With less and less people actually bothering to vote each time is it right to say that people actually believe that Democracy isn't working?

Is there a suitable alternative?

Don't think there is an alternative to democracy, apart from a dictatorship, and who want's that? only the Dictator! If people can't be bothered to vote, then they deserve all they get. Lack of votes mean minority parties such as B.N.P. have a chance of power, with all it's implication's of fascism such as happened in Germany in the 1930s.

Democracy isn't perfect, but what is? at least it has been tried and tested over centuries and seems to be the best system we have at the moment. You only have to look what has happened in Iraq and Zimbabwe to mention just two political system's of the world.

I never miss my vote either local or national and if I couldn't walk, I would ask to be taken by car to make sure my vote was recorded. Everyone can and should vote, otherwise how can there be a fair representation of opinion to be sure that Democracy does work. This apathy is all down to idleness, because some think that poitics doesn't affect them, how stupid, it affects everyones life for good or ill.

Originally posted by "halevan"

Democracy isn't perfect, but what is?

No tax/no Government/freedom over where you live/no crime/no stress except finding food/no rich and poor divide/everyone treated as equals.
Sadly this way of life is changing and is little practised today.

I think it is also called Communism & Anarchism but doesn't it sound nice and look good?

Of course my answer was tongue in cheek. Obviously we are stuck with democracy for the time been but some are better run than others, where would you like to live and why? Who has a better/higher standard of living?

The scenario you refer to Lickszz,is called cloud cuckoo land!that would be heaven on earth and we all know no such place exists. ( I know it was tongue in cheek. )

Communism doesn't work,Dictatorship's don't, Saddam Hussain's regime didn't for the simple reason that the people of those countries were not free,plus they were persecuted by the leadership.

In that situation one will get resentment and rebellion,leading to uprising,the ordinary person in a country know what is right and what is wrong and sooner or later they will act.

Are we free? well that is a difficult one,yes in one sense but no one can be totally free who live as part of a community, they have freedom of speech,freedom to come and go as they like,freedom to marry who they like,but are restricted by how much money they have.

One has to work from sixteen or so year's to sixty five year's so one is unable to go anywhere during most of their life. On the other hand we are protected by the state all our lives,looked after and provided with medical care,so on the whole it is swing's and roundabout's. you pay's your money and you takes your choice!

I sympathise with whats been said about people not voting,but half the time there is no one worth voting for.There is no real choice,and little accountability.Look at the usa,Democrat or Republican what choice is that.
This internet and text voting is interesting,can it be safe?

Originally posted by "GaZaa"

I sympathise with whats been said about people not voting,but half the time there is no one worth voting for.There is no real choice,and little accountability.Look at the usa,Democrat or Republican what choice is that.
This internet and text voting is interesting,can it be safe?

Good Points! Can it be safe indeed, it will be interesting and I think it will be successful at least for the first time. Voting in this country causes me more a dilemma than ever before which is why I said I will possibly protest vote.

Originally posted by "halevan"

The scenario you refer to Lickszz,is called cloud cuckoo land!that would be heaven on earth and we all know no such place exists. ( I know it was tongue in cheek. )

Communism doesn't work,Dictatorship's don't, Saddam Hussain's regime didn't for the simple reason that the people of those countries were not free,plus they were persecuted by the leadership.

In that situation one will get resentment and rebellion,leading to uprising,the ordinary person in a country know what is right and what is wrong and sooner or later they will act.

Are we free? well that is a difficult one,yes in one sense but no one can be totally free who live as part of a community, they have freedom of speech,freedom to come and go as they like,freedom to marry who they like,but are restricted by how much money they have.

One has to work from sixteen or so year's to sixty five year's so one is unable to go anywhere during most of their life. On the other hand we are protected by the state all our lives,looked after and provided with medical care,so on the whole it is swing's and roundabout's. you pay's your money and you takes your choice!


Socrates believed representative Democracy is stupid.
He argued that the voters are not qualified to choose who is to Govern.
He also pointed out that most voters vote for the wrong reasons such as liking the candidate because of physical bearing, or just accepting a candidate's statements as truth without assessing their validity. So he definitely would not have been in favor of the UK Democratic system.


There is many misconceptions about Democracy. The Greek word for majority rule is Pleocracy, not Democracy. Democracy means rule by the people, not by a part of the people. In majority rule, each person in a 51% majority has a power beyond and above each person in the 41% minority. Often, the minority groups are powerless, and the interests of the majority are imposed on them. Democracy would be meaningless without Isocracy, meaning equal power for everyone.

No doubt that what is called Democracy is better than the different forms of dictatorship practiced in some parts of the world. Yet, it is a false Democracy.

Democracy means rule by the people, not by a part of the people. Even its literal translation, people power, does not give all of the power to a part of people. The true Democracy is a power shared by all of the people, and is not limited only to `one person, one vote`.

One of the greatest lies in the history is that what has always been called Democracy has never been Democracy. It has been the majority rule, and the majority rule is what put Christ on the cross, and ordered Socrates' death.

The true term for the majority rule is Pleocracy, not Democracy. The ancient Greeks knew this, and deceptively called their majority rule Democracy.

Socrates criticized Democracy, and the majority rule put him in prison, and ordered him to drink the hemlock, thus kill himself, which he did.

What do we do then, compell people to vote? that is no solution!, the carrot is better than the stick, you cannot impose your will on other's when it is a free country.

Surely the answer is encouragement, give incentives, reward the one's you want to register their vote make them feel it is worth their while, just because a person vote's a certain way it doesn't mean they necessarily get what they want exactly.

A government has to please ALL of the people not a minority or an individual, it is about collective responsibility and sharing the advantages and privileges of the nation, not just what a minority want.

Originally posted by halevan
What do we do then, compell people to vote? that is no solution!, the carrot is better than the stick, you cannot impose your will on other's when it is a free country.

Surely the answer is encouragement, give incentives, reward the one's you want to register their vote make them feel it is worth their while, just because a person vote's a certain way it doesn't mean they necessarily get what they want exactly.

A government has to please ALL of the people not a minority or an individual, it is about collective responsibility and sharing the advantages and privileges of the nation, not just what a minority want.

That is perfectly true. Politicians constantly go back on their word which is one of the reasons why I believe people are unwilling to vote. However, I am not sure that bribing people to vote would be the right answer.

Originally posted by Lickszz
With less and less people actually bothering to vote each time is it right to say that people actually believe that Democracy isn't working?

Is there a suitable alternative?

We have yet to implement democracy in this country -

representational 'democracy' is nothing more than an oligarchy with an quintennial selection process that allows a select few of us (who can be bothered to vote) to chuck out the current criminals and install a fresh lot of bureaucratic vampires.

Democracy means everyone being allowed to vote and participate in the debate to run the country. None of this voting once in 5 years to select someone who is going to cast your vote without asking you what you think.

As a system it is suited to governing a city state in a constant state of military readiness, like Athens, but utterly and totally unmanageable on the scale of the UK.

The sheer nature of parliament means the successful MPs are the ones with the biggest mouths, the fastest wits and the sharpest daggers in their cloaks. Not to mention the ones with a burning, driving ambition for power.

All of these characteristics should immediately rule anyone out of holding political office IMO.

More women in parliament might make a difference, although the ones that make it to MP really have to pretend to be men (a la Thatch) in order to get anywhere.

People will become more and more disinterested in politics as they are progressively disenfranchised by a centralising government. When no-one votes anymore, Parliament can be closed down and turned into an art gallery and we can get on with the business of self government.

I suppose the powers that be beleive that with us having a first class educational system in the UK, the people are intelligent enough to decide who are qualified to govern us. We have the benefit of comprehensive news coverage, I.E. TV, Newspapers, radio, to help us make up our minds. It is not as though we are all illiterate idiots and havent got a brain.

Recipe for Parliamentary Reform

By Phanerothyme.

1.Abolish connection between Monarchy and Government other than purely ceremonial duties.

2.The assets of the current royal family to be held in trust for the British Public, by the newly created Department of Outdated Aristocracy.

3.The payments to the Civil List and HRH The Queen are now by grace and virtue of the British public, to be voted on every five years.

4.House of Lords completely abolished and replaced with the House of Peers. 500 people selected at random from the electoral register to serve 5 years. Accomodation, Allowance, Employer compensation and resettlement package included.

5. Privatise the Civil Service.

6.Limit Number of Seats in House of Commons to 750.Electoral Boundaries abolished. Voters may now choose any candidate that stands for election as an MP. Anyone can stand, providing they have voting rights.

7. The Candidates that receive the most votes are elected. The person with the most votes automatically becomes prime minister for the duration of the parliament.(5 years)

8.In Parliament, each MP votes with the strength of their electors. i.e, if you get 1,250,345 votes then thats your 'vote multiplier' in parliament. MPs are dismissed from the house when their number of constituents reaches half of the number of electors of the 750th member.

9.Voters may transfer their votes between current MPs at any time.

10.Voters may also withdraw their vote at any time, once only, for the duration of the parliament. Convicted criminals will automatically have their vote withdrawn whilst in prison or for the next five years, whichever is longer.


how am I doing?

I admit to missing out some detail there, but I'd be happy to rough it out.

The only true utopia in my opinion is anarchy. Not the in the form that is popularly associated with the word - chaos, lawlessness, and so on, but in the form of no governing body, each person is equal, each person works for the benefit of each other, their are no laws, because people intrinsically know what is ethically and morally right and wrong, there is no idea of "want", no greed, no bigotry or intolerance, etc. etc. etc. The anarchic society is essentially and ideally one of equality and benevolence, where everyone has everything they need for a comfortable life.

Yes, I know this is a hopelessly idealistic view - especially in our current “democratic” society, where avarice seems to be a strong driving force, where the social and economic elite reap the majority of the benefits, and where, unfortunately, intolerance is rife.

In my opinion, democratically elected governments have never - or rarely at best - equally represented the population - they may initially purport to represent everyone equally, but once elected, those with the most money and power seem to have the loudest voices - large corporations, and the minority rich continuously lobby the government for their own benefit, whether it be for the right to build on greenbelt land, controversial contracts, or tax reforms/exemptions, etc. while, for example, the single parent struggling to pay the weekly rent is threatened with eviction and lives in fear of potential homelessness.

So, no, I don’t believe democracy is working, but then I don’t believe that our society as a whole is working particularly well either.

Just my humble opinion though folks :)

Originally posted by Hodge
The only true utopia in my opinion is anarchy...

So, no, I don’t believe democracy is working, but then I don’t believe that our society as a whole is working particularly well either.

Just my humble opinion though folks :)
As a stout supporter in principle of the Anarcho Syndicalist outlook, one of the most interesting problems (some would say the the only one) is how to get there from here.

A mass change in conciousness would be required. Not impossible but highly unlikely.

However, anarchosyndicalist concepts can be woven in to life's daily fabric on a local level with surprising ease, and many small urban groups with common interests adopt it without knowing.

Our parliament must approve constutional change (in the abscence of armed revolt at least), and as such it can be considered closed to any proposals that might signify the end of parliament. Not surprising really, but galling all the same - the forces of conservatism will always resist truly radical reform of any kind.

Originally posted by halevan
I suppose the powers that be beleive that with us having a first class educational system in the UK, the people are intelligent enough to decide who are qualified to govern us. We have the benefit of comprehensive news coverage, I.E. TV, Newspapers, radio, to help us make up our minds. It is not as though we are all illiterate idiots and havent got a brain.

The media is also used to surppress, dominate and manipulate the masses.

According to one Labour MP. Britain is now a one party country. It may be contemptible and arrogant for him to say this but on the other hand it may also be true.

With an unprecedented 10 year lead in the polls with only a one week blip (The fuel Protest). We have seen military victories in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq:

In my opinion Blair has never been more vulnerable right now. It is true though he is not vulnerable from any other one party but he is his own worst enemy. It is widely thought that Blair and Nulabour are becoming complacent and showing extraordinary arrogance.

Some people think that Nulabour is disintegrating and it's not hard to see why with this little list:

Mandleson....twice.
Geoffrey Robinson
Clare Short
Alan Milburn
Robin Cook
Frank Field
Michael Meacher
Steven Byers
Nick Brown
Chris Smith
Harriet Harman

You expect a few casualties in six years but this little lot certainly makes you wonder?

I'm just curious to see if Blair is giving Peter Hain enough rope before he kicks away the stool. Of course Brown is waiting across the seas for his golden chance.

I think we are seeing something not dis-similar to the last days of Majors government, except this lot have another two years to run.

When Blair finally gets his way and bounces us into the EU we shall be a 'none party' state; ie, a dictatorship. How future generations will curse this man!

I would probably call that a conservative estimate. This administration is a bit like the borg...