Looking at the motley crew in parliment today and the choices would it be better to dump democracy and ask the armed forces to take over.

Originally posted by veronica
Looking at the motley crew in parliment today and the choices would it be better to dump democracy and ask the armed forces to take over.

"Looking at .....and the choices" What choices were you looking at today?

"ask the armed forces to take over" Are you proposing a referendum?

I have to agree with Winston Churchill's comments on democracy - something along the lines of it being a lousy system but the best we've got.

A paternalistic dictatorship may seem a good idea but it rarely stays that way.

Having said that, the original Roman idea of the Dictatorship was interesting. A 'strong man' would be given total cntrol of the Republic for a certain length of time. At the end of that time he had to answer for his actions, possibly with his life.

I'm not sure what safeguards the Republic put in place to prevent the Dictator just hanging on to power..... :)

Joe

let me get this straight?

You think a lot of people with GUNS would be run this country better than the people actually do the work (the civil service)?

You think some middle england toff who decided telling others to go kill people for a living would control this country better than those who have often studied economics, philosophy and also democracy at some of the most hightly praised universities round the world?

Just to clarify what you meant.

My $0.02 (to use an american phrase) is that sure democracy may not be as representative as its ideal once purported it would be but democracy has never been representative. Even back in ancient greece where democracy hails the phrase "one man, one vote" had a few sunclauses, such as you couldn't vote if you were a woman, insane, a slave etc.

What the real issue with democracy is then, is that peopel donn't feel involved, they don't feel they can participate.

being someone who has attended government lobbie and green carded (the method by which anyone, when in westminster may talk to their MP,if they are available) my MP.

Truth be told, MPs are dying to be told what their constituents want, and yet the realm of politics is not explained to the common man and so becomes inaccessible. Democracy becomes about what these highly educated but often white heterosexual middle class males think is right, not what the people he (she in some cases) is supposed to represent thinks.

Down with democracy? NO, lets just reform it so that it is a little more accessible. That doesn't mean using text speak, or dumbing it down, most people are very astute. All it requires is a little education.

I'd like to see a future where the government actually meant it's promises about teaching children 'citizenship'. I simply can't believe that some schools are having citizenship lessons though, can anyone else see how stupid that is? You encourage citizenship by making children citizens, voluntary work, social care, student councils. For the older teens, the NUS empowers its workers and makes them probably the most active citizens I know, and with 5.2 million members they really are a force the govt would take seriously if all those 5.2 million members were active citizens.

I've waffled a bit but to summarise Democracy is not dead, it needs subtle reforms and an concentrated effort to increase all areas of participation (not just voting) through citizenship.

Wilf

we simply dont have democracy in this country,we have a 2 party state.

Originally posted by royjames
we simply dont have democracy in this country,we have a 2 party state.

what do you mean exactly by "state"?

Originally posted by royjames
we simply dont have democracy in this country,we have a 2 party state.

The meaning of your post is a little unclear royjames. Are you suggesting electoral reform? For example, doing away with the first-past-the-post method of voting? Please elaborate.

Yes I am red I feel the present system is always going to favour the main 2,in other words the state in as much as these 2 represent the esatablishment.
To really show the people that every vote matters we have to go toa PR system,otherwise I can see more and more voters not bothering to vote .

Well Roy, maybe for the first (and only?) time, you and me are going to be in agreement. I would defininately go for a system of proportional representation as a means of increasing participation in politics by the voters. This might also help veronica overcome her apparent concerns about the quality of our parliamentarians.

I think that people should always vote, but increasingly I can understand why they don't. The three main parties seem increasingly similar, so if you don't like any of them, and there are no alternative candidates, then what can you do?

The other major factor contributing to apathy is our outdated and anti-democratic election system. If you do not vote for one of the two leading candidates, your vote is said to be 'wasted'. Two-thirds of the results in most elections are simply a foregone conclusion; they are a safe seat for Labour or the Tories. For example, in some industrial areas they don't count Labour votes, they weigh them. It is hardly surprising that people are unmotivated for voting in such places, knowing that this will make no difference to the outcome.

The end result of FPTP is a distorted Parliament, with one party having a huge unhealthy majority on 40% of the vote. This is hardly democratic.

As I have outlined in the past, one of the greatest disappointments of this government is that they promised, in 1997, to have a referendum on electoral reform. They commissioned Lord Jenkins to recommend a system, and he duly came up with a system called Alternative Vote Plus. The idea was that this would retain single member constituencies but allow people to order candidates in preference. Any parties who were under-represented would get top-up seats.

Blair then decided to just kicked this into the touch. Why? Because he suddenly found out how convenient it was to have a huge Parliamentary majority which he could use to impose his will on the country.

IMO we are never going to have genuine democracy in this country until the electoral system is reformed somewhat.

I'd be a lot happier with PR myself. Every vote counts then. Let's face it, whatever we vote at the next election in Sheffield is hardly likely to make a difference to who forms the government.

Much of life is about making compromises - often to mutual benefit - rather than one person / party having their way.

As for the army running things, errrr......no way.

I agree with you Lickszz.

Why should a Tory consider voting in Sheffield when the results are a foregone conclusion (with only Hallam constituency being the possible exception)? Why should Labour voters bother to vote in places like Surrey or rural Sussex, when the results in these places are also a foregone conclusion?

Longcol is also right - proportional representation would indeed make every vote count, and increase voter participation.

The current general election will be determined by approximately 800,000 voters living in key marginal seats.

Democracy is not static. It constantly develops. PR is a much better system than first-past-the-post. But what we've got at the moment is preferable anyday to having the (unelected) army running our affairs.

I too would prefer PR, because as has been said its hardly fair that 40% of the vote gives a whaicking majority and they can then do anything.

I also read last week that it takes about 16000 votes (on average) for a Labour MP to be elected and 20000 for a Tory MP.

Makes the argument about FPTP even more flimsy.

With over 70% of our laws now being made by the EU Commissioners (unelected - now there's a surprise) the answer must surely be that democracy was good while it lasted, but it has gone.

Im a labour fan myself but to see any real change in the style of goverment i think the public would have to vote the lib dems in as i think they are totally differant to the main 2.

I don't realy take much notice of politics so i don't actually know what proportional representation is.

How does it work ?

Originally posted by nick2
I don't realy take much notice of politics so i don't actually know what proportional representation is.

How does it work ?

instead of the number of seats in the house of commons depending on the number of constituencies won (which could be won by 1 vote) they depend on the total % outcome.

For example, if labour were to win every seat (i know it's not very likely) by 1 vote, they would then have a complete majority in the house of commons and could do exactly as they pleased. That is despite less than 50% of the population voting for them.
In fact it's possible that they could have that complete majority on less than a 3rd of the vote if the other votes were split between at least 3 parties (giving each of those other parties 2/9ths of the vote).

Proportional representation means that the number of seats in the commons is directly dependant on the total number of people who vote for the party, and thus appears to be much fairer.

So you just add together all the votes for each party and then divvy-up the seats in the commons depending on how many votes each party got out of the total ?

That sounds more fair.

(Sorry to sound thick, I just want to make sure I understand)

But then you wouldn't need particular people for each area would you, you would just have a pool of polititians ?

Originally posted by veronica
Looking at the motley crew in parliment today and the choices would it be better to dump democracy and ask the armed forces to take over.

Brilliant. Let's have a fascist dictatorship/utopian worker's collective instead. Jeez..........

Originally posted by Hopman
With over 70% of our laws now being made by the EU Commissioners (unelected - now there's a surprise) the answer must surely be that democracy was good while it lasted, but it has gone.

people often say things like this. Can you provide a reputable link to back this assertion up?

How does the proportion change if you exclude silly trivial laws (e.g. straight bananas, units of weights)? I mean I wouldnt care if brussels legislates on this for example, but I would car a lot more if they said everyone should pay 50% income tax.

Originally posted by nick2
So you just add together all the votes for each party and then divvy-up the seats in the commons depending on how many votes each party got out of the total ?

That sounds more fair.

(Sorry to sound thick, I just want to make sure I understand)

But then you wouldn't need particular people for each area would you, you would just have a pool of polititians ?

There are different types of PR. Some would allow voters to cast their votes for a named candidate. There are even systems of PR which allow voters to choose the party candidates, i.e., who you would like to be elected for a particular party - subject to that party gaining sufficient votes in the actual election.

Unfortunately, because there are different systems of PR, there tends to be a lack of consensus amongst PR supporters as to which system is best.

I believe that the First Past the Post electoral system has long since reached the end of its credibility. It is no longer producing results that are in any way equitable or representative.

In the days when the two main parties won over 40% of the vote each, and smaller parties had much lower support, it was acceptable. Today, it is undermining democracy.

But the main problem is trying to change it. The two main parties are committed to the system as it keeps them in power.

The present system will not be change until the voters either abstain completly or enough voters back say the lib dems or the smaller parties who back PR.
To have such a large amount of seats on such a small vote is a travesty to democracy.

Democracy - the will of the people - is a fine thing and something that should be jealously guarded.

But here's a strange thing.

Labour were returned with a majority for a third term. The will of the people etc.

Well, in England MORE people voted Conservative than Labour!

It was only the Scottish and Welsh seats that pulled them through.

And they have their own assemblies!

English MPs have no say in either Cardiff or Edinburgh but Scotts and Welsh MPs have a voice in Westminster!

Is that fair? Is that democracy in action? I don't think so.

It may be what we've got and it may be a UK-wide election (as opposed to an English election) but, in truth, it is very difficult to defend and say that it represents the will of the people.

But if that system can result in a Labour Govt when more people in England vote Troy than Labour, do you think Mr Blair will look at changing the system?

Don't hold your breath.