Then you don't have your true democracy, someone is still deciding what you should be allowed to vote on.
Why arent we truely democratic?
- Thread starter salami1212
- Start date
Then you don't have your true democracy, someone is still deciding what you should be allowed to vote on.
And as if this statment needed backign up
That's right folks, this is apparently a fully functioning non brain damaged human being.
Man of Honour
.... and plenty of non idiots who wouldn't want to make it work.
Associate
There's nothing better than a good King, and nothing worse than a bad one.
I'm sure that's a quote from somewhere
Pretty much Western "Democracy" makes sure that things more-or-less continue with the status quo. And no real change can happen (good or bad).
Of course it's totally and completely broken. You are (in theory) electing your local member of parliament. Who you trust to make the best decisions on your behalf. Except they can then be whipped by their party to vote a certain way. It's disgusting and not even remotely hidden:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whips/
So yes the election system in this country is broken as while you are technically voting for a local MP it has now moved to voting for a party and a leader of that party.
To give you an idea...
In the last non-coalition general election (2005) the POPULAR vote was:
Labour: 9,552,436
Conservative: 8,784,915
Lib Dem: 5,985,454
In what way is a system democratic when more people don't want Labour in power than do in the country.
I'm not saying that there is a better system, none will be perfect. But the way the USA (campaigns for Senate funded by multiple corporations etc.) and UK go on about how they have this amazing democracy that the world should follow is utter ****.
I'm sure that's a quote from somewhere
Pretty much Western "Democracy" makes sure that things more-or-less continue with the status quo. And no real change can happen (good or bad).
Of course it's totally and completely broken. You are (in theory) electing your local member of parliament. Who you trust to make the best decisions on your behalf. Except they can then be whipped by their party to vote a certain way. It's disgusting and not even remotely hidden:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whips/
So yes the election system in this country is broken as while you are technically voting for a local MP it has now moved to voting for a party and a leader of that party.
To give you an idea...
In the last non-coalition general election (2005) the POPULAR vote was:
Labour: 9,552,436
Conservative: 8,784,915
Lib Dem: 5,985,454
In what way is a system democratic when more people don't want Labour in power than do in the country.
I'm not saying that there is a better system, none will be perfect. But the way the USA (campaigns for Senate funded by multiple corporations etc.) and UK go on about how they have this amazing democracy that the world should follow is utter ****.
Soldato
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Don't forget the Daily Fail coming in at number 2. We can't forget that racist white wash can we.
That includes you to?
Given that all politics is a school yard popularity contest, and only the least suitable people actively crave power, why is it better to elect than to give by birth or some other random pool of suitability?
Last edited:
The short answers are:
Therefore we have Representative Democracy where we elect a (supposedly) right-minded individual to represent our views in parliament on our behalf. Said individual has the freedom to exercise the freedom of their own conscience and free will when representing their electors - taking into account the views of said electors but not solely basing their decisions upon these views.
MIB said:
Therefore we have Representative Democracy where we elect a (supposedly) right-minded individual to represent our views in parliament on our behalf. Said individual has the freedom to exercise the freedom of their own conscience and free will when representing their electors - taking into account the views of said electors but not solely basing their decisions upon these views.
The main reasons why it wouldn't work are...
1. Not everyone would vote - People just wouldn't be bothered and you would end up with the same minority people voting all the time.
2. People don't have time - A huge number of decisions are made everyday by the MPs. That's why it's a full time job
You just have to look at the number of bills which are currently being considered by Parliament right now to see why people wouldn't have the time to do it. Feel free to read up on each bill and let me know when you have made a decision for each - http://services.parliament.uk/bills/
3. People don't have all the information required - A lot of information is classified, such as national defence etc. People would have to have access to everything if they had to make an informed choice. This would be a disaster for national security.
4. People are too easily swayed by what they read/hear/see - After a while, the Newspapers and TV networks will run the country.
At the end of the day, we vote in MPs so they do the job for us. Your MP should be your representative and should be voting for what the majority of your constituency wants. The country is a true democracy, we just let someone else represent our views for us.
1. Not everyone would vote - People just wouldn't be bothered and you would end up with the same minority people voting all the time.
2. People don't have time - A huge number of decisions are made everyday by the MPs. That's why it's a full time job
You just have to look at the number of bills which are currently being considered by Parliament right now to see why people wouldn't have the time to do it. Feel free to read up on each bill and let me know when you have made a decision for each - http://services.parliament.uk/bills/3. People don't have all the information required - A lot of information is classified, such as national defence etc. People would have to have access to everything if they had to make an informed choice. This would be a disaster for national security.
4. People are too easily swayed by what they read/hear/see - After a while, the Newspapers and TV networks will run the country.
At the end of the day, we vote in MPs so they do the job for us. Your MP should be your representative and should be voting for what the majority of your constituency wants. The country is a true democracy, we just let someone else represent our views for us.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
When you go into that booth on an election day, you put a little cross next to a name representing a person you will likely never meet, do not know, and will never have any communication again. What then, made you choose that person above any other, and how on earth do you suppose that person has any idea what your 'views' are.
In the years since i have been eligble to vote, i have never been polled, enquired, questions, asked or cavansed about anything other than hospital parking fees by an irrate unelected socialist party. How then, can this 'elected representive' represent and fairly account for my personal views?
I think it might be better to just get rid of government altogether, and run everything through free market - everyone is entitled to 100% of what they earn, but nobody is entitled to receiving money from someone if that someone does not want to give it voluntarily.
Or if you insist on having other people deciding your life for you, at least make it so that only people that actually achieved something (ran their own company etc) could become these "politicians".
Today there are too many "career politicians" who all their life leeched money from others without ever actually offering their work/skill/talent voluntarily on the market.
Or if you insist on having other people deciding your life for you, at least make it so that only people that actually achieved something (ran their own company etc) could become these "politicians".
Today there are too many "career politicians" who all their life leeched money from others without ever actually offering their work/skill/talent voluntarily on the market.
hell yes.
I dunno about you but i certainly don't know the finer points of economics international law or diplomacy to be allowed anywhere near position where i could influence those things directly.
least not without a decade or so's training and education.
If you do hat's off to you.
that is essentially how mankind was in the starts, history has proved that a good mix of capitalism and a little bit of a socialism net works the best (so far) as groups that have followed that formula now rules the world and have for the most part of history.
As in your system the police/army would actually just be a collection of militia/mercenaries loyal to many different groups/individuals and constantly infighting till a single ruler came to power who would then tax the rest of us with the "police"/army as the force to back it up.and then we're back to square 1.
Man of Honour