democracy.. who-what-where's that then!?!?
Discussion
just a thought after reading the post about a hacked-down scamera (thumbs up to the vigilante)...
with all this stuff about the war, you could safely say thet there was a point a while ago where near-enough the whole country was against the war (a big majority at least).. loads of demonstrations, protests, letters to MPs etc etc.. and not one bit of it made ANY difference...
now democracy is about the people having a say into what goes on isn't it? I'm actually pro-the-war, but I'm just pointing out that nobody actually had any say or got any choice about this...
what hope do we have with the scamera issue, or any other for that matter... can't see 1 million people parading around london with "down with scameras" signs.....
just my opinion, but I think we're in a
"I'm nice really and do listen to what you're saying until you're back is turned dictatorship..."
with all this stuff about the war, you could safely say thet there was a point a while ago where near-enough the whole country was against the war (a big majority at least).. loads of demonstrations, protests, letters to MPs etc etc.. and not one bit of it made ANY difference...
now democracy is about the people having a say into what goes on isn't it? I'm actually pro-the-war, but I'm just pointing out that nobody actually had any say or got any choice about this...
what hope do we have with the scamera issue, or any other for that matter... can't see 1 million people parading around london with "down with scameras" signs.....
just my opinion, but I think we're in a
"I'm nice really and do listen to what you're saying until you're back is turned dictatorship..."
There are different types of democracy, some have a quicker reaction time than others.
In Britain we franchise a representative to decide on our behalf for the life of a parliament, or life of said representative if shorter. We may not always agree with the decisions of that representative.
The danger of moving to a more volitile and responsive system is that Government itself becomes volatile and Italian style administration change becomes the norm, generally that makes long term governance impossible.
It is difficult to see how 'Government by the people' can be arranged without sinking into a morass of burocracy but a move towards proportional representation would provide a better prospect of a representative parliament...just don't expect government to always agree with your view...I have been voting for ions but I have yet to be represented by a Government that I have voted for, I live in hope.
>> Edited by gnomesmith on Wednesday 2nd April 14:31
In Britain we franchise a representative to decide on our behalf for the life of a parliament, or life of said representative if shorter. We may not always agree with the decisions of that representative.
The danger of moving to a more volitile and responsive system is that Government itself becomes volatile and Italian style administration change becomes the norm, generally that makes long term governance impossible.
It is difficult to see how 'Government by the people' can be arranged without sinking into a morass of burocracy but a move towards proportional representation would provide a better prospect of a representative parliament...just don't expect government to always agree with your view...I have been voting for ions but I have yet to be represented by a Government that I have voted for, I live in hope.
>> Edited by gnomesmith on Wednesday 2nd April 14:31
Democracy eh? well, for years our marvelous 1st past the post system allowed the tories to stay in government with a minority of MPs, never mind total votes. Our current gov system is like one of those call centre filter systems ( eg if you want to maim the CEO of NTL press 1, if you've been on the line for >48 hrs press 2) where what you or anyone but a compulsive yes man wants is PCed to death and mutilated beyond recognition. Truly enlightened individuals tend to go for benevelent dictatorships where the committee factor is reduced. PetrolTed is the only real choice as leader 
Pierscoe1 said: hmm.. didn't get as far as thinking how it could be done better...
what we really need is a proper leader, that makes all the decisions, without involving numptie public, but makes the right decisions..
oh yeah... so Ted, where do we vote!!
But doesn't get too near to Cryptonite
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives
Government types and setups are complicated, but in reality I am pretty sure our system does not reflect what a proper definition of democracy is.
It would be very hard to achieve such anyway though, but at least they could try to fool us a little better.
Government types and setups are complicated, but in reality I am pretty sure our system does not reflect what a proper definition of democracy is.
It would be very hard to achieve such anyway though, but at least they could try to fool us a little better.
gnomesmith said:
It is difficult to see how 'Government by the people' can be arranged without sinking into a morass of burocracy but a move towards proportional representation would provide a better prospect of a representative parliament...just don't expect government to always agree with your view...I have been voting for ions but I have yet to be represented by a Government that I have voted for, I live in hope.
>> Edited by gnomesmith on Wednesday 2nd April 14:31
I dont want to be "governed by the people". Have you actually taken a look at the "people"? The "people" elected a monkey in Hartlepool and Ken Livingstone in London.
Some people say "have a referendum" every time an issue of any importance comes along. Apart from the paralysis that would cause in government, I wouldn't trust "the people" to make the right decision. Most people in this country choose to read the Sun, Star, Sport or Mirror (although the real loonies read the Mail).
Are these the people you want to make the vital decisions for you? AS for PR, it would lead to permanently hung parliaments with all the loonies having a voice and elections every 5 minutes because they dont agree. No thanks. Our system is not ideal but it's better than most. We just need to find a way of getting rid of the current bunch of c
s. All IMHO of course. I don't understand what point you are seeking to make Paul, can you explain?
Do you think voting, by the people, should be abolished or just arranged in such a way as it no longer matters?
You support the present system and then say you wish to find a way to negate it's results.
Forgive my confusion.
Do you think voting, by the people, should be abolished or just arranged in such a way as it no longer matters?
You support the present system and then say you wish to find a way to negate it's results.
Forgive my confusion.
paul-b said:I dont want to be "governed by the people". Have you actually taken a look at the "people"?
Oooh, another favourite hobby horse...
An idea I liked a lot was described in Nevil Shute's "In The Wet" (1952), descibing a multiple voting system. People were eligible to have up to seven votes. (Based in Australia)
Everyone got one vote - the basic vote.
Education - one vote for higher education.
Foriegn travel - one vote for having lived outside Australia for two years.
Family vote - for raising two children to the age of fourteen without divorcing.
Achievement vote - having a certain salary level in the year before an election
Church vote - for being an official in the Church.
Seventh vote - granted as an honour
(A discussion is here)
So everyone has a vote, but those with an objective measure of social worth have more influence than those without.
Interesting ideas... (except for the Church one... IMHO
)
hmm seven votes idea is not bad, but I think the defining conditions need re-arranging..
incorrigable has the right idea.. PH members should get 3 votes extra at least!! :-)
people who,hang out at burger-king car parks get 0 votes!!
I certainly don't want a country run by the people, as someone said... that's why we just need a decent leader that knows what's right, without all the political bs.
most of the problems with this country can be sorted out by using common sense, it's when people decide they have to define right and wrong in black and white that we get all these bullsh#t laws and regulations.
trouble is, as in a great past post.. common sense is sorely missed. RIP
incorrigable has the right idea.. PH members should get 3 votes extra at least!! :-)
people who,hang out at burger-king car parks get 0 votes!!
I certainly don't want a country run by the people, as someone said... that's why we just need a decent leader that knows what's right, without all the political bs.
most of the problems with this country can be sorted out by using common sense, it's when people decide they have to define right and wrong in black and white that we get all these bullsh#t laws and regulations.
trouble is, as in a great past post.. common sense is sorely missed. RIP
gnomesmith said: I don't understand what point you are seeking to make Paul, can you explain?
Do you think voting, by the people, should be abolished or just arranged in such a way as it no longer matters?
You support the present system and then say you wish to find a way to negate it's results.
Forgive my confusion.
My point is I favour the present system over say PR and certainly over asking the people directly via referenda on every issue.
The best form of government is actually the benign dictatorship. Everything gets done and nobody gets hurt. It would of course only work really effectively if I were the dictator.
Size Nine Elm said:
paul-b said:I dont want to be "governed by the people". Have you actually taken a look at the "people"?
Oooh, another favourite hobby horse...
An idea I liked a lot was described in Nevil Shute's "In The Wet" (1952), descibing a multiple voting system. People were eligible to have up to seven votes. (Based in Australia)
Everyone got one vote - the basic vote.
Education - one vote for higher education.
Foriegn travel - one vote for having lived outside Australia for two years.
Family vote - for raising two children to the age of fourteen without divorcing.
Achievement vote - having a certain salary level in the year before an election
Church vote - for being an official in the Church.
Seventh vote - granted as an honour
(A discussion is here)
So everyone has a vote, but those with an objective measure of social worth have more influence than those without.
Interesting ideas... (except for the Church one... IMHO
It certainly has merit, although I agree with you about the church bit. Also you need to have de-merits;
-1 vote for being that mad junkie from traffic cops last night
-1 vote for thinking Tony Blair is a "good bloke" (i.e. madness)
-1 vote for BMW drivers
That sort of thing.
paul-b said: My point is I favour the present system over say PR and certainly over asking the people directly via referenda on every issue.
The best form of government is actually the benign dictatorship. Everything gets done and nobody gets hurt. It would of course only work really effectively if I were the dictator.
I have to disagree with you on PR and that is not a party Political stance. It is only with PR that minorities such as PHers can have a voice. Imagine the ABD standing for parliament. No chance to get in under first past the post but under PR we could have an anti speedcam voice in parliament. PR gives significant minorities a voice, not all minorities are looney PHers are a minority remember.
There is nothing to suggest that the functioning of the London Assembly or the European Parliament has been adversely affected by PR why should things be different in the UK Parliament, Dennis Skinner may be regarded as a looney minority but his effect upon Parliament as a whole is minimal.
Dictator, no thanks even the most benign eventually falls to Lord Acton's rule, 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. I prefer to have the ballot box as a protection and not to have to resort to the gun.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff