Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
[TW]Fox;20463340 said:
Absolutely. Democracy's flaw is that the public on large are stupid.
What would change if EVERYTHING was put to referendum?
- Thread starter britboy4321
- Start date
Absolutely. Democracy's flaw is that the public on large are stupid.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,175
- Location
- Surrey
Too much would change for the worse because there are too many morons.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,175
- Location
- Surrey
And stupid spirits have always encountered repression from people who know better.
My argument was clearly stating that putting everything to referendum was a bad idea.
You say 'this is a silly idea'. Which obviously means 'putting EVERYTHING to referendum is a GOOD idea'.
You're in the minority here fella' !! Please explain your argument. Or (more likely) - leg it!
I wasn't commenting regarding the merits of the idea, but rather that the idea itself is silly.
grrr why am I feeding the troll - its addictive
Hook, line and sinker!
I'd have a lot more faith in mandatory voting, as I don't think the public on the whole are stupid, just a vocal minority, however as I pondered earlier with decisions not directly affecting the individual voting, the anonymity afforded to them by the voting system may lead to a higher sway for a negative vote for whatever the motion is (not as in a nay, but as in will affect other people the worst)
No need to be sarcastic.
For the most part the 'masses' are not smart enough to understand the issues and long term ramifications of making important decisions about our social structure, justice system and economy and many many other factors; just look at the swing from tory to labour to tory (and back again) - gives you some idea as to how fickle and short sighted people are.
Voting on such a scale and on every single little decision would be an unmitigated disaster, the least of which would be enforcing voting and administering the vast, vast infrastructure necessary to make such a thing possible.
Democracy is not perfect - that's the whole point; all of the other ideologies that tried to be 'perfect' had to murder or imprison large numbers of their own people in order to preserve the appearance of perfection. I'm quite happy with the fact that we fall slightly short of the mark on most things, at least it shows we're trying.
If we're talking about mass voting on agendas in terms of the 'city state' such as is the topic of Plato's 'Republic', then I think mass voting could work. But even back then the discourse was centred on what who and how a perfect democratic city state could be run and under what precepts - their view of democracy was very different from ours; for a start only learned men of such intellect and experience were allowed to have a voice had a casting vote in the ruling council, women had no right to vote at all and anything that might have been considered a bad influence on citizens was banned (example, under Plato's absolutism, in order for an actor to convincingly portray an evil character in a play, he would have to subsume some of the characters evil traits, and therefore become evil himself and thus a danger to society...).
Experiments with social justice then and now are dangerous ideals for anyone to support wholeheartedly and without scepticism.
Voting on such a scale and on every single little decision would be an unmitigated disaster, the least of which would be enforcing voting and administering the vast, vast infrastructure necessary to make such a thing possible.
Democracy is not perfect - that's the whole point; all of the other ideologies that tried to be 'perfect' had to murder or imprison large numbers of their own people in order to preserve the appearance of perfection. I'm quite happy with the fact that we fall slightly short of the mark on most things, at least it shows we're trying.
If we're talking about mass voting on agendas in terms of the 'city state' such as is the topic of Plato's 'Republic', then I think mass voting could work. But even back then the discourse was centred on what who and how a perfect democratic city state could be run and under what precepts - their view of democracy was very different from ours; for a start only learned men of such intellect and experience were allowed to have a voice had a casting vote in the ruling council, women had no right to vote at all and anything that might have been considered a bad influence on citizens was banned (example, under Plato's absolutism, in order for an actor to convincingly portray an evil character in a play, he would have to subsume some of the characters evil traits, and therefore become evil himself and thus a danger to society...).
Experiments with social justice then and now are dangerous ideals for anyone to support wholeheartedly and without scepticism.
Last edited:
Clearly you have never worked in retail
Our public are disgusting and downright thick.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Including my OP. It's like I can see the future.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,780
What about a referendum on the removal of all US military bases from the UK?
I can't see anyone objecting to it. Plenty of people hate yankees on here.
I know Japan is trying to get rid of the yanks from one of their islands.
I can't see anyone objecting to it. Plenty of people hate yankees on here.
I know Japan is trying to get rid of the yanks from one of their islands.
lolBritboy said:1) Capital punishment would be back within about 5 minutes i wish, i'm sure a fair few would vote but it wouldn't happen, too many namby pambys
2) Benefits would be stopped altogether. The social state would cease to exist. If people didn't work or get themselves money in some way, they'd starve to death. Things like job-clubs (that cost the taxpayer money) would be scrapped. again as above
3) There would be many 'super-prisons' built and punishments would be massively increased (four-fold at least). Corporal punishment (Public flogging etc) would be restored. Thieves would have their fingers cut off. Back to the middle ages on crime+punishment basically. I'd agree with that, but id Capital punishment ever got back in, there wouldn't really be a need for super prisons.
4) Immigration rules would be tightened up to mental levels Bloody right! England would be the land of the English IMHO!
5) Bankers (or whoever were the 'baddies' of the day, normally changes about every 8 years) would be stripped of their jobs, homes, assets, and most likely spend a long time in jail - even if they had not broken any laws. I cannot write on these forums what i would wish on Bankers
6) We'd withdraw wholly and utterley from the EU that would be the first thing on the agenda
I would object, would rather no pee off a powerful ally when we are making defence cuts