5 yearly Binding Referendums to Set Military Spending

On “direct” vs “representative” “democracy”. Our “representative democracy” is actually a hybrid system of which referendums are an established feature. The reality is that our system is (or has been) dominated by two rather similar parties that agree to agree on many issues. The agreed positions by definition suit the existing power structures but do not necessarily represent the will of the general population. Greater use of referendums on “big issues”, rather than detailed policy, gives a chance to actually test the will of people to see if they agree with the agreed positions of the dominant parties. Answer the questions: has there ever been a government not lead by either National or Labour? Are there big questions such as military spending that don’t seem to get aired and why would that be?

I’m with the other 2 comments

Military spending like all of the other parts of governing should be set by parliament – we are a representative democracy which works a lot better than direct democracy

Mainly because I feel representative democracy is better than direct democracy. Ancient Athens highlights some of the dangers of direct democracy. Also, my concern here is that spending woukd be in part based on the level of threat, something the public may not see (as exposing sources of intelligence generally means losing them) so how would the public be able to make an informed decision?