View Full Version : What happened to democracy?
gettin2dizzy
12-06-07, 02:09 PM
Not a moan don't worry :)
I'm just a little curious to see if the general consensus on democracy.
Do we still have a democracy?
Not a moan don't worry :)
I'm just a little curious to see if the general consensus on democracy.
Do we still have a democracy?
this is like some sort of constituional law essay question!!
define democracy
Pedrosa
12-06-07, 02:16 PM
You have no right to be asking thuis question. Of course democracy live in U.K.:D
timwilky
12-06-07, 02:16 PM
voted No. Blair and his cronies killed it
Flamin_Squirrel
12-06-07, 02:17 PM
Yes.
The only reason people dont think we live in a democracy is because they think governments there to enact the will of the mob (the intollerant majority), but thankfully it often ignores them.
That said, the government often does listen to the public, often far more than people give it credit.
Whats that? I thought we where all the queens subjects.
Interesting.
The thread title "What happend to democracy?" but the question in the thread, "Do we still have democracy?"
Which would you like answering? The first one imples an answer to the second.
(I voted no btw)
No, democracy only exists for the people who agree with the goverment :rolleyes:
whats democracy?
& wheres the "i dont care option" ?
we democratically vote who we want governing the country i.e. we cast a vote of our own free will(y) so i'd suggest yes we live in a democracy.
Pedrosa
12-06-07, 02:23 PM
& wheres the "i dont care option" ?
Mi amigo, I can assure if you did not have benefit of it...you would be care.:-s
Luckypants
12-06-07, 02:28 PM
I voted no, because I feel that once a government is elected, they just do what the hell they like.
I do not feel represented in parliament. I have debated several various subjexts with my MP (my democratic representative) and know for a fact he then voted against the wishes of his constituents, in order to toe the party line. Tosser was chucked out at last election, but I lost democratic representation for 5 years while he was in.
How can a government be democratic when it gets in with less than 40% of the electorate voting for it? How is that a mandate from the people?
As for governments not implementing the will of the intolerant majority, look at the Hunting with Dogs laws - implemented so the ignorant majority who live in cities have thier way. Labour is crippling the countryside (hunting apart) because it is a party totally dominated by urbanites.
As for governments not implementing the will of the intolerant majority, look at the Hunting with Dogs laws
This is the first thing I thought of when reading this! :smt103
Was I ever asked about this when they were banning it, errrr no, therefore it is not a democracy if people don't have a say.
SoulKiss
12-06-07, 02:38 PM
At a tangent.......
Surely if we lived in a true democracy, every speeding ticket given out would be a vote that the speed for that section of road is set incorrectly.
For example, on the M4 Eastbound on Sunday morning, the average speed I observed would have been between 80 and 90 mph.
Surely this says that all the drivers going faster than 70mph, the NSL, are saying that the law is wrong in this case.
I am starting to believe more and more that there should be no problem with going as fast as you want, but if you are going too fast for the conditions AND something happens, the speed you were doing should be taken into consideration.
This is the first thing I thought of when reading this! :smt103
Was I ever asked about this when they were banning it, errrr no, therefore it is not a democracy if people don't have a say.
if we were all asked personally about every piece of legislation, nothing would ever happen. that's why we elect representatives. it's not perfect, i don't believe that there is/could be a perfect system but it's a whole lot better than it could be.
Flamin_Squirrel
12-06-07, 02:43 PM
As for governments not implementing the will of the intolerant majority, look at the Hunting with Dogs laws - implemented so the ignorant majority who live in cities have thier way. Labour is crippling the countryside (hunting apart) because it is a party totally dominated by urbanites.
Yes, but that's an exception. People these days have so few worries that they think it's worth their time to lobby for the banning of 4x4s, bikes, the TT, porn... the list goes on, yet the government has yet to move against them.
In fact, if the government actually listened to everyone who shouted out for a ban, we wouldn't be allowed to do anything.
The public only have themselves to blame for this mess.
gettin2dizzy
12-06-07, 02:43 PM
Interesting.
The thread title "What happend to democracy?" but the question in the thread, "Do we still have democracy?"
Which would you like answering? The first one imples an answer to the second.
I was more curious to numbers whether people felt that we still had one, knowing full well reasoning would follow.
Those petitions got me thinking about the lack of response they achieve. Take a minute to read the official replies on the petitions site. They all revolve around "yeah well, we're right, tough".
I believe we have a liberal democracy, which in my mind differs greatly enough to get a 'no' vote.
People these days have so few worries that they think it's worth their time to lobby for the banning of 4x4s, bikes, the TT, porn... the list goes on, yet the government has yet to move against them.
.
wooah wooah wooah!!!!! people are trying to ban PORN :eek: :eek:
Warthog
12-06-07, 02:53 PM
Everyone who voted "no" go try living in North Korea... it may not be perfect here but it certainly classifies as democracy!
gettin2dizzy
12-06-07, 02:56 PM
we democratically vote who we want governing the country i.e. we cast a vote of our own free will(y) so i'd suggest yes we live in a democracy.
That does work theoretically. But wheres the difference between the choices? Government is run in a way that no new party will be able to grasp power. Its a left or left choice. By giving us a choice between a tony in a blue or a red shirt doesn't constitute democracy in my book.
This is a short clip well worth a watch. Pretty funny too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8gLYZV6Z4g
But wheres the difference between the choices?
That question reminds me of my old Geography teacher. Argumentative sod he was, rubbed most people up the wrong way, but I could see what he was getting at.
I remember him going off on a rant about freedom of choice (because some bright spark bought up freedom of speech in his class, and he wanted to illustrate that freedom doesn't always mean you're free to do whatever you want). He picked buying music, specifically CDs. You have the freedom to buy whatever you like, within the set available for sale in the shop.
The shops can sell whatever is in the charts (and a small subset outside of this), but what decides the CDs in the charts? Sales? Isn't that a catch 22?
MiniMatt
12-06-07, 03:07 PM
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." - Henry Mencken
Despite being something of a rabid liberal lefty I'm going to have to vote "yes", we do still have a democracy. It's not perfect, and I believe it has been greatly wounded by a succession of home secretaries but it's what we've got and we need to make it work. Democracy is not a spectator sport and grumbling about it will not make it better.
I sympathise with Spongebob SomersaultPants ( :D ), I really do, but I suppose the lesson for the next MP could be "was chucked out at the last election". Of course we can only hope that the next MP will take heed of the lesson. I suspect they take these lessons a little better than we assume, but not as well as we'd like.
Suppose the thing to think about is - how do we make it better? Answers like "listen to the will of the people" don't really work, because whoever is on the "losing" side of any given debate is naturally going to think that the governing party is not listening to the will of the people. So, what practical solid measures can be put in place to improve/protect democracy?
My only solid idea would be to have an upper house filled with elected representatives who are not allowed to have affiliations with any of the leading (eg. biggest five at time of election) parties; so not been a member of said party within (eg) 10 years of election, not given or received funding from said party, no financial relationships with influential members of said parties etc. That (in my mind) could retain the good part of the current house of lords (oversight not swayed by party politics) and remove the bad part (unelected old fogeys).
Of course we live in a democracy.
That's not to say that the country isn't going to the dogs because being British in Britain is now seen as innapropriate.
That's not to say that the country isn't going to the dogs because being British in Britain is now seen as innapropriate.
:confused:
I understand that you can't please everyone but it seems that the goverment is banning/controlling everything. I think this is why we think they don't listen to the ordinary people as they are doing these things, not to benefit the individual, but to benefit the country as a whole. If the goverment just let people get on with their lives without all the 'nanny state' and 'big brother' issues intruding on peoples lives then people could be a lot happier.
I understand that you can't please everyone but it seems that the goverment is banning/controlling everything. I think this is why we think they don't listen to the ordinary people as they are doing these things, not to benefit the individual, but to benefit the country as a whole. If the goverment just let people get on with their lives without all the 'nanny state' and 'big brother' issues intruding on peoples lives then people could be a lot happier.
Nobody forced anyone to re-elect them in 2005, despite their ******** track record. The British people only have themselves to blame. Except me, I voted for another lot.
Flamin_Squirrel
12-06-07, 03:22 PM
That does work theoretically. But wheres the difference between the choices? Government is run in a way that no new party will be able to grasp power. Its a left or left choice. By giving us a choice between a tony in a blue or a red shirt doesn't constitute democracy in my book.
Fundamental misunderstanding of modern popular politics.
No party will be elected if they don't, on the big issues, do what people want. Blairs success was to realise this, which is why he dropped the insane socialist policies of old Labour because he knew people didn't want them and that it was their economic plans that kept them out of power. This is why they adopted alot of Tory spending plans.
The Tories have also realised that people want the wealth of a right(ish) wing economy, but there are certain services that they're willing to pay for and won't give up, like the NHS. This is why Cameron is, ironically, talking of keeping Labour spending plans if they get in power, because they know the electorate wouldn't tollerate spending cuts on things the NHS.
So in short, both the parties have identified the big things that people want, and they're both trying to prove that they're the ones that can do it best. This is why they've become so similar, and why you better believe we've a democracy, because if any party catches wind of a change in public opinion, they'll be the first to claim they've responded to it.
gettin2dizzy
12-06-07, 03:28 PM
That question reminds me of my old Geography teacher. Argumentative sod he was, rubbed most people up the wrong way, but I could see what he was getting at.
I remember him going off on a rant about freedom of choice (because some bright spark bought up freedom of speech in his class, and he wanted to illustrate that freedom doesn't always mean you're free to do whatever you want). He picked buying music, specifically CDs. You have the freedom to buy whatever you like, within the set available for sale in the shop.
The shops can sell whatever is in the charts (and a small subset outside of this), but what decides the CDs in the charts? Sales? Isn't that a catch 22?
The Cd charts are controlled by big business advertising, and their profits are slumping now that the internet has allowed artists to release their own work. So if that previous choice of hundreds of thousands of artists isn't sufficient for the population, a choice of two parties preaching the same bonkers policies is never going to be satisfactory.
I really don't believe it's possible to be an outsider in this government. It suits them to keep the nation uneducated and stupid, this way their mate Murdoch can control their votes and anger.
Flamin_Squirrel
12-06-07, 03:30 PM
If the goverment just let people get on with their lives without all the 'nanny state' and 'big brother' issues intruding on peoples lives then people could be a lot happier.
Something bad happens, a child is killed, a bus full of nuns goes over a cliff, or closer to home, a biker's killed by an unlicenced/uninsured driver. What happens? Cries go out, "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!". The government listens, realises it has to do something, and responds the only way it can - by legislating.
The government probably recognises that the new law will be utterly ineffective (because there is, contrary to public opinion, no 'silver bullet' so solve every problem that can't be solved), and will only serve to degrade civil liberties. But they do it, because the public demands action and it can't be seen to be doing nothing even if its actions do nothing.
MiniMatt
12-06-07, 03:34 PM
So in short, both the parties have identified the big things that people want, and they're both trying to prove that they're the ones that can do it best. This is why they've become so similar, and why you better believe we've a democracy, because if any party catches wind of a change in public opinion, they'll be the first to claim they've responded to it.
I really like this notion. It doesn't suggest that democracy is safe but I don't think that's your point; it does succinctly point out that if both parties are offering the same thing then that is actually democracy at work. I'd never thought of it like that before.
Dicky Ticker
12-06-07, 03:34 PM
All of which has resulted in a big brother police state with PC flung in for good measure.
gettin2dizzy
12-06-07, 03:41 PM
I suppose a change in public opinion is different to a change in the working public opinion - the active members of society. The government is trying to win votes, not to be moral.
Biker Biggles
12-06-07, 03:55 PM
Just one thing everyone needs to realise.
"If democracy could ever change anything,it would have been banned years ago"
Our form of democracy is about giving a carefully measured anount of power to the people,in such a way that it means they won't take to the streets and overthrow the government,but also will not have enough clout to actually overturn the status quo and trouble the ultra powerful groups who really run the country.Thus we are given the illusion of real choices at election time,but really those choices are limited to two options,both of which must be acceptable to the ruling class.
Sometimes it goes wrong,and one of the two options(usually the "Left")steps outside what is acceptable to the
powerful,and then you see the mobilisation of real power.The "establishment"whoever they are, sideline the errant party using their almost total control of the media and sometimes other more sinister methods.
More to follow when I have had a paranoia infusion.:king:
I just wanted to add something that everyone else seems to have missed...
.
.
.
.
....er...
.
.
.
.
.
.
....is this poll a display of democracy actually in action? Perhaps one could also argue that the discussion itself is part of the democratic process...:cool: .......
No?
I think it might be!!
Alpinestarhero
12-06-07, 06:24 PM
We sorta do, and we sorta don't.
Matt
Tim in Belgium
12-06-07, 07:00 PM
Personally I'd like to see more proportional representation, including the political extremes at both edges of the spectrum, should stir things up a bit AND make voting more complicated.
I once voted for the Extinction party in local council elections, I wasn't sure if they were pro or anti extinction (and of what?) but thought they deserved to get their deposit back as they had no chance of being elected.
Spiderman
12-06-07, 07:41 PM
I just wanted to add something that everyone else seems to have missed...
.
....er...
.
....is this poll a display of democracy actually in action? Perhaps one could also argue that the discussion itself is part of the democratic process...:cool: .......
No?
I think it might be!!
Oi!!!!
Wouldnt you have been made to walk the plank on your ship by now if you went about talking logic like that?
Just not cricket your argument. Makes me have to think and everyfing and there aint enough room in this spider's head for that.
I could ask the question that Sarah did at the begining.
if voting once every 4 yrs or so in pretty much a 2 horse race, with the winner doing pretty much what the hell they please - including ignoring their own manifesto promises and the voice of the ellectorate - is your idea of a political democracy .... then yeh we do. :roll:
On the other hand if you believe that the word democracy could easily be replaced with the phrase "oh what the hell, let them vote. That way they think they actualy have any say over what we do or are even *snigger* accountable to them because of it. Wheres the harm in it for us?" and that the whole notion is a false promise ...... then i guess you undetstand why i chose not to vote on this poll!
Flamin_Squirrel
12-06-07, 10:09 PM
"oh what the hell, let them vote. That way they think they actualy have any say over what we do or are even *snigger* accountable to them because of it. Wheres the harm in it for us?"
I'm afraid whether thats the case or not, it's hardly something that we can complain about - this rotten governments been voted in three times in a row now.
The more I think about it, the more I'm of the opinion that it's the electorate that are responsible for the alot of the problems we're experiencing. It's a case of be careful what you wish for. Example: People whine that the government doesn't do enough to keep us safe. So, we get vast amounts of health and safety legislation, then people whine about that!
Most people just don't know what's good for them, and even fewer have any political nous. People get ideas in their head about what needs to be done to improve things, but often spare no thought for the negative direct and indirect consequences of what would happen if their ideas are implemented (such as the popular banning culture, which is all fine and dandy until something YOU enjoy is threatened - which with everything left right and centre being banned, soon that'll be everyone). Of course even if most people did understand politics, they don't have the time to study in dept the impact of any suggestions they have anyway.
Which, incidentally, brings me onto probably the most important point. The idea of 60 million ill-informed emotive people having a say in dictating policy on every issue is dangerous and stupid in the extreme. To suggest that more 'pure' democracy would be a good idea is utterly insane - and this is why we vote for representatives.
Jester666
12-06-07, 10:50 PM
voted No. Blair and his cronies killed it
Agreed
No, democracy only exists for the people who agree with the goverment :rolleyes:
As above
philipMac
13-06-07, 03:19 AM
It all depends on definitions of democracy.
In the UK you have a fairly limited type of democracy, and will do for a while I would imagine.
Your voting system pretty much ensures a bipartite system, where smaller parties have almost no chance. If you were to move to a proportional representation system or full representation, like in Ireland and Scandinavia, you could give your first vote to whomever you like, and then your second etc. Your votes will carry through, down the line until they are used on some candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
You cannot do this in the UK. You may want to vote for X, but know full well X has not really got a chance in hell so you would be wasting your vote, so you vote for the least noxious of the people who are actually in the running.
Its a narrow limited type of democracy, but, its a democracy.
Whether different governments make a big difference is another question. I would think that they do. Look at Thatcher. It takes someone very special to get things that wrong.
the_runt69
13-06-07, 08:26 AM
Sorry demoncracy died the moment we joined the EEC. Any law passed by our represenatives in Parliment can now be overturned by a bunch of unelected judges in Brussells. We've given away our right to govern ourselves, Blair being one of the worst offenders on this front.
Warthog
13-06-07, 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by timwilky http://forums.sv650.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?p=1210342#post1210342)
voted No. Blair and his cronies killed it
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by SV225 http://forums.sv650.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?p=1210361#post1210361)
No, democracy only exists for the people who agree with the goverment :rolleyes:
As above
And seeing as the majority people voted for this government that means democracy exists. Just because some people are in a minority, doesn't mean that democracy doesn't exist! What a selfish outlook...
Luckypants
13-06-07, 11:19 AM
And seeing as the majority people voted for this government that means democracy exists. Just because some people are in a minority, doesn't mean that democracy doesn't exist! What a selfish outlook...
The majority of people did NOT vote for the current government. They just managed to get most seats. Hence my belief that there is no democracy in this country.
Flamin_Squirrel
13-06-07, 11:47 AM
The majority of people did NOT vote for the current government. They just managed to get most seats. Hence my belief that there is no democracy in this country.
Yes the government DID get a majority SHARE of the vote. The fact that people excercised their democratic right NOT to vote changes nothing. Anyway, as everyone seems to think that it doesnt matter whos in power as they're all the same, why do people complain about the exact details of how government gets voted in anyway?
Everyone has a vote, women, the poor, ethnic minorities, when once they didn't. The government listens to publics fears on many issues and panders to their whims more than they should.
The government reflects the population now more than it ever has, so how on earth can you claim our government isn't democracit or representative, I really don't understand.
Jordan, I think I know what Luckypants is getting at. Take the recent Welsh elections etc, plucking numbers out of the nearest turkey that happens to fly past...
Assume Labour get 40% of the total vote. That means that most of the people that did vote, didn't vote for Labour.
However, Labour get the most seats, so they're the ones with all the power, as the remaining 60% of the vote was split between multiple parties.
Jordan, I think I know what Luckypants is getting at. Take the recent Welsh elections etc, plucking numbers out of the nearest turkey that happens to fly past...
Assume Labour get 40% of the total vote. That means that most of the people that did vote, didn't vote for Labour.
However, Labour get the most seats, so they're the ones with all the power, as the remaining 60% of the vote was split between multiple parties.
not quite, the other parties could all gang up against labour if they wanted becasue labour don't have a majority. labour are now having to be nice to plaid to make some sort of coalition deal which could give plaid a disproprtionate amount of say as to what goes on.
MiniMatt
13-06-07, 12:04 PM
It's a fair point, and I'm certainly in favour of more proportional representation, but this is the same first past the post system we've always had. I don't think there's been an election in the last 100 years where more than 50% of the voting public voted for a particular party. So if using the argument that a first past the post system isn't democracy then the question shouldn't be "do we still have a democracy" - we've never had one.
EDIT: Tell a lie, the last, and only election where an absolute majority (more than 50%) of votes were cast for one party was in 1931
"all the power" Who are the ones that get to choose who the coalition is formed with? Who are the ones that get to make most demands out of the other party? Is it Plaid? Can they say "We demand x,y,z or we won't join you guys in power"??
Nope, didn't think so. :p
Flip side...
If one party did get an outright majority of votes and seats (possibly even greater % of seats) then I'd suggest you are no nearer a democracy.
A goverment in that situation has even less reason to listen to the people.
The opposition is supposed to play a role in moderating the goverment, preventing it doing things against the interest of the country etc. So I would suggest you actually want it to be strong.
I think a big part of the problem we face is that politicians are in it too much for themselves. I hate listening to "Today in Parliment" and hearing MPs bickering and arguing and scoring points, rather than debating the actual issue. Parties are a necessary evil and equally evil as necessary. Without them you'd have lot of chefs and the result would be as people joke about the effectiveness of a committee. However once you have them people start going things "for the party" not necessarily for the common good.
I know a very little about my MP, but that little is far more negative that I like. My last vote was purely against him, not about the parties involved. I fear for what I can actually say as I can't prove anything but I'll leave it to your imaginations and I'd guess you'll not be far wrong.
gettin2dizzy
13-06-07, 12:14 PM
Actually i think Luckypants was refering to the fact the in the last two general elections the tories have had more votes in total than labour. But due to the way the country is divided up, labour gained the most seats.
Flamin_Squirrel
13-06-07, 12:14 PM
It's a fair point, and I'm certainly in favour of more proportional representation, but this is the same first past the post system we've always had. I don't think there's been an election in the last 100 years where more than 50% of the voting public voted for a particular party. So if using the argument that a first past the post system isn't democracy then the question shouldn't be "do we still have a democracy" - we've never had one.
EDIT: Tell a lie, the last, and only election where an absolute majority (more than 50%) of votes were cast for one party was in 1931
If you'd be more happy with the government getting more than 50% of the vote then you can't have proportional representation, as that would effectively make it impossible.
Anyway, as 2mths has pointed out, a strong government is actually a bad thing.
Flamin_Squirrel
13-06-07, 12:15 PM
Actually i think Luckypants was refering to the fact the in the last two general elections the tories have had more votes in total than labour. But due to the way the country is divided up, labour gained the most seats.
Not so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997
They've had more votes in the last three elections.
MiniMatt
13-06-07, 12:28 PM
If you'd be more happy with the government getting more than 50% of the vote then you can't have proportional representation, as that would effectively make it impossible.
Anyway, as 2mths has pointed out, a strong government is actually a bad thing.
No, you got me wrong, I wouldn't be more happy with a +50% vote as I agree with 2mths about having a strong opposition (of any flavour); I was just pointing out that arguments along the lines of "we don't have a democracy any more because 40% voted for the winner and 60% voted against the winner" don't really work if the question is "have we lost our democracy" - as that's how it's always been.
It's utterly bonkers but I find myself more and more grateful for the current unelected house of lords for moderating the elected house of commons :(
SoulKiss
13-06-07, 12:30 PM
Bit of a derail but there is a simple solution, suggested a month or two ago
Grinch for El Presidente!!!!
SoulKiss
13-06-07, 01:07 PM
Having read this
Iran approves death penalty for pornographers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/13/iranian_bill/)
I think that I can state that we do have a democracy, or at least we have it better than some in the world.
Spiderman, looks like you can never go home :P
gettin2dizzy
13-06-07, 01:21 PM
Not so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997
They've had more votes in the last three elections.
yup :) should have checked that first. There's so many ridiculous parties in that list! it's ace!
Spiderman
13-06-07, 02:09 PM
Having read this
Iran approves death penalty for pornographers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/13/iranian_bill/)
I think that I can state that we do have a democracy, or at least we have it better than some in the world.
Spiderman, looks like you can never go home :P
Especialy considering just how much porn i direct / star in / distribute.
Oh no wait, i just download tons of it so i'm safe i guess ;)
SoulKiss
13-06-07, 02:46 PM
Especialy considering just how much porn i direct / star in / distribute.
Oh no wait, i just download tons of it so i'm safe i guess ;)
What like "Spidey does Frith St"......
Warthog
14-06-07, 11:22 AM
Actually i think Luckypants was refering to the fact the in the last two general elections the tories have had more votes in total than labour. But due to the way the country is divided up, labour gained the most seats.
Not so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997
They've had more votes in the last three elections.
gettin2dizzy you may have been getting confused with the 2000 American election, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000 where Al Gore got more votes, but didn't win. I'd say THAT isn't a democracy.
BTW the 40% welsh labour comment thing is bo**ocks, its a contest to see which party wins, not a contest between who wants Labour to win and who doesn't want Labour to win!!
Ceri JC
14-06-07, 11:29 AM
Most people are anti speed camera (the general populace, not just us here), yet they are still in place. Ergo, we are not a democracy.
Voting people into power doesn't make it a democracy, it's them subsequently following the majority's wishes that makes it democratic.
MiniMatt
14-06-07, 11:37 AM
Most people are anti speed camera (the general populace, not just us here), yet they are still in place. Ergo, we are not a democracy.
Voting people into power doesn't make it a democracy, it's them subsequently following the majority's wishes that makes it democratic.
Trouble is, most people are anti road-deaths too - people scream "do something about road casualties", and the government says "there you go, speed cameras", then they scream about the speed cameras... Democracy isn't necessarily just about enforcing the will of the majority (that's called mob rule), it's about protecting the interests of the minority too. Interesting point though, and I think if we ever got to a point where the moment you go 1mph over any speed limit you get a fine and points, the government would never implement it purely because they know that the majority speed to some degree with much regularity.
That's not to say I agree that speed cameras necessarily make the roads safer. Though at the moment they're more a tax on poor observation than on speeding. If they would only stick to putting them up outside schools instead of on nice twisty A roads I'd give them much more support.
I'd second most of what MiniMatt has said.
As for:
Most people are anti speed camera (the general populace, not just us here), yet they are still in place. Ergo, we are not a democracy.
That's just crap.
Steve_God
14-06-07, 12:05 PM
Not a full democracy... it's a partial democracy where we have elected members that are supposted to be acting on the constituents behalf... doesn't always happen though !
Ceri JC
14-06-07, 02:12 PM
I'd second most of what MiniMatt has said.
As for:
That's just crap.
Out of interest, what do you think a democracy is? Is being able to vote on someone to represent your views really democratic? Have you ever had a political party/candidate that you have agreed with 100% on every issue? Personally when someone says 'democracy', I think of what is correctly refered to as 'direct democracy'. It sounds like you and Minimatt are talking about 'representative democracy'. Are we really talking about the same thing? Don't assume that because we live in a representative democracy that that is the only/most true form of democracy.
To my mind, in a real implementation (arguably only really workable in a small remote village/town) the populace would vote (IE there'd be a referendum) on every single issue that the government (if indeed there was a 'government' at all). Democracy is not a sliding scale. You either have it or you don't. I dislike the impurity of non-direct democracy because the moment you start not doing what the majority wants (even if it is to protect a minority/protect them from themselves), it ceases to be democratic. Even if we choose these people who choose not to abide by our will, that's only really an illusion of democracy.
BTW I recognise the failings of direct democracy, the amount of time it takes the polity to actually be informed on all the things they vote on for example. Then there's the question of who chooses what to vote on, who vetos the silly/'pointless' (pointless to whom? ;)) suggestions...
Flamin_Squirrel
14-06-07, 02:23 PM
Personally when someone says 'democracy', I think of what is correctly refered to as 'direct democracy'. It sounds like you and Minimatt are talking about 'representative democracy'...
....Democracy is not a sliding scale. You either have it or you don't.
A touch inconsistant here.
I dislike the impurity of non-direct democracy because the moment you start not doing what the majority wants (even if it is to protect a minority/protect them from themselves), it ceases to be democratic. Even if we choose these people who choose not to abide by our will, that's only really an illusion of democracy.
BTW I recognise the failings of direct democracy, the amount of time it takes the polity to actually be informed on all the things they vote on for example. Then there's the question of who chooses what to vote on, who vetos the silly/'pointless' (pointless to whom? ;)) suggestions...
I'm confused as to how you can dislike anything other than what you describe as 'direct democracy', yet acknowledge the polical gridlock that would result.
I'm gonna shut up around about now. In response to your
"Most people are anti speed camera (the general populace, not just us here), yet they are still in place. Ergo, we are not a democracy."
I'd still reply with my
"That's just crap".
However your above post sugests you are much more educated and articulate than I'd given you credit for (and more than I am).
So you've asked me what I think a democracy is. I'll have a go at answering since I now think you have the right to ask and that there is a point in me making the effort.
I think, and I'm prepared to be wrong, I'm not looking any definitions up, that a democracy is a system of government whereby (dammit someone else just replied to the thread and broke this line of posts up) the people in charge are there by common consent rather than by force or bloodline.
Is that enough of an answer?
Ceri JC
14-06-07, 03:05 PM
A touch inconsistant here.
I'm confused as to how you can dislike anything other than what you describe as 'direct democracy', yet acknowledge the polical gridlock that would result.
There are two distinct points here:
1. I don't think what we have is really a true democracy (hence, in simple terms, why I voted 'no' in the poll).
2. I don't think a 'real' democracy would be without flaws.
I don't see how these two things are contradictory. I think I made the mistake of talking about democracy in an idealised form, rather than as a practical implementation of a means of government. Personally, I'd rather live in a system where I could vote on every matter, but then I have an interest in most things and would actually take the time to do it (far better to spend an hour a day influencing policy instead of sat in front of the goggle-box), whereas I suspect most people wouldn't bother to vote regularly on most polls.
2mths: Yes, that's a fair enough answer. That basically confirms that you believe in 'representative democracy'. That's fair enough and by and large it works pretty well for most people. :)
Biker Biggles
14-06-07, 06:48 PM
Just cos some watery tart throws a sword at you is no basis for a system of government.
I dunno.Could be worse.:p
2mths: Yes, that's a fair enough answer. That basically confirms that you believe in 'representative democracy'. That's fair enough and by and large it works pretty well for most people. :)
I'm possibly missing the point but you asked me what I thought it was, and I replied. I don't think I indicated whether I believed in it or not, though I'm prepared to accept a statement that my understanding of (not belief in) democracy is that of 'representative democracy'.
Ceri JC
14-06-07, 10:39 PM
I'm possibly missing the point but you asked me what I thought it was, and I replied. I don't think I indicated whether I believed in it or not, though I'm prepared to accept a statement that my understanding of (not belief in) democracy is that of 'representative democracy'.
Sorry, you're quite right. I ought to of said, that the democracy you were talking about was representative democracy. I shouldn't have said you believe in anything. You could be a nihilist for all I know ;)
The people who voted no, are you avid MCN readers who believe the sensationalist editorials?
The people who voted no, are you avid MCN readers who believe the sensationalist editorials?
lol
Just cos some watery tart throws a sword at you is no basis for a system of government.
I dunno.Could be worse.:p
Wasn't it a watery BINT?:)
Sorry - I'll get back to my own thread now...
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.