the risk posed by dubious practices in public life will be much reduced as any decision is always subject to public discussion and referendum. This will make it much less attractive to influence votes in parliament or government officials as their decisions will in any case not have binding character.

UK: Is power slipping away from Parliament?

Wrong question Mr. Johnston! The question should be: why has power 'slipped away' from the citizens and how will we be able to wrest it back from political parties and their frontmen?

UK: Cameron wants to give us power?

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong - no one should be able to 'give' us power. The citizens have to take government - and especially legislation - back into their own hands. The politicians have to execute our wishes.

UK: Largest cities 'offered' a vote on whether to have an elected mayor

Another proposal introduced on a completely arbitrary basis. Who 'approves' this proposal, why are only the 12 largest cities in Britain 'offered' this option?

Dirdem demands full disclosure of government affairs

Dirdem supports full disclosure of government affairs. The recent releases of US government documents by Wikileaks is only a foretaste of what the electorate should expect in a regime that brings the workings of lobbies and other pressure groups into the open. During the Renaissance, an Italian Republic locked up its ministers during their time in office to prevent illicit dealings and stop pressure groups from influencing legislation and the administering of the state's affairs. Apart from aspects of national security - and even there should be stringent controls - we see no reason why not all government matters should be subject to full disclosure. In a time of powerful and cheap computing resources this should not be too costly and if anyone complains about too much information the answer should be that no one is forced to trawl through all the information available.