Family & Relationships4 mins ago
Democracy?? Possible?? desirable?? discuss!
Ok I think we have some elements of a democracy at the moment and I think the system we have is probably as good as you can do. As Churchill once said democracy is just about the worst way to run anything but it's unacceptable to have anything else for running a nation.. Our current system gives the illusion of democracy but throws up any number of strange possibilities and happennings but what I'm saying is has anyone got any better Ideas? I suppose I mean is real democracy possible is it even desirable? some would say that PR is closer to real democracy, it may well be but do we wan't total parallysis? Even in famous landslides like 1997 apporx 25% of voters actually voted for the winners. Ideas? Thoughts?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think Churchill said it was the worst way except for all the other systems. You can be like the Swiss and have referendums on practically everything, but would people actually turn out to vote? X Factor got more votes than were cast in the last general election, so I suspect not.
But I think some form of PR system would come closer to giving voters a proper choice, rather than just a choice between two similar parties. It doesn't necessarily produce paralysis - New Zealand just had a PR election and it was sorted out in less than a week.
But I think some form of PR system would come closer to giving voters a proper choice, rather than just a choice between two similar parties. It doesn't necessarily produce paralysis - New Zealand just had a PR election and it was sorted out in less than a week.
Democracy usually means nothing is ever done. Take joining the Euro, half want it, the other half object. The Iraq war only went through on a pack of lies; without those we would never have joined.
To sum it up for every good reason for having something there is always a valid reason for not having it!
To sum it up for every good reason for having something there is always a valid reason for not having it!
New Zealand just had a PR election and it was sorted out in less than a week.
Problem is, it really varies: Belgium went for nearly a year without a govt. Of course, in most cases PR elections still result in govts being formed reasonably quickly.
-
My main problem with PR though is this: if you vote for a party, and they win, then they'll invariably have to go into a coalition with a party who you didn't vote for (often minor parties). Thus when you cast your vote it can be quite unpredictable in that you genuinely don't know what you're vote is going to end up producing.
I'm personally in favour of preferential voting - like the French system. In that system, you place preferences next to each party, and votes go through several stages of elimination and redistribution of preferences until a clear winner emerges. That way minority parties still get represented but you don't quite get the unreliability of a PR system.
As for the question of democracy as a whole: remember that the British democracy is quite unique. By and large, if you take democracies as a whole, they all have their faults, but they're also much better at keeping the government in check than other political systems. The UK democracy is a bit of an anomaly given the absolute supremacy of parliament.
Even in famous landslides like 1997 apporx 25% of voters actually voted for the winners. Ideas? Thoughts?
Nonsense. It's true that voter turnout is notably low in the UK, but it's nowhere near as low as 25%. (it's usually in the late 50s/early 60s - which is still far lower than it has been in the past but it's still better than the USA) .
I think Churchill said it was the worst way except for all the other systems.
Seconded. Churchill was a convinced democrat.
Problem is, it really varies: Belgium went for nearly a year without a govt. Of course, in most cases PR elections still result in govts being formed reasonably quickly.
-
My main problem with PR though is this: if you vote for a party, and they win, then they'll invariably have to go into a coalition with a party who you didn't vote for (often minor parties). Thus when you cast your vote it can be quite unpredictable in that you genuinely don't know what you're vote is going to end up producing.
I'm personally in favour of preferential voting - like the French system. In that system, you place preferences next to each party, and votes go through several stages of elimination and redistribution of preferences until a clear winner emerges. That way minority parties still get represented but you don't quite get the unreliability of a PR system.
As for the question of democracy as a whole: remember that the British democracy is quite unique. By and large, if you take democracies as a whole, they all have their faults, but they're also much better at keeping the government in check than other political systems. The UK democracy is a bit of an anomaly given the absolute supremacy of parliament.
Even in famous landslides like 1997 apporx 25% of voters actually voted for the winners. Ideas? Thoughts?
Nonsense. It's true that voter turnout is notably low in the UK, but it's nowhere near as low as 25%. (it's usually in the late 50s/early 60s - which is still far lower than it has been in the past but it's still better than the USA) .
I think Churchill said it was the worst way except for all the other systems.
Seconded. Churchill was a convinced democrat.
Kromovaracun, I think what geezer was saying was not that turnout was 25% but that was the proportion of the total electorate who voted Labour, taking into account those who didn't vote and those who didn't vote Labour.
I'm not sure how the NZ system works but they junked the Westminster-style first-past-the-post system some years ago and up till now it has taken quite a while to form a government; this time it didn't. My point was just that there may be paralysis (for a while) or there may not; it isn't automatically the case.
I'm not sure how the NZ system works but they junked the Westminster-style first-past-the-post system some years ago and up till now it has taken quite a while to form a government; this time it didn't. My point was just that there may be paralysis (for a while) or there may not; it isn't automatically the case.
As Jonathan Swift put it: 'Government without the consent of the governed is tyranny'. I agree. All laws should be put to referenda. Majority rule must prevail, even if a minority aren't happy.
For example, I don't personally believe in capital punishment, but if the majority voted for it, I'd accept it, as long as I had my right to vote on it and got the opportunity to vote on it at regular times.
For example, I don't personally believe in capital punishment, but if the majority voted for it, I'd accept it, as long as I had my right to vote on it and got the opportunity to vote on it at regular times.
Under Tony Blair, a new criminal offence was invented almost every day - and that's just crimes, taking no account of all the other sorts of legislation that gets passed, Jock.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for- every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html
You ready to vote on several new laws every day on your way to work?
The current alternative is that a party presents a manifesto of the things it plans to do when an election approaches, and the electorate either accepts or rejects this; if elected, it goes ahead and does them. That is a lot more convenient, though it may be abused.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for- every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html
You ready to vote on several new laws every day on your way to work?
The current alternative is that a party presents a manifesto of the things it plans to do when an election approaches, and the electorate either accepts or rejects this; if elected, it goes ahead and does them. That is a lot more convenient, though it may be abused.
In true democracy people would vote on the issues rather than elect representatives.
There's a number of problems with this
Firstly by definition your ruled by those of average intellingence
Secondly there's no responsibility - Everyone votes for massive tax cuts and public spending - then what?
So we elect people to take responsibility.
Only we don't do we - we elect a local MP and they work out between themselves who is actually going to run things.
This system evolved before there were real parties and so we have this anomoly where we can have unexpected prime ministers like Calaghan, Major and Brown.
There is a great need for constitutional change in this country but for some reason it always seems to frighten us.
"Ooooh change! Scarey!"
There's a number of problems with this
Firstly by definition your ruled by those of average intellingence
Secondly there's no responsibility - Everyone votes for massive tax cuts and public spending - then what?
So we elect people to take responsibility.
Only we don't do we - we elect a local MP and they work out between themselves who is actually going to run things.
This system evolved before there were real parties and so we have this anomoly where we can have unexpected prime ministers like Calaghan, Major and Brown.
There is a great need for constitutional change in this country but for some reason it always seems to frighten us.
"Ooooh change! Scarey!"
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
New I V F Rules?? Why Do They Even Do It...
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
ChatterBank61 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles102 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles123 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.