Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Do We Live in a Democracy?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

Observatory

Original post by Extremotroph

I am of the opinion that we in the U.K do not live in a democracy.

You're wrong.

Reply 41

moggis

Original post by Observatory

You're wrong.

Lets vote on it

Reply 42

Extremotroph

Original post by Melancholy

I don't really care for a democracy that could potentially bring about capital punishment and such like. The vast majority of people are not political animals, have no knowledge of rights, don't care about economics, and quite frankly shouldn't be given any sort of direct control over issues such as war, punishment and taxes.

Lol so I suppose what you're saying here, and I can't really disagree given the situations I've observed in my life, is that there exists Leaders (or rulers) and Followers, and the followers are too thick (I say, brainwashed) to allow them any sort of power, for if they were given it, they'd screw it up. Sounds about right.

I think that the lack of intelligence and critical thought among the followers is partly a result of the actions of our leaders.

Reply 43

Extremotroph

Original post by Observatory

You're wrong.

Would you please give your definition of a Democracy?

and lol Moggis

Reply 44

Extremotroph

Original post by moggis

I see what you're getting at.

The two main parties do not currently offer much difference in their policies.(For the sake of argument at least)

And theres no doubt that our first past the post system does not fairly represent the views of the voters.

And its on that basis at the very least that you question whether we live in a democracy.

Technically of course we still do but its practically(?) that you mean.

And if most peoples views are not adequately represented its all a bit of a con really isn't it?

Yes, that is the basis of my argument: That there is a great difference between theory and reality.

Reply 45

Observatory

Original post by Extremotroph

Would you please give your definition of a Democracy?

and lol Moggis

A state in which sovereignty is vested in an elected body.

Reply 46

MatureStudent36

Original post by Extremotroph

I would rather not get into this wikileaks/snowden/manning stuff. On the basis that intelligence services are more intelligent than one assumes, and that I highly doubt they'd release information that they didn't want the world to see. If snowden was really a threat he'd have been killed.

I don't see why such a examples are damaging. It is known that other countries are willing to exploit weaker countries, and if this country is weak then it will be exploited. I believe the examples you provide would strengthen the establishment not damage it.

Lastly, an example that might damage the government - releasing all information regarding the Iraq war. Thing is, when something is kept secret, one doesn't know if what they're being told is the full story, unless one has blind faith in the media.

That's te concept of a leak. It's an uncontrolled release. And if you think that the US government would kill Snowden, then think again. That's illegal to do and illegal acts have a habit of coming back to haunt you, hence te reason why they're not done.

Things ar kept secret for a reason. And that's normally to protect the source of the information, nothing else as sinister as that. It took over 30 years for the signals intercept that supported the decision for the sinking of the Belgrano to become public. Why? Because had that been in the public domain then somebody else would've realised that if we had the capability to read Argentinian Naval traffic, then we'd have the same capability to read their traffic. Do you not think it would've benefited Thatcher to release those intercepts earlier to defend her position.

Reply 47

Extremotroph

Original post by Observatory

A state in which sovereignty is vested in an elected body.

Sovereignty is statehood, is "a monopoly on the use of legitimate force".

We may say that legitimacy is derived from elections, but I don't believe these elections to be fair nor legitimate, for several reasons:

Firstly, that there are differing levels of power depending on which seat you reside in when you cast your vote.

Secondly, that the vote itself is worth a fraction of a percentage.

Thirdly, using the 2001 election as the worst example, that a party can be elected to government with 40% of the popular vote in a 60% turnout. It is said that Michael Foot lost the election (to Thatcher) with more votes than Blair had won with.

Lastly, that the politicians who represent the main parties very rarely give a straight or truthful answer or statement. There is subsequently little difference in our perception of the main parties thus there is little choice.

With your definition, would you then label, say, Iraq pre 2003 as a democracy? Saddam Hussein did hold elections after all, so one could argue his regime was an elected body, holding a monopoly on the use of "legitimate" force.

Reply 48

Observatory

Original post by Extremotroph

Sovereignty is statehood, is "a monopoly on the use of legitimate force".

We may say that legitimacy is derived from elections

In which case my definition is satisfied.

With your definition, would you then label, say, Iraq pre 2003 as a democracy? Saddam Hussein did hold elections after all, so one could argue his regime was an elected body, holding a monopoly on the use of "legitimate" force.

Those elections were rigged and coercion was employed on the real voters. The things you're complaining about here (my personal vote won't decide the outcome, plurality rather than majority can be enough to form a government, etc.) are inherent to the system.

If you think Britain's elections are rigged or coerced somehow, then consider this. Can you name a single policy that is opposed by both parties and yet would enjoy wide public support?

I actually can name one - I don't think I can name two - but you probably wouldn't like it!

Reply 49

Libtardian

I think the retardation of the population makes it seem sometimes like we don't live in a democracy.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 50

Observatory

Original post by Melancholy

I for one welcome our future ubermensch overlords of people who have high post counts on TSR.

Reply 51

WilliamODPannell

Original post by Extremotroph

As I have said, a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche is not a choice at all.

I think what would clarify greater is, in this system, whoever gets the most votes wins the seat. And very often, candidates are elected on the basis of a minority of the electorate.

To your second paragraph, I have no idea why you believe such a thing whilst simultaneously accepting we live under FPTP. You are believing a lie in believing that every man's vote is equal, or as equal as it can be:

The smaller population within a given constituency, the greater power one's ballot holds (not much at all lol). Say for example, you live in a seat with a population of 50,000, your vote will be worth more, you will have a bigger say, than if you live in a seat with a population of 100,000.

Certainly, that is not to say one has a big say at all. Consider that one vote in a 50,000 electorate is a tiny fraction of a percentage, barely a blip.

To your last point, I guess that's correct - I have to provide evidence for my claim. Which I can't really be bothered to do, so disregard the claim if it's your unflinching belief that what is promised is what gets done.

Just because you dislike politicians it doesn't make the system undemocratic, in the same way that a dictatorship led by a fantastic leader is still a dictatorship.

Yes MPs are elected with less that 50% of the vote, but they still have to get a relative majority. I'd agree that this could definitely be improved upon with a PR based voting system. But FPTP isn't undemocratic. Yes, there are differences in Constituency size, but that's unavoidable in single member constituency politics. There outer Hebrides island constituency in Scotland with and electorate of 20 or so thousand. It doesn't make sense to group that with another part of the country so that there is a more even number of constituents. If that happened the interests of the isolated islanders would clash with those of the mainlanders. It also wouldn't make sense to have an MP having to travel four or five hours minimum between the Islands and the mainland to see all of their constituents. One man gets one vote, that's what a democratic system entails... Sure there might be differences in the constituency sizes, but it's a huge step up from North Korea, or places where they practice carousel voting. Even in the UK it used to be possible for one person to have three votes in a General Election...
I'm not sure why you're saying one vote is barely a blip in the electorate, every vote is, so that's equal... Every blip adds up to make the whole electorate. I'm not sure why that's undemocratic? Are you suggesting a massive increase in the amount of representatives?

I'm not saying that everything gets done, sometimes circumstances change. But I'd like to know how many manifesto promises not only get ignored, but see the opposite thing happen. Boris Johnson claims to have followed up on 90% of his election promises, although to be fair Ken Livingstone disputes that, saying it's nearer 60-70%. Either way that's still a majority of promises.

Reply 52

marcusfox

Original post by Extremotroph

I am of the opinion that we in the U.K do not live in a democracy.

This is the position I will take in this thread.

For those willing to discuss:

Give your definition of what a democracy is.

Explain why you believe that your definition is in line with objective reality.

This is just a general reply to your position, I have quoted your first post for convenience only.

Egypt has just overthrown an elected government, no matter how flawed, and with the help of the Army has installed something that the crowds in the streets think will be better. It has also, with the help of the same military, suspended its constitution which was likewise voted on in reasonably free and fair elections (again, no matter how flawed the document itself is).

How well, do you think, is it going to end?

The technocratic response to elections that give the wrong answer is to suggest that people who know better than the electorate should take over. The outcome is usually horrific. Wittering on about the awful effect of the House of Lords is the political concerns of a hundred years ago: the Parliament Act, both as a weapon and as a deterrent, sees to that. Political parties have been able to run on radical manifestos, and have sometimes won (1945, 1979) and sometimes lost (1983). The endless cry of "oh, the media stand in the way" is cobblers: it credits newspapers with an influence that even their own advertising salesmen don't believe. Independent MPs have been elected, major parties have some from nowhere (one might suggest "The Labour Party" as an example of a party which came from nowhere over a period of barely thirty years, or "The SDP" as one that managed it in the space of a parliament) and we have managed to avoid having a coup.

Electorates are never wrong. People who drone on about the failings in our democracy (and it has plenty, just the alternatives are largely worse) rarely seem willing to do anything about it, and think that their studied cynicism makes them intellectuals.

I bet you think "Bliar" is a pretty neat word, too.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 53

OedipusTheKing

Original post by The Angry Stoic

We vote for elected officials to make decisions for us.

Does that not happen?

Not when the electoral promises differ substantially from actions when in government, and sadly that is often the case.

Reply 54

The Angry Stoic

Original post by OedipusTheKing

Not when the electoral promises differ substantially from actions when in government, and sadly that is often the case.

I know

sucks

We have to criticise more heavily those who go back on their word in politics.

Reply 55

User414413

Original post by OedipusTheKing

Not when the electoral promises differ substantially from actions when in government, and sadly that is often the case.

You can't really do anything about that. Once you're in office you start to realize the complexity of the situation and the fact that comprises are going to have to be made, someone might change your mind or even find out through polling etc that going a certain way for a issue will hurt your party/yourself when election time comes.

Reply 56

wildrover

We have no real choice.

Reply 57

scrotgrot

Original post by WilliamODPannell

That's the risk you take with a representative democracy. Not everybody's views can be represented at all times, otherwise we might as well have direct democracy. And if MPs are deemed by the public to not be acting in their interests then they can be voted out in the next election, they are held accountable every few years.

You can't possibly believe that twaddle - our views are never represented, the views represented are those of powerful lobbying networks, which seek to exploit the resources of this country for quick profit, including human resources.

Nothing is sacred or incorruptible about a democracy. Our democracy is authoritarian and oppressive. There's nothing to be proud of about a democracy like that.