Democracy?

[michel]

While talking to my wife this morning (in one of those rare moments during which she 'allowed' me to talk of politics), the word 'democracy' was used.

I maintained that we do not have a democratic system (just as I don't believe any country has). I'll try to explain why.

In this country, for each County (what you would equal with state), a conservative, a liberal, and a labour stand for election (together with some others, but we will forget those for the sake of this thread).

In reality, what happens ? (I have-for sake of argument-voted for the Conservative member). He wins the 'local election'.

IF more Conservative than labour or liberal candidates "Make it through", the party with the greatest number of 'voted in politicians' get to 'lead the country'.

As far as I am concerned, that is a very unsatisfactory system; why ?

Because I voted for Mr Butterfield (who is our local Conservative candidate); there were more Conservative candidates who won their 'fights' than members of other parties, and so Conservatives are in power.

What is the ensuing result ? The guy I voted for is one of (let's say) 200 conservatives in total, one of whom has already been chosen to be the head of the party.

So what have I achieved ? I have voted for -because I liked what he had to offer- (and he is part of the ruling party), one two hundredth of the Conservative party, with a leader in whose choice I had no ability to query.

Does that sound right?

Would it not be best to have the whole country vote to have a conservative, Labour or Liberal Government, with agendas that they have published that they will all follow should they get into power? (The idea of proportional representation?)

The advantages ? I would know that all the members of the arty for which I voted are all reading from the same page, therefore, I have voted for the people who now have to deliver what they offered. Surely, this latter method would be far more equitable?

Your thoughts, if you will.

 

[PureX]

I agree that your system is not especially democratic. Neither is ours here in the U.S. Here, we don't get to choose most of the candidates, which effectively cuts us out of the decision-making process. And in the case of the presidents, we don't really get to vote directly for them, either. Instead, we declare our choice by ballot, but the electoral college actually elects the president. And in many states, they don't actually have to elect the candidate that got the majority of votes in that state. And sadder still, is that very few Americans even know this. They think they are voting directly for the person to become president. They don't realize that their vote only serves to influence their state's representatives in the electoral college.

We need some serious changes here in the U.S. regarding how campaigns are run, how candidates are chosen, and how people actually get elected to office, but it's not going to happen because the American people have no idea how their own system runs, and so are not aware of how screwed up and UNdemocratic it really is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I found that people who think that they do not live in a democracy, but live in one like the United States, do not participate in the democratic process. This non-participation in the democratic process, whether it be by not voting, writing their representatives, contributing to campaigns, public demonstration, and volunteering in campaigns is augmented by a complete ignorance of democratic process with the possible exeption of some form of propaganda or other BS from other people who either are not participating in the process and don't know what they are talking about OR are baselessly following the rhetoric of political enemies.

 

[michel]

I found that people who think that they do not live in a democracy, but live in one like the United States, do not participate in the democratic process. This non-participation in the democratic process, whether it be by not voting, writing their representatives, contributing to campaigns, public demonstration, and volunteering in campaigns is augmented by a complete ignorance of democratic process with the possible exeption of some form of propaganda or other BS from other people who either are not participating in the process and don't know what they are talking about OR are baselessly following the rhetoric of political enemies.

I am sorry, I disagree. I participate in the democratic process; I know which political party I would like to see in power (because of their manifesto).

The trouble is that this all seems like an ideal system in an ideal world full of ideal people.

As I am sure occurrs in The States, here, once a party is voted in (because they have dangled the most attractive carrot to the voters), can then do exactly what they want to do.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am sorry, I disagree. I participate in the democratic process; I know which political party I would like to see in power (because of their manifesto).

The trouble is that this all seems like an ideal system in an ideal world full of ideal people.

As I am sure occurrs in The States, here, once a party is voted in (because they have dangled the most attractive carrot to the voters), can then do exactly what they want to do.

That is sorta the point - the people vote and the ones they vote for speak for them. If they don't do what they said, the reps come home in a few years. However, we have many political parties in the US, and there are many ways to get things done. Usually, our Democrats and Republicans have a considerable amount of power to bring a reasonable amount of balance to the table, causing each party to compromise on things.

To me, the idiot notion that Britian or the US is not a democracy is absolute horse crap. The party in power can be voted out rather quickly, at least in the US, if the people would get off their duff and vote.

 

[PureX]

I found that people who think that they do not live in a democracy, but live in one like the United States, do not participate in the democratic process. This non-participation in the democratic process, whether it be by not voting, writing their representatives, contributing to campaigns, public demonstration, and volunteering in campaigns is augmented by a complete ignorance of democratic process with the possible exception of some form of propaganda or other BS from other people who either are not participating in the process and don't know what they are talking about OR are baselessly following the rhetoric of political enemies.

On the other hand, perhaps there has been a long-running interest among those already in power in keeping the people ignorant of the political process. It's pretty hard for a man working two low-paying jobs to feed his family to find the time to study up on the political machinations that have forced him into such a lifestyle. Let alone for him to find the time and energy to actively combat them.

There's no reason that the process has to be so complex, obscured, and maintenance intensive, except that the people participating in it want it that way.

Politics attracts a certain kind of personality. I see it in all areas of life: corporations, institutions, even in small non-profit groups. It attracts people who like to go to meetings and to hear themselves talk, sounding important, yet accomplishing little. Mostly they just eat up other people's time and money making themselves feel like they're movers and shakers while the real movers and shakers are behind the scenes, using them as smoke screens.

Politics breeds dishonesty and subterfuge. Both of which tend to hide behind needless complexity, confusion, and egotism. It's a persistent source of exhaustion for anyone who dares to try to "clean it up". And I think it's unfair to blame this on those who are not willing to try. Yet if they don't try, who will?

I get tired just thinking about it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

On the other hand, perhaps there has been a long-running interest among those already in power in keeping the people ignorant of the political process. It's pretty hard for a man working two low-paying jobs to feed his family to find the time to study up on the political machinations that have forced him into such a lifestyle. Let alone for him to find the time and energy to actively combat them.

It's not too difficult to write your representative and vote, from city officials to senators to the President. If anything, I have seen that public servants both want and need the masses to at least know these two things so they can get votes.

 

[michel]

The party in power can be voted out rather quickly, at least in the US, if the people would get off their duff and vote.

Ah, well you are better off than we are; here, the only way (as far as I am aware) that the 'Country' can call a new Election is if the ruling party is constantly being stopped from having their changes (as presented in the house of Commons) out-voted by a majority dissenting vote.

When the present Labour party first got in power, their numbers were sufficiently high as to enable them to do virtually what they wanted (because the sum total of politicians elected - but not Labour - was smaller than the number of Labour Members.)

 

[standing_alone]

Ah, well you are better off than we are; here, the only way (as far as I am aware) that the 'Country' can call a new Election is if the ruling party is constantly being stopped from having their changes (as presented in the house of Commons) out-voted by a majority dissenting vote.

When the present Labour party first got in power, their numbers were sufficiently high as to enable them to do virtually what they wanted (because the sum total of politicians elected - but not Labour - was smaller than the number of Labour Members.)

I may be mistaken (as I'm not the most familiar with parliamentary systems), but if the opposition party (or a coalition of opposition parties) is successful at removing the prime minister and his cabinet through a no confidence motion, aren't new legislative elections held? Granted this control isn't directly in the hands of the common person, but the legislators are the people elected by the common people to represent them.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ah, well you are better off than we are; here, the only way (as far as I am aware) that the 'Country' can call a new Election is if the ruling party is constantly being stopped from having their changes (as presented in the house of Commons) out-voted by a majority dissenting vote.

When the present Labour party first got in power, their numbers were sufficiently high as to enable them to do virtually what they wanted (because the sum total of politicians elected - but not Labour - was smaller than the number of Labour Members.)

We have national votes every two years for the House and for years for the Senate, but if the reps see something coming, they will want to be proactive in doing what they need to do early-on if they want to stay in office.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...To me, the idiot notion that Britian or the US is not a democracy is absolute horse crap...

Well, in that case, let me hand you a shovel.:biglaugh: America is NOT a democracy, and our Founding Father NEVER intended it to be one.

...We need some serious changes here in the U.S. regarding how campaigns are run, how candidates are chosen, and how people actually get elected to office, but it's not going to happen because the American people have no idea how their own system runs...

Agreed, but until more Americans understand WHY we are a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy, that is highly unlikely to happen.

Article IV Section 4- Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

I am somewhat amused and embarassed when I hear the uneducated statement "They should pass a law and get rid of the Electoral College.":banghead3:

...the party with the greatest number of 'voted in politicians' get to 'lead the country'....

Unfortunately, the "political machine" is a big reason people feel squeezed out of the politcal process. American politics is dominated by the Democrats and Republican who conspire to keep third parties out. Of course, the drawback is that when a third party gets enough votes, an unstable 'coalition' government often results...at least for a short while.:run:

In a small population, democracy works well and is preferable. The more people are 'fruitful and multiply', democracy becomes unworkable, and decisions wind up in the hands of full time professional politicians and elections often descend into who can tell better lies with a straight face.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

America is NOT a democracy, and our Founding Father NEVER intended it to be one.

I agree that it's not an absolute democracy, in which case our government would be little more than an anarchist state. The attempt to bring the rule of law to a democracy is a beautiful expression of our freedoms that respects the rights of the minority, which would never occur in an absolute democracy. To define democracy only in absolute terms is an error - we are a limited democracy and no one can argue otherwise.

 

[michel]

I may be mistaken (as I'm not the most familiar with parliamentary systems), but if the opposition party (or a coalition of opposition parties) is successful at removing the prime minister and his cabinet through a no confidence motion, aren't new legislative elections held? Granted this control isn't directly in the hands of the common person, but the legislators are the people elected by the common people to represent them.

Yes they are, but, as I explained, the labour party came in with such a humungus majority that the sum total; of the members of other parties was still below the numbers of the ruling party.

Even if 'things are a little closer', a party (such as the liberals) can well agree to support the party in power, on the understanding that there will be a "Quid pro quo".......ie you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

For example, as we speak,

http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hcio/stateparties.cfm

State of the parties at 30 June 2006
Labour
353

Conservative
196

Liberal Democrat
63

Scottish National Party/Plaid Cymru
9
(SNP 6/PC 3)
Democratic Unionist
9

Sinn Fein
5
(Have not taken their seats and cannot vote)
Social Democratic & Labour Party
3

Independent
2

Ulster Unionist
1

Respect
1

Speaker & 3 Deputies
4 ​

(Do not normally vote)


​

Which means that the greatest possible vote against the ruling party could only (in theory) reach 293 Votes, whilst the ruling party could have 353 votes.

 

[PureX]

In a small population, democracy works well and is preferable. The more people are 'fruitful and multiply', democracy becomes unworkable, and decisions wind up in the hands of full time professional politicians and elections often descend into who can tell better lies with a straight face.

That's pretty much it. The bigger the population, the more complex the government, and the more complex the government, the less representative of the people it becomes. Eventually the people end up serving the government, rather than the other way round.

 

[spacemonkey]

I agree that it's not an absolute democracy, in which case our government would be little more than an anarchist state. The attempt to bring the rule of law to a democracy is a beautiful expression of our freedoms that respects the rights of the minority, which would never occur in an absolute democracy. To define democracy only in absolute terms is an error - we are a limited democracy and no one can argue otherwise.

I seem to rember in school (its been awhile) that we were told the United States is a Democratic Republic. Just by looking at the way the phrase "democratic republic" is structured you can tell that we are a republic first (as states retain their individual governments). The democracy part comes in because we get to elect the state officals and federal representatives.