What do you understand by the concept of Democracy?
Discussion
Pan Pan Pan said:
Not a single person in the UK voted for, or was even given a chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU.
That's because we live in a democracy. By definition a democracy is a system where we elect people to govern us and make decisions for us. There are a million and one things we don't get to vote on and rightly so. The country simply couldn't function if every single piece of legislation or policy decision was put to a public vote.A referendum vote is the antithesis of democracy. Instead of the elected government proposing something followed by a vote in parliament they passed the buck and asked the public what they should do.
Moonhawk said:
Disastrous said:
I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
It's not about abandoning principles - it's about accepting that you live in a democratic society and that often a result will be made by the majority* contrary to your own beliefs (most GEs are like this - considering we haven't had a party win with an overall majority of the popular vote since around 1930).Once a decision has been made within the rules laid down - it's in all our interests to try and help make it work, even if you disagree with it.
Of course that doesn't stop you sticking by your principles and asking for another vote at some point in the future, but surely you have to at least give the decision that has been made a chance to be delivered - and perhaps help (or at least not hinder) that process.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Disastrous said:
Troubleatmill and Man Man Man, why are you arguing about Brexit?
This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.
FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
Exactly, If we are talking about DEMOCRACY, please kindly show where the people of the UK were given a democratic vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. The only DEMOCRATIC vote the people of the UK were ever given on the matter was in 2016, It may surprise you to know they voted OUT. so we are leaving, surprisingly, that is how true DEMOCRACY works.This thread asks a question about the nature of democracy, not whether it was correct to leave the EU.
FWIW OP, I agree with your position. I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
Genuinely, this discussion isn't (or wasn't until you turned up and started shouting the odds) about whether or not Brexit was a good thing or not. It was an interesting (to me) miscussion about the nature of democracy, acceptance and protestation. Are you really unable to separate the hypothetical from the factual? We really don't need another thread where you can crow about leaving the EU. We all know it's happening so can we perhaps discuss politics without you shouting about it?
Disastrous said:
Disagree entirely. Does the Opposition give the Government a chance to deliver post-GE or do they rip into them at every single opportunity and highlight why the public *should* have voted for them?
You are talking about what actually happens - rather than what should happen.It's one thing to oppose policies that you genuinely disagree with or which are flawed, but automatically taking the contrary standpoint on something just because you are the opposition is childish. Sometimes a policy is good and both sides of government should work together to enact it.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 26th July 10:28
Dindoit said:
A referendum vote is the antithesis of democracy. Instead of the elected government proposing something followed by a vote in parliament they passed the buck and asked the public what they should do.
Actually it isn't. It's a perfect example of 'Direct democracy'.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Basic_form...
The UK, by and large, implements 'parliamentary democracy' for day to day governance, but as with the vote on the EU, and "alternative voting system referendum" in 2011, it has the option to switch to 'direct democracy' for certain large scale decisions.
Moonhawk said:
Disastrous said:
Disagree entirely. Does the Opposition give the Government a chance to deliver post-GE or do they rip into them at every single opportunity and highlight why the public *should* have voted for them?
You are talking about what actually happens - rather than what does happen.It's one thing to oppose policies that you genuinely disagree with or which are flawed, but automatically taking the contrary standpoint on something just because you are the opposition is childish. Sometimes a policy is good and both sides of government should work together to enact it.
It's unrealistic to expect people to go "oh well, the vet went against us but never mind, let's get on with it...". It's just not human nature.
As the man says in Indiana Jones: "You lost kid...but that doesn't mean you have to like it"
robemcdonald said:
Kermit power said:
To my mind, the death knell of democracy is Universal Suffrage.
If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
I have to disagree with this.If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
Everyone should have a vote and they should be all worth the same.
Remember that although the tax paid by the wealthy is at a high, the percentage of their income they pay compared to the average tax payer is at an all time low.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/low...
They are paying a greater amount simply because they are making more money in the first place.
The only thing I would change is making voting madatory. Show up and spoil your paper if you like, but show up.
Anyone with half a brain can see that the welfare bill is far, far to expensive to ever be sustainable as it is, yet no government can do anything significant about it, because all the recipients get a vote on whether to keep them in power.
Putting it on a micro level, when we go out for a family meal with my parents, sometimes we split the bill and agree on where we're going to go. Other times, being grandparents, they like to treat us and take us out for a meal. In that case, we'll go where they want to go, and be grateful that we've been treated to a meal out.
If we were going to apply the current model of democracy, then the next time my parents say they want to take us out to a local pub, we could outvote them by 5 to 2 and say we want them to foot the bill for us at the Manoir aux Quatre Saisons instead. How long do you think it would be before they stopped offering to take us out for a meal?
oyster said:
We've had numerous general elections in that time and yet people kept voting for pro-EU parties.
Even the dedicated anti-EU party only got 15% of the vote and 1 MP at the 2015 election.
It's quite an amazing turn of events to even find ourselves leaving the EU. It's not an issue that actually dominates people's daily lives.
I rather suspect that of those who voted at the 2016 referendum, the vast majority (on both sides) actually aren't too concerned which way the result went.
I'm not sure I agree with this - pretty much the only anti-EU option available in the General Elections has been UKIP, and whilst their stance on the EU might have been agreeable to many, the concept of them actually governing the country (rightly IMHO) wasn't. So in a vote where there are many issues to consider, the best/least worst options have been Labour/Conservative/Coalition according to the electorate (even if you don't support their policies outright)..Even the dedicated anti-EU party only got 15% of the vote and 1 MP at the 2015 election.
It's quite an amazing turn of events to even find ourselves leaving the EU. It's not an issue that actually dominates people's daily lives.
I rather suspect that of those who voted at the 2016 referendum, the vast majority (on both sides) actually aren't too concerned which way the result went.
What we have then seen is that on a single issue, people are better able to vote for their views on that one issue, and I'd argue that the ones who did bother voting probably hold quite strong views to support their relevant position. The ones who didn't bother to cast their vote would be best labelled as having little concern for the outcome
Moonhawk said:
Disastrous said:
As the man says in Indiana Jones: "You lost kid...but that doesn't mean you have to like it"
True - but at least Indiana had the good grace to wait a few years before trying again. He didn't burst out crying and try to snatch the cross back then and there 
Fair enough - for what it's worth, I don't think there ought to be a second referendum *now* as I think it would be even more damaging for a country in a weak state, politically. Would I take the opportunity to derail Brexit (in a fictional scenario where I could)? Yes, absolutely. But I'm not and I'm pretty sure it will go ahead regardless but I certainly won't be getting behind it or anything like that. I wouldn't have expected Brexiteers/UKIP to vanish or pipe down had Remain won so fair's fair I think...Edited for idiocy.
Edited by Disastrous on Wednesday 26th July 11:56
BigMacDaddy said:
oyster said:
We've had numerous general elections in that time and yet people kept voting for pro-EU parties.
Even the dedicated anti-EU party only got 15% of the vote and 1 MP at the 2015 election.
It's quite an amazing turn of events to even find ourselves leaving the EU. It's not an issue that actually dominates people's daily lives.
I rather suspect that of those who voted at the 2016 referendum, the vast majority (on both sides) actually aren't too concerned which way the result went.
I'm not sure I agree with this - pretty much the only anti-EU option available in the General Elections has been UKIP, and whilst their stance on the EU might have been agreeable to many, the concept of them actually governing the country (rightly IMHO) wasn't. So in a vote where there are many issues to consider, the best/least worst options have been Labour/Conservative/Coalition according to the electorate (even if you don't support their policies outright)..Even the dedicated anti-EU party only got 15% of the vote and 1 MP at the 2015 election.
It's quite an amazing turn of events to even find ourselves leaving the EU. It's not an issue that actually dominates people's daily lives.
I rather suspect that of those who voted at the 2016 referendum, the vast majority (on both sides) actually aren't too concerned which way the result went.
What we have then seen is that on a single issue, people are better able to vote for their views on that one issue, and I'd argue that the ones who did bother voting probably hold quite strong views to support their relevant position. The ones who didn't bother to cast their vote would be best labelled as having little concern for the outcome
I know in my circle of acquaintance that almost all voted remain, and none of them are now against the result. They accept it.
Doesn't mean they don't fear it. Doesn't mean they've changed their mind. Doesn't mean they don't want a very soft Brexit.
But it does show that voting remain (at least for those I know) wasn't because they were, or are, ardent europhiles.
Kermit power said:
robemcdonald said:
Kermit power said:
To my mind, the death knell of democracy is Universal Suffrage.
If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
I have to disagree with this.If everyone who contributes into a pot gets a vote on how it is spent, then reasonable democracy can continue.
Once you start letting people who don't contribute to the pot vote on how it gets spent, especially when you allow more to be spent than is put in the pot, how can democracy ultimately survive?
It's not a rapid process, maybe, but it seems we're well on the way there, and it's going to be a difficult stable door to lock even if the horse hasn't already bolted.
Everyone should have a vote and they should be all worth the same.
Remember that although the tax paid by the wealthy is at a high, the percentage of their income they pay compared to the average tax payer is at an all time low.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/low...
They are paying a greater amount simply because they are making more money in the first place.
The only thing I would change is making voting madatory. Show up and spoil your paper if you like, but show up.
Anyone with half a brain can see that the welfare bill is far, far to expensive to ever be sustainable as it is, yet no government can do anything significant about it, because all the recipients get a vote on whether to keep them in power.
Putting it on a micro level, when we go out for a family meal with my parents, sometimes we split the bill and agree on where we're going to go. Other times, being grandparents, they like to treat us and take us out for a meal. In that case, we'll go where they want to go, and be grateful that we've been treated to a meal out.
If we were going to apply the current model of democracy, then the next time my parents say they want to take us out to a local pub, we could outvote them by 5 to 2 and say we want them to foot the bill for us at the Manoir aux Quatre Saisons instead. How long do you think it would be before they stopped offering to take us out for a meal?
There seems to be a general opinion in the UK that if you want the poor to work harder you pay them less and to get the rich to work harder you pay them more. The surprise is that many that fit into the former group seem to agree. I suppose the thought process is that sooner or later we will be the ones at the top of the pile.
Hayek said:
Someone suggested a vote for anyone that pays council tax. This could work maybe. There have been poll taxes in the past etc.
Difficult thing to sell (like spending cuts) but I agree with Kermit. However because of this it'll not happen before the UK hits the buffers.
IIRC council tax rules can vary between authorities. In my area all adults have to contribute at least 15% towards their council tax bill so under your scheme would they get a vote that is only worth 15% of a regular vote, presumably on a sliding scale of what they pay? Single people get a 25% reduction on their bill, how does that work. Difficult thing to sell (like spending cuts) but I agree with Kermit. However because of this it'll not happen before the UK hits the buffers.
You would be excluding students who are exempt from CT but may well be paying tax. Does anyone living in armed forces accommodation get barred from voting as well?
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
Spot on also would add freedom to 'come and go' as we please, within legal boundaries.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
Dindoit said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Not a single person in the UK voted for, or was even given a chance to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU.
That's because we live in a democracy. By definition a democracy is a system where we elect people to govern us and make decisions for us. There are a million and one things we don't get to vote on and rightly so. The country simply couldn't function if every single piece of legislation or policy decision was put to a public vote.A referendum vote is the antithesis of democracy. Instead of the elected government proposing something followed by a vote in parliament they passed the buck and asked the public what they should do.
Our western form of democracy would have horrified the ancient Athenians, (in that we do not each and every day appointed for state business, take part in the debate and vote personally), and still does horrify (on an entirely different basis) some 70% of Russians according to New Stateman. The opinions of my Russian acquaintances over the years would seem to back this up.
Disastrous said:
Moonhawk said:
Disastrous said:
I would never expect the losers to just 'give up and get behind' the winners of any vote...it's weird to expect people to just abandon their principles. I would expect them to keep campaigning until such time as circumstances change and the vote goes their way.
It's not about abandoning principles - it's about accepting that you live in a democratic society and that often a result will be made by the majority* contrary to your own beliefs (most GEs are like this - considering we haven't had a party win with an overall majority of the popular vote since around 1930).Once a decision has been made within the rules laid down - it's in all our interests to try and help make it work, even if you disagree with it.
Of course that doesn't stop you sticking by your principles and asking for another vote at some point in the future, but surely you have to at least give the decision that has been made a chance to be delivered - and perhaps help (or at least not hinder) that process.
oyster said:
I get your point about the non-voters.
I know in my circle of acquaintance that almost all voted remain, and none of them are now against the result. They accept it.
Doesn't mean they don't fear it. Doesn't mean they've changed their mind. Doesn't mean they don't want a very soft Brexit.
But it does show that voting remain (at least for those I know) wasn't because they were, or are, ardent europhiles.
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting this necessarily, more that the ones who bothered to vote did have firm reasons for doing so, rather than choosing one option or the other but not really having a strong opinion either way I know in my circle of acquaintance that almost all voted remain, and none of them are now against the result. They accept it.
Doesn't mean they don't fear it. Doesn't mean they've changed their mind. Doesn't mean they don't want a very soft Brexit.
But it does show that voting remain (at least for those I know) wasn't because they were, or are, ardent europhiles.
I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to change their views or abandon their principles just because they didn't get the outcome they voted for, I think the suggestion from most (ie: not the vocal minority of nutters on either side of the argument!) is that whilst you may not get what you voted for, there does have to be at least some acceptance that the outcome is what the majority have chosen (which is what you've alluded to already!)
robemcdonald said:
I see your point, but don't agree. The people on benefits aren't dictating where we go for dinner are they. It's more like basic survival. At the same time they see people at the top that are paying less in tax (as a percentage of income) then ever before. It's easy to see why people get miffed.
There seems to be a general opinion in the UK that if you want the poor to work harder you pay them less and to get the rich to work harder you pay them more. The surprise is that many that fit into the former group seem to agree. I suppose the thought process is that sooner or later we will be the ones at the top of the pile.
I don't see why anyone would get miffed, I'm certainly not miffed. The purpose of tax is supposed to be to pay for govt services, not to impoverish the well off. If more tax is being collected from the wealthy that's great, and if the wealthy have more left after paying tax good luck to them.There seems to be a general opinion in the UK that if you want the poor to work harder you pay them less and to get the rich to work harder you pay them more. The surprise is that many that fit into the former group seem to agree. I suppose the thought process is that sooner or later we will be the ones at the top of the pile.
You might as well say the Olympics are run on the principle that you get fast runners to run faster by giving them medals and slow runners to run faster by not giving them medals.
It's an interesting thread and part of me can't help but think that some people want democracy when it suits them.
If Teresa May came out today and said "We've f
ked up royally, we get it, income tax is going up 5p in the pound for everyone" would you honestly say "Fine, five more years but hey, it's what we voted for"?
I suspect not because the goalposts would have shifted.
If we're talking about Brexit then personally I don't think the goalposts have moved sufficiently to justify another referendum/vote yet but I can understand people asking for a debate about whether there should be another referendum when we know what the deal will be.
If Teresa May came out today and said "We've f
ked up royally, we get it, income tax is going up 5p in the pound for everyone" would you honestly say "Fine, five more years but hey, it's what we voted for"?I suspect not because the goalposts would have shifted.
If we're talking about Brexit then personally I don't think the goalposts have moved sufficiently to justify another referendum/vote yet but I can understand people asking for a debate about whether there should be another referendum when we know what the deal will be.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I suspect not because the goalposts would have shifted.
The goalposts must be allowed to shift a certain amount though. Plenty of governments have implemented policies mid or late term that were not scoped out in their manifesto.If we had to hold a new GE every time a government tried to implement policy that wasn't declared in a manifesto - we'd be in a never ending cycle of GEs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff