ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Italy is next

4 Dicembre: IO VOTO NO
Italy NEXT to reject establishment as protest vote set to WIN referendum. Italy is set to deal a hammer blow to its government as the latest polls revealed voters will punish Matteo Renzi's administration in the upcoming referendum. The prime minister's failure to reach out to working class suggest large regions will snub Mr Renzi's plan for constitutional reform.

A Demos poll has revealed Mr Renzi's reforms will be rejected by an 11 percentage point margin in the south of the country - where most of the poorest regions are located - compared with a seven-point margin across the country. As the nation prepares for a momentous referendum, which could spark an exit from the European Union, Mr Renzi said that he would have no interest in running the country if voters reject the proposed constitutional reform.
Now are you starting to understand why I favor direct democracy? A nation is harder to corrupt than its political elite.

I expect NO to win by more than 7 points. This is more than a referendum on the constitutional reforms, it is a virtual referendum on the UE. And the European Union has been very, very bad for Italy. As they say from Calabria to Genova:

BASTA BUGIE! NO UE!

Labels:

52 Comments:

Blogger allyn71 November 25, 2016 8:14 AM  

Fanculo l'UE

Hopefully Italians regain their freedom.

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir November 25, 2016 8:20 AM  

But democracies always evolve into dictatorships.

Blogger JACIII November 25, 2016 8:23 AM  

Shake them off Italy!

Blogger Rantor November 25, 2016 8:28 AM  

Italy should reject reform and demand a new government...

OpenID brefaucheux November 25, 2016 8:48 AM  

I hope the Italians get the results they want and break free of their shackles.

Blogger Erynne November 25, 2016 8:50 AM  

What would a direct democracy look like? And I don't assume we're talking some city-state Athens situation, although who gets to vote I think they got right. I wonder how people could be conditioned into accepting that form of government by the people when so many look to the State to solve humanity's greatest problems? How do you avoid tyranny of the masses, who runs the bureaucracy to implement items passed by vote, especially if it's likely that no one will simultaneously vote to fund said bureaucracies since there are no slimy politicians hiding the true cost?

Blogger Tex Longhorn November 25, 2016 8:54 AM  

@Erynne

It would look like a Hilary Win.

Blogger Balázs Varga November 25, 2016 9:04 AM  

"Tyranny of the masses" is only bad if you have a multi ethnic country.

So it would be fine in most European ones.

Anonymous Undocumented Civilizationalist November 25, 2016 9:08 AM  

So awesome.

But Trump was wrong.

I AM NOT tired of winning yet!!!!!

Anonymous Raptor disrespect from behind November 25, 2016 9:12 AM  

@6 probably like switzerland.

Blogger Daniel November 25, 2016 9:13 AM  

wtf is happening in israel? anyone knows?

Blogger Jeff Weimer November 25, 2016 9:14 AM  

Direct democracy in the US Presidential election would have meant President Hillary, thanks to the illegal voting run up in California. The EC quarantined vote fraud to where it could do no harm.

Blogger rumpole5 November 25, 2016 9:14 AM  

People who favor democracy forget that 1/2 of the population has a below average IQ. In the USA the problem is even worse because in the USA, huge swing vote size portion of the population is largely BELOW average IQ. The Democrats discovered that they could go from exploiting them in the cotton fields to exploiting them in the voting booths.

The safer course is a multiplicity of powers, each overlapping and checking one another. Monarch, Patrician, commoner, Church, civic group, Limited Federal, State, county, city.

Anonymous Oye November 25, 2016 9:15 AM  

Are you voting?

Blogger The Kurgan November 25, 2016 9:25 AM  

Never voted in my life. Might just have to do so if I can find the time.

Blogger OGRE November 25, 2016 9:29 AM  

@12 Jeff. Direct Democracy would mean no Hillary or Trump, as there would be no corresponding office of the Presidency in which the entirety of executive power is concentrated into one person. You are confusing the process of election with the form of governance.

Blogger pyrrhus November 25, 2016 9:37 AM  

Direct democracy presupposes a thorough vetting and weeding out of the voting population, which can't be done in a mega-State like the USA. Back when the electorate was tiny, it could have been done but would have been extremely cumbersome and limited to major national questions.

Blogger The Deuce November 25, 2016 9:42 AM  

My issue with direct democracy is logistics. At some point, there needs to be a system in place for translating legislative decisions into executive actions, otherwise you only have an illusion of governing power. Whoever you put in charge of making that happen is likely going to have the same sorts of influences corrupting them and rendering them detached from the desires of the people who elected them that elected representatives have.

Maybe it could work in a small enough nation, where the people are "closer" to those they put in charge of executing their will and so wield more direct control over them, but then representative democracy is a lot more responsive in small countries too.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 25, 2016 9:47 AM  

A nation is no better or worse than its people. One problem with representative rule is that people can disguise their voting their naked self-interest in their own minds using the rationalizations provided by political candidates.

Anonymous Trimegistus November 25, 2016 9:47 AM  

Direct Democracy would be rule by Twitter.

Seriously: it would have to be done electronically, which means it would be dominated by neurotics and shut-ins. Trigglypuff and the "Leave her alone" guy would be active, constant participants. People with jobs and kids and healthy personal lives would not be able to devote as much time to governance.

Blogger Desillusionerad November 25, 2016 9:54 AM  

Everyone making this about the EU is an idiot.
A vote for No means nothing happens.
A vote for yes means that Matteo Renzi can run italy a bit simpler - Agree or disagree, that's the fucking question.
In regards to the EU, it actually moves some power from the executive to the reformed senate.
but whatever, Italy is a poorly governable state, and its the EU's fault or something.

Blogger James Dixon November 25, 2016 10:17 AM  

> What would a direct democracy look like?

Well, simply giving the people veto authority over new laws, new taxes, increased existing taxes, and increases in federal employee wages would help a lot.

Anonymous Luke Sellers November 25, 2016 10:43 AM  

Sorry, you guys will lose.

Your champions get killed by logic and decency EVRY TIME

Here, Roland Martin lays the smackdown on Richard Spencer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27RXiA0qkrM


Then, here, Angela Rye KILLS a white jerk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFO2io_baF0

You white nationalists are outnumbered, outgunned, and outlogiced

Think very carefuly before you go down a road you cannot return from

Blogger Johnny November 25, 2016 10:45 AM  

When they put together our constitution one of the founders (I forget who) made a careful study of the past and did not think direct democracy could be made to work. On balance I consider him to have been correct.

A case study on direct democracy in a narrow area is to note how it turned out with electric utilities, most of whom are or were cooperatives. The public at large would not vote a rate increase, and the utilities went through cycles of bankruptcy. Power was seldom or never disrupted, but the administration of them was crazy and of no benefit to anyone. (It got changed but I am unaware of the details.)

I believe our principal problem currently is cultural much more than institutional and that with moderate change our social system could be made to run a lot better. One issue is that the chattering classes, the people who communicate, are almost all run through these radical lefty liberal arts institutions. Finding a way to displace that population would change society significantly. Nothing major could easily be done about the TV and movie people, but both teachers and the mainstream news media people get where they are through employment. Change who gets hired and over time the cultural leaning of these institutions would change. More conservative in the traditional meaning of that word, not current Republican party people, and more masculine leaning would be the ticket.

(As for the EU, I am disappointed that people don’t reject it in even larger numbers.)

Anonymous Lett Gou November 25, 2016 10:50 AM  

OT: With #PizzaGate going viral, the Podestas placed in Portugal and Jack Dorsey asking about "Pizza" from Portugal at the same time, Maddie McCain "reappears" in Italy.

Unfortunately no keyhole defect. I smell desperation in the air and blood in the water. Time for #OpDeathEaters?

Anonymous rienzi November 25, 2016 10:58 AM  

23. Luke Sellers: "You white nationalists are outnumbered, outgunned, and outlogiced

Think very carefuly before you go down a road you cannot return from"


Outnumbered? probably. Outlogiced? (Is that even a word?) Not something you ought to bet the farm on.

However, outgunned? You're new around here aren't you?

Blogger The Other Robot November 25, 2016 11:02 AM  

But then the MSM will claim that the Russians won it by using a sophisticated propaganda campaign to spread fake news.

Blogger The Deuce November 25, 2016 11:08 AM  

Luke Sellers wrote:Then, here, Angela Rye KILLS a white jerk


A bit like how various mediocre left-wing comedians repeatedly DESTROYED Donald Trump, eh?

Blogger Michael O'Duibhir November 25, 2016 11:10 AM  

"You white nationalists are outnumbered, outgunned, and outlogiced

Think very carefuly before you go down a road you cannot return from..."

Hey, we invented everything, including the technology that allows nitwits like you to vent your frustration at being eternally incapable of rising to our level.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni November 25, 2016 11:13 AM  

Forget "direct democracy". One of many objections proponents of centralised hierarchical governance can bring up is "when the red nuclear phone rings at 3 AM, who answers it and what do they say?" And, "Hold on, I've got to do a Twitter poll." would not seem to be an acceptable answer.
A little OT, but I'm surprised no one has remarked that all these aliens packed in since 1965 haven't changed the electoral college calculations more. Was it just bad luck for the Dems that most of them wound up in California where they could only increase the blue margin of victory without helping the blue electoral tally much, even after redistricting?
Miscalculation or some nefarious Republican plot?

Blogger Lazarus November 25, 2016 11:18 AM  

Desillusionerad wrote:Everyone making this about the EU is an idiot.

A vote for No means nothing happens.


“If the ‘yes’ wins and the reform is applied, there won't be any immediate change in Italian politics,” Onida said “The question is: will Italian politics have more or less means to face the issues we have?
- Rodolfo De Benedetti, a leading Italian entrepreneur and chairman of the CIR Group
see: (The Ex-President Of Italy's Constitutional Court Explains What Is At Stake When Italy Votes)at ZH

Looks like nothing happens either way, yes?

But of course, we know that is not the case. The peasants get to say a big VAFFANCULO! to the elites.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 25, 2016 12:11 PM  

Direct democracy would only work in small polities sporting very homogeneous populaces.

I concur that enabling more democracy specifically for repeal of laws (the citizen veto) particularly if even a minority could block a statute, would be worth trying.

Part of Switzerland's success is likely due to the relative ease by which cantons can block the initiatives of the central government.

The 17th amendment to the US Constitution should be repealed as a start.

Blogger OGRE November 25, 2016 12:34 PM  

Theres a lot of ways "direct" democracy could be implemented without going full Athens.

Just taking the current US Republic system, keep everything the same but whenever there is a floor vote in the House of Representatives its put to a national popular vote (instead of letting the House vote on it). The Reps still have committee votes and what not, and can propose legislation, just whenever theres an actual chamber-wide vote its done by the national electorate as opposed to the House members. The Senate as well as executive and judicial branches still work the same. Give the House a recall ability on members of the executive administration and judiciary for even more democratic goodness.

Blogger Escoffier November 25, 2016 12:39 PM  

Balázs Varga wrote:"Tyranny of the masses" is only bad if you have a multi ethnic country.

So it would be fine in most European ones.


My thought exactly! One the one hand we are constantly warned of 'the tyranny of the masses' and that people will not willingly give up the government tit and yet we see example after example of White Americans and White Europeans doing exactly that! Hmmmm, it's almost like the tyranny of the masses BS was Leftist propaganda?

Anonymous Jack Amok November 25, 2016 12:43 PM  

Prior to the effects of 65 invasion, CA was a reasonably reliable right-wing state, so I wouldn't call it bad luck for the Dems

Anonymous Jack Amok November 25, 2016 12:47 PM  

And so nice to see the Soros Troll Division (STD) still has employment.

Anonymous BigGayKoranBurner November 25, 2016 12:49 PM  

Direct democracy = Latrina's 21 crack babies and I voting on how much of my earnings should go to them.

It would look like a Hilary Win. Only if you allowed more than 4 million illegal aliens to vote. Every time amnesty came up it was shut down in the US. Gay marriage never won via vote, not even in CA, only by gay/jewish judges.

You white nationalists are outnumbered, outgunned, and outlogiced

Even our faggots have FN57s (guns), and there are 8yo white girls able to shoot tight shot groups, dindus usually empty a clip only hitting those they didn't aim at from 30' away.

A little OT, but I'm surprised no one has remarked that all these aliens packed in since 1965 haven't changed the electoral college calculations

They count in the census of every sanctuary city giving them more electoral power. Illegal aliens vote in many sanctuary cities. 4 lesbian latrinas lick cheese during satanic ceremonies in sanctuary cities only to be freed by jew judges. Isn't this what the ADL was formed?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/san-antonio-4-declared-innocent-by-texas-court-of-appeals-w452282

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni November 25, 2016 1:08 PM  

Jack Amok, looking at the totals in CA, (62-33)there would have to have been several million aliens voting D there to have turned it blue on their votes alone. Maybe. But my point is that those votes would have been more effective if they were spread around to where the margins were smaller, at least in 2016.

Anonymous BGKB November 25, 2016 1:28 PM  

the totals in CA, (62-33)there would have to have been several million aliens voting D there to have turned it blue on their votes alone

It was not until the 80s when a judge waved his wand that anchor babies became citizens who could vote. If the squatlings couldn't vote it would still be red.

Blogger Mr. Naron November 25, 2016 1:40 PM  

Direct Democracy doesn't work in California. Conservatives don't want to sign petitions because doing so puts you on all kinds of lists used to harass you. And when conservatives do get an initiative passed, the liberal courts strike them down. Prop 187 back in the 90s would have prevented illegals from getting any public services including school. Can you imagine how different CA would be today if it had gone into effect? It passed with 59% of the vote, but the courts killed it. Prop 8, which amended the California constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, passed by similar margins. Again, the courts made up their own standards and shot it down.

Blogger Ezekiel November 25, 2016 1:48 PM  

Tex Longhorn wrote:@Erynne

It would look like a Hilary Win.


Haha! I noticed that too.

Seriously though, I don't know if it would have. Trump knew what he needed to win; he knew that reaching out to working whites (and, by my analysis, quite a few working non-whites) was what he needed to do to win the EVs of the rustbelt states. Clinton was focusing on the very top and bottom of America's socioeconomic castes, which did well for her in places that she was going to win anyway.

In a PV-determines-the-winner, Trump could have changed his persona to be more appealing to the "suburban professionals" who typically vote Republican but were supposed to swing this election for Hillary (what it looks like they really did was stayed home). Focus on taxes instead of trade, talk more about fixing healthcare than draining the swamp, call a hit out on Egghead McUtah, maybe bribe the Bush family into not letting Cousin Sam release that tape...

Besides, if a direct democracy means no caucuses in the primaries, he probably wouldn't have been running against Hillary at all. He would have been running against Sanders.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor November 25, 2016 2:01 PM  

@36 Soon we will repurpose them to cleaning out the aft compartments of Trump's helicopter fleet.

Blogger Noah B The MacroAggressor November 25, 2016 2:13 PM  

@40 Prop 187 back in the 90s would have prevented illegals from getting any public services including school. Can you imagine how different CA would be today if it had gone into effect?

This needs to be reintroduced at the federal level. I'd suggest it be called the National Suicide Prevention Act.

Blogger Mr. Naron November 25, 2016 2:51 PM  

43

Someone has to do something to clarify the 14th Amendment. It's killing us.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 25, 2016 3:08 PM  

If direct democracy doesn't allow illegals to vote, Hillary wouldn't have come close.

Prop 187 back in the 90s would have prevented illegals from getting any public services including school. Can you imagine how different CA would be today if it had gone into effect? It passed with 59% of the vote, but the courts killed it.

Sounds like direct democracy worked very well; the court system overruled it. That's not the 59%'s fault.

Blogger Mr. Naron November 25, 2016 3:18 PM  

45

And here I was thinking moral victories were actual losses.

Anonymous forty November 25, 2016 3:49 PM  

You mean the road that leads to detroit or tijuana?

Anonymous VFM#1819 November 25, 2016 3:56 PM  

Oh shit! Vox is getting deported!

Anonymous SevenCrimes November 25, 2016 3:57 PM  

Direct democracy in the US Presidential election would have meant President Hillary, thanks to the illegal voting run up in California.

Vox specified direct democracy for Nations. The US hasn't been a single nation since well before the Civil War, and it becomes increasingly less of one with every year since.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 25, 2016 4:31 PM  

Even with direct democracy, last I checked Trump actually had a fair amount more of the popular vote than shiliary. The media and etc. were crowing "shiliary more popular vote!" literally the next morning, before all the votes were counted, and CERTAINLY before most of the absentee ballots were tabulated (if they even are/have been at this point).

It's a delusional bubble, shiliary didn't even win the popular vote, don't let them suck you in.

Blogger alt-deplorable.jezko November 25, 2016 10:15 PM  

Just as interesting as the Italian vote will be the Austrian presidential vote. Not only because it was previously successfully contested, once delayed because the glue on their ballots wasn't gluey enough, but also because as we know, somehow the Austrians can really really mix things up. How they ended up being at the heart of both global wars in the last century is beyond me.

In any case, any 'fuckyous' to the servants that want to rule us are welcome.

Since Erdoggy threatens to unleash his vibrants on Europe (this far from being the only reason) I think this theme will continue.

Blogger dfordoom November 25, 2016 11:58 PM  

@33. OGRE

but whenever there is a floor vote in the House of Representatives its put to a national popular vote

And maybe five percent of the electorate will bother to vote. They'll be the most politicised five percent - globalists and SJWs.

National popular votes can be useful but only when they're used very very sparingly for very big issues like Brexit. They're something that should be used maybe once a decade.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts