[kolinko]

It isn't fine with me. a politician doing simply what the protesters or people in general want is a populist. Indirect democracy is all about choosing people we believe will make the right decision, even if then have to piss some people off.

Tusk said he's not doing this because of the protests, but because the arguments presented to him made sense. That is what I'm expecting of a good politician.

[ajuc]

So majority making decisions once every 4 years - that's democracy, but majority making decisions on every issue - it's populism?

I wonder how that magic that makes people wise enough once every 4 years works.

One possible way is that politicians are better than regular people, and they have to lie before elections to ponder to stupid voters. After the election wise and benevolent politicians do what is Right, no matter their stupid voters opinion.

Is THAT why indirect democracy is better? Because it depends heavily on the fact, that the most wise and benevolent politicians have to tell the best lies to the stupid voters. And it's not obvious to me, that this will be always true.

[kolinko]

This is the same way corporations run. Shareholders/the board of directors choose one person to run the whole enterprise and take the decision. The person runs the show and makes the decisions, even if shareholders don't like some of them. The shareholders don't get to vote on every single decision, but if too many bad decisions are made, CEO gets a boot.

This is also a similar way the pirate ships were being run.

The reason for this is that person(s) at helm have the better perspective. Not because they are superhumans or sth, but because they spend 15 hours a day involved in the manner.

In other words - yes, the politicians are better to make decisions regarding the country. Not because they were born better, but because that's their job.

It doesn't mean that they won't make mistakes, or be misinformed (as in case of ACTA) - that's why they should listen to people, consult society. But by "listening to people", I mean "hearing their arguments and reasoning", not "doing what people want". The former is called "being wise", the latter "being populist".

btw. majority making decisions on every issue is not a populism. It's a direct democracy. I'd argue that it is as bad as populism.

Because of this distinction I was against ACTA, but at the same time against a referendum against ACTA :)