Democracy

[Bloodcloud]

I am probably gonna get totally flamed for that one but...

Since it allows the existence of extreme parties such as the BNP...
Since the percentage of people who actually vote is so low in so many democratic country...
Since the percentage who actually know who and for what they are really voting...
Since we see more and more parties rising in vote by playing with people's fear and emotion rather than proposing any actual plan to solve problem...
Since getting elected is all about having money for propaganda...

Could we consider that democracy should not be the almighty, indisputable principle we now try to export at every corner of the earth?

I don't pretend I have a better solution right now, but is democracy really worthy of being a dogma of occidental culture? I live in Quebec, and we got a similar (altough not as bad) party rising right now (the ADQ) by using quite the same lever: fear of immigration, keeping quebec to quebecois, that sort of shit.
And no real politics watsoever.

Do you think Democracy should be debated?

[Broche]

Well, we might say we have democracy, but, in Britain at least, it really isn't very democratic. Most parties don't stand a chance due to the mentality of "the wasted vote", thus it's only the big 2 or 3 that really have a chance of getting into power.

I think democracy is incredibly important, contries should be run in the interests of what the people want, not the interests of whoever gave the most funding to the party who won.

We don't need less democracy, we need more.

[doctor_fruitbat]

Democracy is in a pretty healthy state in this country; it is the ones who are supposed to engage in it and support it who aren't. If people are too lazy or apathetic to vote or take a stand, then why is it any surprise that we have a political culture of doing whatever the hell politicians want? The so-called 'electorate' apparently don't give a shit, so why should politicians sacrifice their own views or goals for those who don't even seem to care?

Not saying that's a good thing at all, but it's something to think about.

[Bloodcloud]

Countries should be run in the best interest of people, that is sure.

But then, is having people elected according to their actual capability instead of by a popularity contest? Why is prime minister and deputy, some of the most important jobs of all because they do determine everything, are given to people whithout even looking at the full C.V.?

Is electing people the way we do really the best way to get a good representation of what people actually think? And if it is, why do people give more trust into a judge, who isn't elected, than it trust his government?

[Turkey Sandwich]

I don't pretend I have a better solution right now

Pretty much summed it up right there. Democracy is pretty rubbish, but as we don't have anything else which doesn't involve killing large numbers of people, we'll just have to make do.
An enlightened dictatorship would be best, but since there's no such thing as a perfect leader, we use democracy so we can at least make our mistakes fairly.

I think this can be solved in the future by educating people, as most of the electorate are useless - even if they do vote, they usually do it because of some ridiculous doctrine they've fallen into, often through their family. But if you educate people, then they can make proper decisions baed on what's actually best for them, something which they don't seem to know at the moment. That's a long way off though, but when we figure it out we'll be sorted.

[Smokey]

Just like communism, it works in theory but in practice it's a lot more difficult.

The true meaning of democracy would involve a referendum on every single issue, most of which people wouldn't understand. You can't have 60 million people working on the year's budget. Plus there will not be a candidate in your constituency who matches every one of your beliefs so you have to vote for whoever comes closest.

Our democracy is failing because politics is all about image and no substance. No party is willing to put their necks out on the line and say "this is what we want to do" so they make policies about lowering taxes, increasing spending and saving the environment. When they get in, the numbers don't add up and they have to make cuts elsewhere and borrow money to try and meet their promises.

[Darkscull]

When they get in, the numbers don't add up and they have to make cuts elsewhere and borrow money to try and meet their promises.

or just neglect them entirely.

I think the main problem with our current political systems ('our' being 'the wests') is that they have become established as entities in their own rights.

most elections seem just to be fights between various parties to see who's turn to lead it is next, and the electorate are just pawns.

the game is to try and persuade people to vote for you, so that you can get in.

the sake of the game is to win the game. none of the parties appears to have things they actually want to achieve when they get into power, except look like a good enough government to the people (or at least convince them that others would be worse) to try and start up a winning streak.

there are many possible systems of government that work well on paper, but they all fall down at human nature.

I would say we need computers to run everything, but then who designs the computers, and controls what information they receive?

It's a problem that will never be solved.

[Disgruntledgoat]

Interestingly, the philosopher Plato said that democracy was only second worst way to run a country after a Tyranny.

Arguing, quite ahead of his time, that people were very easily coerced, and more often voted for the person and the way that their argument is delivered, rather than the actual argument itself.

Modern day studies have shown something similar, that people are convinced more readily by an argument that is delivered well compared to one that is boring, yet based partly on their beliefs already.

Furthermore, he argued, that why would you ask everyone about everything. If someone is ill and needs an operation, do you ask everyone in the hospital? i.e. the cleaners, the porters, the visitors, the receptionists. No, you ask the doctor, because they know what they are talking about.

However, it's pretty much the best system we've got. It's the result of years of change and itself is a constantly changing system.

[Darkscull]

Interestingly, the philosopher Plato said that democracy was only second worst way to run a country after a Tyranny.

Arguing, quite ahead of his time, that people were very easily coerced, and more often voted for the person and the way that their argument is delivered, rather than the actual argument itself.

Modern day studies have shown something similar, that people are convinced more readily by an argument that is delivered well compared to one that is boring, yet based partly on their beliefs already.

Furthermore, he argued, that why would you ask everyone about everything. If someone is ill and needs an operation, do you ask everyone in the hospital? i.e. the cleaners, the porters, the visitors, the receptionists. No, you ask the doctor, because they know what they are talking about.

However, it's pretty much the best system we've got. It's the result of years of change and itself is a constantly changing system.

the bold bit is why the tories (or rather, cameron, since it's become personality-based politics completely now) are gonna beat labour (or rather, gordon brown) at the next election. it's horrifying.

anyway, the problem with Plato's argument is that it is based around quite elitist ideas (indeed, his solution was rule by a council of the most clever, wise, overal 'better' people.. i forget the term, not technocracy, nor oligarchy), which we're supposed to have moved on from.

[Disgruntledgoat]

Yeah, that's true. Plato believed, as a philosopher, that philsophers should rule the world. But also, he said that they shouldn't own possessions or money so as to avoid corruption. But then again, he does also admit that they would be forced to deceive the majority of the people in a number of ways - but for the greater good.

But he does make a compelling argument.

I think the word is Meritocracy.

[Darkscull]

I think the word is Meritocracy.

technically, maybe, but the term has been hijacked by a Thatcherite interpretation that doesn't quite fit platos ideas, and i wouldn't want to give platos endorsement to it.

[bobfrey the great]

the problems are the people running the parties promise what they can't deliver and try to find scapegoats for why their promises aren't working. mainly motorists. no government systems seem to be able to work. tyranny is too iron-fist, communism just doesn't work and neither does democracy. perhaps the queen should get all her power back. see if it's better. hard not to be...

[happy-go-lucky]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except every other form of government that has been tried."
Misquote of someone.

[Erskien_Parkour]

Something to think about.

A coalition of governments wouldnt be a bad thing would it?

A true coalition, every party has their say. All partys decide on decisions, surely that could make a much more balanced system.

But of course, then what would be the point in voting? Except maybe to elect some kind of chairman or major decisions.

Democracy works okay, it sure works better than dictatorships etc.
Communism works on paper, never works in real life.
Democracy works on paper, marginally works in real life.

[Boyinabox]

Well, we might say we have democracy, but, in Britain at least, it really isn't very democratic. Most parties don't stand a chance due to the mentality of "the wasted vote", thus it's only the big 2 or 3 that really have a chance of getting into power.

Democracies fall into two camps.
Those dominated by one, two or three major parties (e.g. UK, USA, India, Japan) and those with proportional representation (e.g. Israel).

Whilst the scond form is probably truer to the spirit of democracy, its also the one that is the least effective. Instead of two "middle ground" parties, you have a vast array of extreme political groups and single issue groups that are simply formed with one objective in mind and hence are not designed for the task of actually rulling a country. Coalitions between diametrically opposed parties have to be formed and generally very little progress is made.

Flawed as the first form of democracy may be, its the one I prefer. (However, the ridiculous amount of partisanism between the democrats and republicans in the US is getting to the point where it looks to an outsider like the country is effectively split between the two camps so much that they might as well be seperate countries.)

[Darkscull]

A true coalition, every party has their say. All partys decide on decisions, surely that could make a much more balanced system.

so, basically, a parliament (or senate/house of represenatives)?

technically a parliament (or equivalent) is a collection of individuals who are voted in and all have a vote in various issues. the party system is overlaid on top of that.

a government is given the authority to make some decisions without consulting the parliament because it is sometimes necessary to be quicker and more decisive than a committee can be.

I can see why the bad points of such a government suggest having a more democratic approach to decision making, but it's taking a step down again to a parliament, which again has the problem of being slow and indecisive, which suggests having something with the authority to make decisions, which is back where we are now.

I don't know the solution.

[Sloth]

Democracy made me go outside to smoke a cigar... I can't even legally smoke in a cigar store in Lincoln, NE! A cigar store! Democracy is crap!

[/facetious]

[Baguette]

Something to think about.

A coalition of governments wouldnt be a bad thing would it?

A true coalition, every party has their say. All partys decide on decisions, surely that could make a much more balanced system.
extremist parties have a say?
one of the best benefits of britain's version of democracy is it keeps out these parties

[Darkscull]

extremist parties have a say?
one of the best benefits of britain's version of democracy is it keeps out these parties

they would have a say proportional to their numbers, presumably, rather than every party having an equal say.

essentially, as i've said, like a parliament that is approached on every single policy decision