BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Democracy in the UK

  
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Fist Fun
11:35 / 12.08.08
Does democracy work in the UK and are there better alternatives?

I really like democracy and I think it is the fairest, best system for people to live under. Everyone, apart from children, the insane and people in prison, gets to vote freely according to their beliefs.

I think there is a lot of consensus in how the UK should be run. In 2005 the two main parties captured 554 of the 646 seats. Both parties seem to agree about most of the main issues of the day - war in Iraq, role of the market, education spending. Differences seem to be mainly in the details of implementation.

Having said a total of 18 million people out of 27 million voters opted for either the Conservatives or Labour on a 61.3 percent turnout. Labour govern the country with 35.3% of the popular vote and 22% of the electorate.

So the governing party has gained the full support of less than 25% of the voting population.

I started this thread after thinking about a few comments here.

I'm beginning to wonder why we should vote our tyrants in, shouldn't they be made to seize power by force of arms or something? At least that would be more honest.

How serious is that comment? Is it fair to compare the UK to a tyranny? What fairer systems are possible?
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
12:37 / 12.08.08
I admit ignorance in UK political affairs, but I need to ask: Is democracy in general real or illusion?

In the US you seem to have only the choice between X & Y, which, if you believe the official party lines are polar opposites. You either vote for an entire set of principals or you vote for another. Usually one party is checked by another and things proceed as though there was a plan set in place from the start. (This is an outsider's view looking in: Please call me on my BS)

Here in Canada, we have more choice on paper, but are still basically a two party system. A bit more social-liberal than the US, but not by much and less and less each day. Canadian pride of "not being American" is crumbling fast.

The thing is, in either country, whoever gets in power seems to be so indebeted to others: Lobbyists, Corporate interests, Church and/or Parents groups, etc... that their prime mandate is merely upholding the status quo.

We have also seen the west screeming for "Democracy" across the board, but when countries democratically elect someone like Hugo Chavez, or a party like Hammas, countries from the west become upset and say "No! No! No! You have to vote for the other guys!". In the past the US would have claimed that Chavez or Hammas had fixed their elections, but have kept their mouths shut the past eight years out of fear of having the microscope turned on them. (Again an outsider's view...)

There are rumours amongst the conspiracy crowd of King-Makers: Names like Bilderberg* and New World Order and International Banking. (Everyone knows that a lot of conspiracy talk, especially the "Int. Bankers", are euphemisms for A Jewish Plot: These theories are born of fear, ignorance and racism and polute genuine "conspiracy" concerns. In the early 1900's the Russian Aristocracy flooded the conspiracy theorists (Well, everyone...) with copies of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to keep people too occupied to pay any attention to them, and this bullshit propaganda has been embraced as canon for many.)

The thing is, that despite the distractions and disinformation, groups like the Bilderbergs* do exist and seem to have a big role in western politics. It has been doccumented that Thatcher, Reagan, Bush (Sr. & Jr.)and Harper (To name a few over time) have all had meetings with the Bilderbergs* a year or two before becoming elected (Correct me if I'm wrong and in the meantime I'll try dig up the articles and books I've gotten this from.) Apparently both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama met with them this past June.

So if there is barely any discernable difference in the political parties, and the leaders appear to be pre-selected (At worst) or taught to toe a given line (At best, it seems) then does democracy truly even exist? Or is it true that "Empire never Ends" and that we are heading towards living again in a feudal society with new words replacing "Serfs" and "Lords", and we're under the illusion that we even have the freedom to choose?

(I apologise for taking the reactionary-paranoid high-road, but I am using this extreme example to illustrate my central question concerning democracy as a responce to Buk's question. While my post illustrates some of my fears, I do believe that we are lucky to have the freedom to ask such questions and debate such issues.)

*For those who don't know, the Bilderbergs are a group of various Royalty, Corporate, Banking, and Media leaders who get together once a year to discuss world economy matters. They take their name from Hotel de Bilderberg in the Netherlands, the site of their first meeting in the 50's. The name sounds vaguely Jewish and has helped feed the ignorance and fears of the anti-Jewish/International Banker-obsessed subset of the conspiracy crowd who cite the name as "Proof" that Jews are trying to take over the world.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:48 / 12.08.08
In the past the US would have claimed that Chavez or Hammas had fixed their elections, but have kept their mouths shut the past eight years out of fear of having the microscope turned on them. (Again an outsider's view...)

Well, the US allegedly supported an attempt by the military to overthrow and imprison Chavez? I think that probably counts as quite a severe criticism of his election.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
14:33 / 12.08.08
Absolutely: Overthrow; yes. Send CIA to train assasins; probably. Intone that having Chavez killed would be a good, democratic thing; been done.

But I do not recall them ever accusing Chavez of having the election fixed or rigged. There was a small bit of talk about Chavez's opponents being afraid, but nothing substantial. I believe that the elections were judged to be fair and honest. The people voted who they wanted, but the people did not vote for who the US wanted. The US, and by extension, most of the West, seems to have serious problems with leaders who believe in Nationalization for the benefit of helping the poorest majority of the population.

In my opinion, that is, which is very slanted to the left based on what I read. Please point me to the error of my ways.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
15:04 / 12.08.08
have kept their mouths shut the past eight years out of fear of having the microscope turned on them

I don't know that this is an unbelievable opinion, but I'd say it's definitely speculation. none of us are privy to GW's thought processes, and, probably, we should be grateful.

I guess Buk's thread was supposed to have been about democracy in the UK, not in the US, so we ought to try and steer back that direction if possible.

is the government in the UK (or for that matter anywhere) really a Democracy in the truest sense? we see a lot of representative governments in the world, but I think the distinction might be important. a lot of the problems people have with government policy might be avoided if the populace were the government. instead we elect someone under the eternally naive assumption that they know what's best for us, or at least that they want what we want, and then we're always confused and outraged when they turn out to be corrupt, or idiots, or fascists, or hypocrites. only somehow we're never quite outraged enough to actually try and change the voting system.

of course, god only knows what fresh new disasters would come upon us if the masses had direct and instantaneous power to make decisions for the country...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:32 / 12.08.08
You'd have capital punishment back in the blink of an eye, in the UK at least.

Just to finish off on Freektemple's question - the two major opposition parties pulled out of the 2005 Venezuelan election claiming that it was not going to be free or fair, in a move which Chavez blamed on manipulation by the US. The US State Department has expressed concern about the state of democracy in Venezuela on a number of occasions, although it has not directly accused Chavez of electoral fraud - although organisations indirectly funded by it have.


More broadly, I think your perspective is, if you'll forgive me, both a touch parochial and, paradoxically, somewhat scattershot. When you say the US you mean the Executive branch of the US, but you are lumping in Pat Robertson, who has no government position, although a degree of influence, albeit waning. At the same time, thouhg, you are also behaving as if the western world (or more precisely the north-western world) marches in lockstep with the US, which is the case in almost nothing, but in particular in the case of dealing with socialist states. Much of Europe still has or has returned to some degree of nationalisation. Here in the UK, the disastrous failure of the privatised rail service and at least one bank has led to their forcible renationalisation, and also our last Mayor of London entertained Chavez and struck a deal with him for cheap heating oil. The response to Venezeula, I would say, is not consistent even within the US, much less across the traditional industrial and diplomatic world powers.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
16:55 / 12.08.08
When you say the US you mean the Executive branch of the US, but you are lumping in Pat Robertson, who has no government position, although a degree of influence, albeit waning.

You are altogether too right: I was remembering the quote, not the source, and I do apologise for generalizing about Europe, Canada and the Commonwealth playing the US's little brother: I get carried away and over-state America's (and/or Multinational Corporation's) power and influence. Not that they aren't tremendously powerful and influential, but I tend to think that the sky is constantly falling. Again, sorry for being sloppy and thanks for pointing it out.

So... Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown: Could someone point out some of the huge glaring differences for me? I lived in England for a bit shortly after Blair got into power, but I did not pay enough attention to politics to know any difference, other than that the UK shifted from Conservative to Labour. I know a bit more about Thatcher and I know that Blair seemed to be on the far Right of the Labour spectrum. Does there still remain enough of a poliitical difference between the UK's parties to support a truly democratic choice? Have both sides moved towards being more centrist? How much power do lobbyists weild in political influence, and how unbiased is UK media in portraying candidates?
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
22:10 / 12.08.08
Well the most distinct problem for any voter is that we don't know if there's a difference between the parties. They all make the same suggestions, it's difficult to tell if the conservatives are going to attempt to privatise the NHS or not. If they are then Labour are preferable, if not then it's really very difficult to distinguish at the moment.

Everyone, apart from children, the insane and people in prison, gets to vote freely according to their beliefs.

Do you think people should vote in accordance with their beliefs? You see my problem with democracy (and with free votes in parliament) is that rather than vote with consideration for the effect that a practical decision could have on society and all of the people within it they vote with their individual moral compass. So instead of thinking about the actual effect of changing abortion law or restricting stem cell research they think about god or small babies, which is the most ignorant approach possible (because you're creating orphanages, a larger social services system, more capacity for abuse, another generation of potentially severe disability, a section of society who will die young from hereditary disease etc.).

Now, perhaps I'm ignorant but I can't help but feel that limiting people's capacity to make decisions in this kind of way would be vaguely positive. I've been trying to work out how to do that and retain the ability to get rid of authoritarian dictators for some years and unfortunately I haven't reached a conclusion.
 
 
The Idol Rich
08:17 / 13.08.08
I think there are two questions being asked here aren’t there? Is democracy in itself good and if so is the UK attempt at it any good?
At the moment, in the UK, the system we have means that we have a general election every four years or so – now if you live into your seventies and you can’t start voting until you are eighteen that means you are likely to have the chance to vote in about fourteen general elections. Since I’ve been alive these general elections have basically boiled down to a choice between two parites, one nominally of the left and one of the right. When you characterise it that way there is something about having fourteen votes on which of two parties will be your leader that doesn’t seem to capture what people are thinking of when they refer to democracy as some kind of noble pinnacle of human achievement.
On the other hand, there may be advantages to this, I think it was Churchill who made the often quoted remark about how democracy is the worst system apart from all the others and I’ve got a feeling that he may well be on to something with that. To me one of the advantages of the system we have is an answer to this problem:

Now, perhaps I'm ignorant but I can't help but feel that limiting people's capacity to make decisions in this kind of way would be vaguely positive.

I think that democracy of the kind we have tends to automatically limit this. The downside is of course we have to kind of muddle by getting a compromised version of what everyone wants.
For some reason, in the UK, we have tended away from having extreme parties in or near to power (slightly controversial statement maybe but compared to Austria and other European countries over the last few years I think it stands up) but I don’t know if this is a consequence that arises from the system or just the people who are voting in it. Of course some might say that having a more extreme party in one direction or the other is just what we need but that’s a different debate.
Anyway, I don’t really know the answer to the original question but I would be interested to know if anyone could propose a better democratic voting system than that we have here and I would be extremely interested if someone could suggest a non-democratic system that looks as though it would work and that would appeal to people as being fair.
 
 
Fist Fun
09:55 / 13.08.08
Well the most distinct problem for any voter is that we don't know if there's a difference between the parties. They all make the same suggestions, it's difficult to tell if the conservatives are going to attempt to privatise the NHS or not. If they are then Labour are preferable, if not then it's really very difficult to distinguish at the moment.

The only answer to that is a limited mandate - which we have. So if a party does not meet manifesto promises you can not vote for them in the future. A free press and competing parties are always going to be very happy to highlight this.

I think we can get really complacent about things like having a free press and parties that are allowed to compete for power. These are great things which not every country has.

You see my problem with democracy (and with free votes in parliament) is that rather than vote with consideration for the effect that a practical decision could have on society and all of the people within it they vote with their individual moral compass.

I don't follow the logic here. Are you saying that all human beings only vote with their individual moral compass or only all human beings elected to parliament?

I imagine the way members of parliament vote is influenced by many things including a consideration of the effects of a decision on society as a whole. Especially because they are in a high profile position, will be scrutinizied by a free press and opposition parties and, for some, will be judged by history.

There are many factors which would make up decisions. Individuals beliefs, the party line, the original mandate, the views of constituents, lobbyists, corruption, madness... but a free press, robust opposition looking for any weakness and a limited mandate are the best way I can see to make sure people make decisions for the right reasons.

What kind of limiting people's capacity to make decisions do you suggest? That does happen currently (I think). Decisions are limited by things like the Bill of Human rights enforced by courts of law. In other countries you have written constitutions to limit decisions. So maybe you are thinking of a written constitution?

Any system to govern millions of people is going to be complex and imperfect but I do love democracy and the freedom we have in the UK.

Idolrich says:

Since I’ve been alive these general elections have basically boiled down to a choice between two parites, one nominally of the left and one of the right. When you characterise it that way there is something about having fourteen votes on which of two parties will be your leader that doesn’t seem to capture what people are thinking of when they refer to democracy as some kind of noble pinnacle of human achievement.

When I vote I get the choice between many parties. I can choose anyone I want. The fact that most voters opt for one of the two main parties, who are broadly similar, just shows that most people are pretty happy with the way things are.

It is funny because you have a million turning out to protest the war in Iraq but then the majority of voters in 2005 voted for parties who support the war there. So you have a democratic mandate for the UK being part of that war... which brings in another limit of democracy in that the people most affected by war are those who don't get a say in the vote because they are not UK citizens.

I would be interested to know if anyone could propose a better democratic voting system than that we have here and I would be extremely interested if someone could suggest a non-democratic system that looks as though it would work and that would appeal to people as being fair.

Anyone want to have a stab at answering that? Or do we agree that we can't think of a better system than democracy?
 
 
The Idol Rich
10:11 / 13.08.08
When I vote I get the choice between many parties. I can choose anyone I want. The fact that most voters opt for one of the two main parties, who are broadly similar, just shows that most people are pretty happy with the way things are.

I’m not sure that that’s true though really – the perception is that only two parties can win and a large number of people feel that their votes will be wasted if they don’t vote for either of those two parties. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m pretty sure that this is the problem with democracy in the UK that you were asking about in the first place. For me it’s the problem and also its strength – it’s very difficult to make radical changes but on the other hand it’s very difficult to make radical changes.
Even without this, how many parties actually have enough candidates to win a majority even if everyone who can does vote for them? I think that “many” would be an exaggeration.

It is funny because you have a million turning out to protest the war in Iraq but then the majority of voters in 2005 voted for parties who support the war there. So you have a democratic mandate for the UK being part of that war....

Well hang on a minute, you just said that “Labour govern the country with 35.3% of the popular vote and 22% of the electorate.”. Presumably the Tories got less than 22% of the electorate so at least 56% of the electorate didn’t vote for Labour or Conservative so it’s a stretch to say that a majority of the electorate voted for parties that were “pro-war”.
Also, another problem that is highlighted here and is a consequence of representative democracy as it operates in this country, is the idea that if I vote for Labour because I LOVE their education policy can my vote really be taken as a vote for every aspect of everything they do? I think that as a general rule my voting tends to be towards the party that is least worst and I didn’t realize it signed me up unthinkingly to everything in their manifesto never mind anything they do.
 
 
Fist Fun
10:31 / 13.08.08
Well the majority of those who voted, as opposed to the electorate, voted for a party who supported UK involvement in Iraq. Although yeah somebody voting for a party doesn't mean they agree with everything they stand for.

I’m not sure that that’s true though really – the perception is that only two parties can win and a large number of people feel that their votes will be wasted if they don’t vote for either of those two parties. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Proportional representation would be an option to change that. Dunno if the Scottish parliament is really better.
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
17:05 / 13.08.08
Are you saying that all human beings only vote with their individual moral compass or only all human beings elected to parliament?

I'm not generalising that much, I'm just saying that I perceive a tendency in citizens and politicians alike, within our democracy to vote in line with personal morality. It doesn't feel outlandish to suggest that there are more logical ways to make decisions, particularly when they need to be the best possible choice for all of the people within the country. The problem with democracy is essentially that humans are using it as a tool of government. I don't doubt that democracy is theoretically hott.

I keep trying to respond to your second point but I just can't. I worked for a political magazine in the free press for 3 years and I just can't respond to your idealism. The free press actively worked towards the election of Boris Johnson and in doing so showed us that they have the collective brains of a masturbating 14 year old.
 
 
Tsuga
20:46 / 13.08.08
Anna, I don't know how your moral compass points, but do you usually vote against it? Don't you believe (like most people) that what your moral compass tells you is best for the country? Maybe I'm missing some obvious examples where people vote against their conscience (apart from what's been pointed out of voting for a member of a party with whom you have significant disagreement, for the lesser of two evils approach)?

free press and parties that are allowed to compete for power. These are great things which not every country has.
Your heartfelt belief in free press and competing parties does seem a little simplistic and idealistic. The free press is a part of your beloved capitalism, where motives are quite often different than simply producing good journalism, or looking out for you, the consumer/voter/subject. Competing parties in democracies are limited and limiting in so many ways I just can't respond, either. I'm not saying there's anything better, but one party pushing for mauve and the other pushing for magenta leaves out alot of the rainbow, you know?
 
 
Fist Fun
06:32 / 14.08.08
The problem with democracy is essentially that humans are using it as a tool of government. I don't doubt that democracy is theoretically hott.

Well, it isn't just theory. It practically works. Nobody is able to suggest any alternatives that would be better (anyone want to have a go?). If we can't think of anything better, and there are lots of other systems of governance to choose from, then it must be the best, yeah?

I just can't respond to your idealism

I'm not being idealistic. The role of parts of the free press isn't to be unbiased.

Taking the example of the recent London election. The free press did exactly what it should. There was a robust, free discussion of the policies and personalities of the candidates. For instance, the discussion around whether Boris Johnson had made racist remarks.

There was no collusion by the press to have one candidate elected.

Other things like no electoral fraud (or at least less chance of it and a risk of a huge scandal if discovered) are backed up by having a free press.

Which kind of brings up something mentioned in that conversation thread. The idea that Boris Johnson getting elected is a failure of democracy. It isn't. He won the vote. Democracy isn't about the people we want always winning.
 
 
The Idol Rich
08:49 / 14.08.08
I'm not generalising that much, I'm just saying that I perceive a tendency in citizens and politicians alike, within our democracy to vote in line with personal morality. It doesn't feel outlandish to suggest that there are more logical ways to make decisions, particularly when they need to be the best possible choice for all of the people within the country.

It seems to me that you are saying that people vote with their own self-interest in mind rather than in line with their personal morality. Hopefully the average person’s personal morality ought to have the aim of making the best possible choice for everyone.

Your heartfelt belief in free press and competing parties does seem a little simplistic and idealistic. The free press is a part of your beloved capitalism, where motives are quite often different than simply producing good journalism, or looking out for you, the consumer/voter/subject.

This is true of course as far as it goes. Off the top of my head there are basically three obvious ways that news could be supplied (feel free to suggest more) and they are; by a government organization (with the obvious problems that arise), by a free but commercial organization (with the problems just outlined) and thirdly by an independent organization that just gives it away for free. I’d venture to say that at least in theory the third of these would be preferable to the second which would in turn be preferable to the first. With the obvious caveats as to how independent it is and to what extent it is uncommercial I think that the bbc is at least an attempt at the last one of these and I think it’s good that we have it – various internet sites do something similar now as well. Though having said that I haven’t actually got a tv so I can’t comment on how good the beeb actually is in practice. The hatred spewed towards it by the press (particularly Murdoch’s section) suggests to me that it is doing something right though.
As for the papers there is at least some kind of balance with some being on the left and some on the right etc One can choose to get the one that agrees with you or one that disagrees or a variety just to keep it interesting. It is strange that even commercial television channels are forbidden from bias but it’s taken as read that newspapers will have a particular position – I don’t know if there is a reason for this beyond tradition or maybe it’s believed by the great and good that television has more influence on the illiterate fools that watch it (see also the amount of censorship of films relative to books but that’s a different debate).

If we can't think of anything better, and there are lots of other systems of governance to choose from, then it must be the best, yeah?

I’m pretty sure that that doesn’t follow.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
10:41 / 14.08.08
is this going to be like the last switchboard thread where buk says "in theory democracy/capitalism is great, because the theory says it is great, so it must be great in reality too because the theory says so!"

If we can't think of anything better, and there are lots of other systems of governance to choose from, then it must be the best, yeah?

so if you put a couple of guys in a room and ask them to figure out how nuclear power works and they can't figure it out then nuclear power must not work? this is a pretty ridiculous chain of logic.

The idea that Boris Johnson getting elected is a failure of democracy. It isn't. He won the vote. Democracy isn't about the people we want always winning.

you are judging that democracy is a success using the model of democracy as a test for success. bad berries!

democracy is not about the people we want always winning, no. saying that democracy has failed because the people we want did not win is a different thing.

i think that a true, 100% direct instant democracy with no representatives would be scary as hell. maybe after a few thousand years of crazy mob justice we'd sort it all out.

it would, at least, eliminate the problem of representatives who vote themselves raises, or who start wars with other countries and then give the building contracts to companies run by their friends and families.

is there something better than democracy? probably not a completely different idea, but some refinement. less corruption, more choices.

are political parties useful mechanisms? are they necessary? how much does it fuck stuff up that all those unrelated issues get tied up in one platform and you kind of have to take or leave everything to get just one position you like?
 
 
Fist Fun
12:12 / 14.08.08
is there something better than democracy? probably not a completely different idea, but some refinement. less corruption, more choices.

Do you think that democracy is prone to corruption more than other political systems? I would say it is much less so.

In the UK if you want to be corrupt then being a politician is a very poor job choice. Very high visibility, complete transparency of your voting actions, a free press eager to expose corruption, limited mandate so that people have to chose to vote you back every few years.

There was all that fuss a little while ago about MPs expenses. My expense accounts is more than that of a typical MP. If you are going to fiddle your expense account being a MP isn't the job for you.

The only really dodgy corruption thing recently has been that investigation in to bribes to Saudia Arabia from BAE (I think)... but even that has been well documented in the free press.

How would you improve democracy to make it less corrupt?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:24 / 14.08.08
Buk's three things this time are limited mandate, free press and opposition parties. He will repeat a variation of these in response to every post.

He will claim that, since he thinks democracy is the best possible system and nobody else can think of a better one, it stands to reason that it is the best possible system. However, even were a better system to be proposed, he would state that it was not a better system, cite one or more of the three things above, and restate that, since nobody had proposed a better system than democracy, there must be no better system than democracy, and that democracy in the UK must be the best kind of democracy because the UK is best. And has no poverty.

We already know that this is what is going to happen. If there is any interest to be had in this discussion, it is going to be found despite of this. I would suggest proceeding on that basis.
 
 
Fist Fun
12:33 / 14.08.08
So what do you think about democracy in the UK, Haus? Would you like to see it replaced by a different system? Is there a better system in your opinion?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:22 / 14.08.08
I still hold that tyrannies such as those of Mugabe, Musharraf or Hussein are fairer as the pool of people who benefit are small and the pool of people who are terrorized is vast.

I can no longer summon the energy to sneer at those who don't vote. I will continue to vote as I believe the right to do so is important, but in eleven years of voting the only time the person I voted for won, it was Ken's second term as mayor.

As has already been said, if we give people more power in the voting process we get the death penalty back and quite probably a roll back on green initiatives and probably some massive anti-immigration/non-whites push, thanks to all the sterling work the Government and occasionally the BBC have done over the last thirty years. People are just stupid and that includes me.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
16:45 / 14.08.08
As has already been said, if we give people more power in the voting process we get the death penalty back and quite probably a roll back on green initiatives and probably some massive anti-immigration/non-whites push, thanks to all the sterling work the Government and occasionally the BBC have done over the last thirty years.

Democracy: Because none of us are as dumb as all of us.
 
 
Fist Fun
16:57 / 14.08.08
I still hold that tyrannies such as those of Mugabe, Musharraf or Hussein are fairer as the pool of people who benefit are small and the pool of people who are terrorized is vast.

But how can that possibly be fairer than a democratic system like the UK? You think that brutal dictatorships with horrific human rights records are a better example of governance than the UK democratic system?

Would you prefer to replace the freely elected UK government with a dictator like Mugabe or Hussein?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
18:32 / 14.08.08
Me I still hold that tyrannies such as those of Mugabe, Musharraf or Hussein are fairer as the pool of people who benefit are small and the pool of people who are terrorized is vast.

Buk But how can that possibly be fairer than a democratic system like the UK? You think that brutal dictatorships with horrific human rights records are a better example of governance than the UK democratic system?

No, I said FAIRER, not better. In the case of the above examples more of the population is equal in that they have almost no real power and no real say in the direction of their countries. We have no real say in the direction of our country but millions of pounds are spent unprofitably on the sham that we do.

Would you prefer to replace the freely elected UK government with a dictator like Mugabe or Hussein?

If you like democracy so much, why don't you marry it?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:05 / 14.08.08
You know, Mugabe and Musharraf were both elected.
 
 
Fist Fun
07:12 / 15.08.08
We have no real say in the direction of our country but millions of pounds are spent unprofitably on the sham that we do.

But we do have a say. We can vote freely in fair elections.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:57 / 15.08.08
Fair?
Tactical voting. Voters are pressured to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if their true preference is neither, because a vote for any other candidate will be likely to be wasted and have no impact on the final result.
Effect of political parties. First-past-the-post tends to reduce the number of political parties to a greater extent than most other methods, thus making it more likely that a single party will hold a majority of legislative seats. (In the United Kingdom, 18 out of 22 General Elections since 1922 have produced a majority government.)
Wasted votes. This is perhaps the most fundamental criticism of FPTP, that a large majority of votes may play no part in determining the outcome. Alternative electoral systems attempt to ensure that almost all votes are effective in influencing the result and the number of wasted votes is consequently minimised.

The Problem With First-Past-The-Post in the 2005 General Election (I have no means to verify if anything in this is true, accurate or fair).
 
 
Fist Fun
10:51 / 15.08.08
I wouldn't dispute any of those imperfections but it is fair in that there is no coercion and we can be confident that the vote is not rigged.

Can you not see why your description of Mugabe's regime being fairer than that of the UK is really worrying and horrible? It is as if you have no appreciation of the freedoms that you enjoy and the terrible violations of human rights that other people have endured.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
12:14 / 15.08.08
Just curious: What do you think the Queen thinks about democracy?
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
12:16 / 15.08.08
Buk, you can't lie because a regime is brutal and a lie includes pretending that everything about a country is wrong because it is ruled by a tyrant who consistently practices human rights abuse. More importantly you are equating fairer and better and you should stop it. Flowers has put forward a position that is valid. It is not worrying and horrible that a country that is horrible to live in may treat it's population more evenly than this one which has a huge wealth gap. Accusing someone of having no appreciation for the comfort of their own situation because they are pointing out that this happens is not nice and you should apologise for it. Moreover as Haus pointed out it is a fact that democratic elections have led to some nasty people achieving positions of power and then using those positions to hurt people, including Mugabe.

it is fair in that there is no coercion and we can be confident that the vote is not rigged

That is not a fair system in and of itself. That is a system that has no one trying to manipulate it externally. A fair system is one that gives the same advantage to all individuals trying to achieve election. (What are the rules regarding money spent on an election campaign?)
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
12:21 / 15.08.08
Incidentally for those not aware of the Queen's personal prerogatives as Head of State they are listed here.
 
 
Fist Fun
13:11 / 15.08.08
Well please correct me if I'm wrong but that isn't what the word fair means.

To take the first two dictionary definitions (which are apt)

1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.

so when flowers says:

I still hold that tyrannies such as those of Mugabe, Musharraf or Hussein are fairer as the pool of people who benefit are small and the pool of people who are terrorized is vast.

Any reasonable person would read that statement as meaning that flowers believes the system of the government by Mugabe, Musharraf or Hussein is freer from bias, dishonesty, or injustice than that of the UK.

Is that what you meant flowers?
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
14:46 / 15.08.08
I think it's important to separate the arguments for/against Democracy in general, based on some higher level standard of logic, and the arguments involving the proper implementation of Democracy and how to improve it, judged on the standards of Democracy itself.

Do you think that democracy is prone to corruption more than other political systems? I would say it is much less so.

I'd agree with that. if you had some magical utopia democracy with no representative level at all, there would theoretically be no one to corrupt...right? but that's magical idealism for you. no, never mind - if the people voted for everything, they'd vote for whatever some company paid them to vote for. corruption might actually get worse.

what are we even arguing as a practical alternative to democracy here? fascism? communism?

is the UK less corrupt than other democracies like Zimbabwe? I'd say so. does that mean it's great and we don't need to keep complaining about it? no.

But we do have a say. We can vote freely in fair elections.

we can choose from one of two candidates, picked not by us but by large groups with their own agendas and leaders in ways which are not transparent. these two candidates are often so similar that the choice isn't really too valid, and often you're forced to vote for a party platform which contains ten points you hate and eleven you can tolerate.

then the jackass you elected goes and does his own thing regardless of what anyone wanted. he (well, usually he) cheats and steals and lies and pays very expensive attorneys and advisors to keep from getting caught doing it, and bribes and threatens the "free" press not to report on the bad bits, and generally fucks everything up.

your solution to this, Buk, is that we don't have to vote for that guy next time. we can put up with him ruining everything for a few years and then vote for some other guy who will do the exact same thing. unless the other one guy who is the only other choice we are presented with looks even worse, so we feel compelled to vote for the old fuckup.

and that's not counting dodgy election tactics, sketchy voting machine companies and regulations, and other stuff. all this from a US point of view, if something doesn't fairly apply to the UK say so.

the situation really just is not, at all, as simple and fair as you say it is. hence people using the word "idealistic".

If there is any interest to be had in this discussion, it is going to be found despite of this. I would suggest proceeding on that basis.

totally! I'd like to see more responses to those interesting questions scattered here and there, like

How would you improve democracy to make it less corrupt?
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
15:22 / 15.08.08
Is that what you meant flowers?

oh ffs, if you put 'define: fair' into google the first definition is 'free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception' and flowers was blatantly referring to free from favoritism. The suggestion was that the majority of citizens in that system find it similarly ugly. Now why don't you address the fact that Mugabe, Musharraf and indeed Hitler were initially democratically elected.

You tried to make someone feel guilty for making a perfectly just point and now you're attempting to use an inaccurate definition of fair to support your argument, did you not realise that it was inaccurate or did you simply leave out the definition that flowers was using?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:37 / 15.08.08
To be fair again, Hitler was elected to the Reichstag - he wasn't elected Reichschanchellor.
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply