What do you understand by the concept of Democracy?
Discussion
Disastrous said:
Cool - I wasn't just being pedantic as I think it's quite an important semantic difference.
Whilst 51% and 60% are both majorities (and thus both inherently democratic I suppose), the latter seems more prudent to me for the big decisions. Certainly a 60% majority either way would do away with the lingering sense of unfairness that follows a close result with the knock-on benefit that less time is spent on recriminations and arguing over whether the result was 'fair' or not.
FWIW, I'd apply that to any major decision that affects the direction of our country. I'd also feel far more inclined to 'accept it' if I felt it truly represented a majority. 51% is just too close - too many non-voters or people who 'thought it would never happen' and so on. A 60% majority would end that IMO.
Might want to ask Trump about that.. He seems to be a little annoyed that the Senate requires a clear majority to pass anything Whilst 51% and 60% are both majorities (and thus both inherently democratic I suppose), the latter seems more prudent to me for the big decisions. Certainly a 60% majority either way would do away with the lingering sense of unfairness that follows a close result with the knock-on benefit that less time is spent on recriminations and arguing over whether the result was 'fair' or not.
FWIW, I'd apply that to any major decision that affects the direction of our country. I'd also feel far more inclined to 'accept it' if I felt it truly represented a majority. 51% is just too close - too many non-voters or people who 'thought it would never happen' and so on. A 60% majority would end that IMO.
Disastrous said:
Cool - I wasn't just being pedantic as I think it's quite an important semantic difference.
Whilst 51% and 60% are both majorities (and thus both inherently democratic I suppose), the latter seems more prudent to me for the big decisions. Certainly a 60% majority either way would do away with the lingering sense of unfairness that follows a close result with the knock-on benefit that less time is spent on recriminations and arguing over whether the result was 'fair' or not.
FWIW, I'd apply that to any major decision that affects the direction of our country. I'd also feel far more inclined to 'accept it' if I felt it truly represented a majority. 51% is just too close - too many non-voters or people who 'thought it would never happen' and so on. A 60% majority would end that IMO.
But surely if you didn't vote or thought it wouldn't happen, then tough?Whilst 51% and 60% are both majorities (and thus both inherently democratic I suppose), the latter seems more prudent to me for the big decisions. Certainly a 60% majority either way would do away with the lingering sense of unfairness that follows a close result with the knock-on benefit that less time is spent on recriminations and arguing over whether the result was 'fair' or not.
FWIW, I'd apply that to any major decision that affects the direction of our country. I'd also feel far more inclined to 'accept it' if I felt it truly represented a majority. 51% is just too close - too many non-voters or people who 'thought it would never happen' and so on. A 60% majority would end that IMO.
What happens at 55/45? You really want another go?
Ateotd 51 beats 49,it would in the world cup which is really serious to a lot of people let alone business matters etc.
Nothingtoseehere said:
But surely if you didn't vote or thought it wouldn't happen, then tough?
What happens at 55/45? You really want another go?
Ateotd 51 beats 49,it would in the world cup which is really serious to a lot of people let alone business matters etc.
No, what I mean is that such a narrow majority could easily swing the other way if the non-voters or people who thought it was never in doubt had bothered to turn up. That creates ill feeling from the losing side as there is a deep rooted suspicion that the *actual* majority of the country may favour them. A 60/40 split would put that to rest.What happens at 55/45? You really want another go?
Ateotd 51 beats 49,it would in the world cup which is really serious to a lot of people let alone business matters etc.
It's just my opinion - a 51/49 majority is still *almost* half the country vs half the country and not a clear enough mandate to make major decisions with. I'm not making this about Brexit especially - I'm being deliberately general as I think that the principle applies to any major decision, whether I agree with the outcome or not...
Disastrous said:
Nothingtoseehere said:
But surely if you didn't vote or thought it wouldn't happen, then tough?
What happens at 55/45? You really want another go?
Ateotd 51 beats 49,it would in the world cup which is really serious to a lot of people let alone business matters etc.
No, what I mean is that such a narrow majority could easily swing the other way if the non-voters or people who thought it was never in doubt had bothered to turn up. That creates ill feeling from the losing side as there is a deep rooted suspicion that the *actual* majority of the country may favour them. A 60/40 split would put that to rest.What happens at 55/45? You really want another go?
Ateotd 51 beats 49,it would in the world cup which is really serious to a lot of people let alone business matters etc.
It's just my opinion - a 51/49 majority is still *almost* half the country vs half the country and not a clear enough mandate to make major decisions with. I'm not making this about Brexit especially - I'm being deliberately general as I think that the principle applies to any major decision, whether I agree with the outcome or not...
In some respects it is a bit like a football match, where the losing team is whingeing that because they had more shots at the goal than the team which won, they should be awarded the victory, Referenda. like football matches don't really work that way, as much as the losing side might not like it that is democracy..... of a sort.
Disastrous said:
TTwiggy said:
You'd get further talking to a brick wall.
Man Man Man basically IS a brick wall. One can only hope a passing graffiti artist sprays "THIS ISN'T ABOUT BREXIT" on him.Do you actually know what is meant by the term democracy? or is it that you just don't like it, when `democracy' delivers a view point / position which is different to the one `you' wanted , in which case for you, it is not really democracy any more?
TTwiggy said:
I've known Asperger's sufferers with less serious fixation issues.
And I just love the way that you squirm and slither around rather than face the fact that you don't really believe in democracy, when it does not deliver the position you wanted, Please enlighten us all, what kind of democracy is that?
Pan Pan Pan said:
And I just love the way that you squirm and slither around rather than face the fact that you don't really believe in democracy, when it does not deliver the position you wanted, Please enlighten us all, what kind of democracy is that?
This conversation you're having in your head? Please don't involve me in it.TTwiggy said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
And I just love the way that you squirm and slither around rather than face the fact that you don't really believe in democracy, when it does not deliver the position you wanted, Please enlighten us all, what kind of democracy is that?
This conversation you're having in your head? Please don't involve me in it.Nothingtoseehere said:
TTwiggy said:
This conversation you're having in your head? Please don't involve me in it.
Its funny,you always seem to be in arguments, maybe have a look at yourself?
Eric Mc said:
The least important aspect of democracy is voting.
In order of importance (to me) -
freedom of speech
an independent legal system
freedom of the press
the right to vote
general tolerance of the other person's point of view
I apologise if I'm digging up an old post, but this one struck me as odd. In order of importance (to me) -
freedom of speech
an independent legal system
freedom of the press
the right to vote
general tolerance of the other person's point of view
I may be naive, but my understanding of democracy is that by its essence it's all about voting.
Free speech has nothing to do with democracy. And vice versa.
By definition, you could live in a dictatorship in which you had free speech, or a democracy where you did not, if you give it a moment's thought.
There was a wonderful letter in my local rag from an aggrieved local LD councillor recently on a similar subject, in the context of the EU referendum, which culminated with a phrase something like: "the whole point of living in a democracy is that when we have a vote we have the right to try and get it reversed", which rather wonderfully encapsulated my point.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff