Do We Live in a Democracy?

We vote for elected officials to make decisions for us.

Does that not happen?

Reply 2

The UK is a representative democracy. Officials representing our views and interests in Parliament all recieve majorities in the General Election. I'm interested as to how you'd argue that the UK is not a democracy...

Reply 3

OP

Original post by The Angry Stoic

We vote for elected officials to make decisions for us.

Does that not happen?

When the definitions are vague, I have no choice but to agree.

However, we don't vote for civil servants and they play a great deal in policy formulation and decision making.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by WilliamODPannell

The UK is a representative democracy. Officials representing our views and interests in Parliament all recieve majorities in the General Election. I'm interested as to how you'd argue that the UK is not a democracy...

I'm not sure that a majority house voting for the Iraq War (or whatever one might find disagreeable) is representative of "our" views and interests.

Reply 5

Original post by Extremotroph

When the definitions are vague, I have no choice but to agree.

However, we don't vote for civil servants and they play a great deal in policy formulation and decision making.

They are supervised and ultimately controlled by those we vote in though.

We have to sacrifice total democracy for efficientcy.

Reply 6

Original post by Extremotroph

I'm not sure that a majority house voting for the Iraq War (or whatever one might find disagreeable) is representative of "our" views and interests.

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.

Reply 7

OP

Original post by The Angry Stoic

They are supervised and ultimately controlled by those we vote in though.

We have to sacrifice total democracy for efficientcy.

It was my understanding, I could be wrong, that civil servants take a supervising role pertaining to procedural and legal matters. Since they are the ones with experience in governmental procedure and beauracracy, I would imagine them to be the supervisors. That's not to say that they control the politicians that are elected to government.

What is total democracy?

Reply 8

Original post by Extremotroph

It was my understanding, I could be wrong, that civil servants take a supervising role pertaining to procedural and legal matters. Since they are the ones with experience in governmental procedure and beauracracy, I would imagine them to be the supervisors. That's not to say that they control the politicians that are elected to government.

What is total democracy?

Civil servants, for the most part, work in Government departments. Headed by some kind of cabinet minister, the ministers are held responsible for the actions of that department.

Also I think total democracy is the same as direct democracy, correct me if i'm wrong though.

Reply 9

Original post by Extremotroph

It was my understanding, I could be wrong, that civil servants take a supervising role pertaining to procedural and legal matters. Since they are the ones with experience in governmental procedure and beauracracy, I would imagine them to be the supervisors. That's not to say that they control the politicians that are elected to government.

What is total democracy?

Well democracy means rule by the people so I suppose you could say total democracy would be every single political decision is decided by a vote by the entire electorate. Which would be disastrous for obvious reasons.

It worked in ancient Athens but only because the electorate was so small and selective.

Reply 10

OP

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.

That's quite true, that representative democracy doesn't represent everyone...

Do you identify with any party? Personally I feel that no political party represents my interests.

Yes that is correct that MP's are held accountable through elections, however, the way the electorate vote is quite interesting. For example, I imagine that people identify more with the party leaders than their MP's, but this is sentence is just pure speculation.

Reply 11

Contempt

6

We live in a state where we get to vote on which colour tie our leader should wear. As far as I can see; not much else changes, they're all crony capitalists (or as I like to call them: crapitalists).

Reply 12

Original post by Extremotroph

That's quite true, that representative democracy doesn't represent everyone...

Do you identify with any party? Personally I feel that no political party represents my interests.

Yes that is correct that MP's are held accountable through elections, however, the way the electorate vote is quite interesting. For example, I imagine that people identify more with the party leaders than their MP's, but this is sentence is just pure speculation.

The point of representative democracy is not for everybody to have a politician and a party representing their interests, voter apathy isn't a symptom of an undemocratic system, it's a symptom of the coming together of party ideology. As it stands the interests of the majority of people in any given constituency are represented by an MP. I would argue that a PR based voting system would make the system fairer. But as it is the MPs are still representing views.
You're arguing that we don't live in a democracy, whether people vote for an MP or the Party Leader, or even the colour of the party badge is irrelevant. The fact is that anyone eligible can register and then vote for an MP...

Reply 13

OP

Original post by The Angry Stoic

Well democracy means rule by the people so I suppose you could say total democracy would be every single political decision is decided by a vote by the entire electorate. Which would be disastrous for obvious reasons.

It worked in ancient Athens but only because the electorate was so small and selective.

Yes, it is arguable that direct democracy might be inefficient... however I do believe that we now possess the technology (the internets) to carry out such a system. e.g. log in with your national insurance and cast your vote... perhaps taxes decrease if you vote more often.

However we don't have such a thing.

Reply 14

Original post by Extremotroph

Yes, it is arguable that direct democracy might be inefficient... however I do believe that we now possess the technology (the internets) to carry out such a system. e.g. log in with your national insurance and cast your vote... perhaps taxes decrease if you vote more often.

However we don't have such a thing.

Referenda are pretty similar to what you're describing. Every registered voter can have their say in the matter. Sure we don't have that many, but that's because a General Election is essentially a massive referendum on many many issues. And are you saying if people vote then they should be taxed less? That's a pretty poor idea... Then people will vote on everything they can, there'll be pointless votes being started so that the public can save money on their taxes. The country'll be run into the ground.

Reply 15

Original post by Extremotroph

Yes, it is arguable that direct democracy might be inefficient... however I do believe that we now possess the technology (the internets) to carry out such a system. e.g. log in with your national insurance and cast your vote... perhaps taxes decrease if you vote more often.

However we don't have such a thing.

It's not so much whether we have the ability technologically but mentally. There's tonnes of legislation that needs to be passed that the general public wont understand or care about.

Reply 16

OP

Original post by WilliamODPannell

The point of representative democracy is not for everybody to have a politician and a party representing their interests, voter apathy isn't a symptom of an undemocratic system, it's a symptom of the coming together of party ideology. As it stands the interests of the majority of people in any given constituency are represented by an MP. I would argue that a PR based voting system would make the system fairer. But as it is the MPs are still representing views.
You're arguing that we don't live in a democracy, whether people vote for an MP or the Party Leader, or even the colour of the party badge is irrelevant. The fact is that anyone eligible can register and then vote for an MP...

I believe that this "coming together of party ideology", for example, privatisation, Iraq, the 2008 bailout, economic cuts, is contrary to a working democracy and thus such a reality is undemocratic.

The MP is not necessarily in complete submission to the views of his constituents, considering that we have noted that different people have different perspectives and cannot all be represented. The MP must also remain loyal to his party adding a further clash in representation.

I'm arguing that we don't live in a democracy, but until we both have an understanding of democracy then I can't really get my point across.

Reply 17

OP

Original post by WilliamODPannell

Referenda are pretty similar to what you're describing. Every registered voter can have their say in the matter. Sure we don't have that many, but that's because a General Election is essentially a massive referendum on many many issues. And are you saying if people vote then they should be taxed less? That's a pretty poor idea... Then people will vote on everything they can, there'll be pointless votes being started so that the public can save money on their taxes. The country'll be run into the ground.

That's true but when was the last time the UK had a referendum?

I disagree that it's a poor idea. Your reasoning is hyperbole and not based in objective truth.

Reply 18

Original post by Extremotroph

I believe that this "coming together of party ideology", for example, privatisation, Iraq, the 2008 bailout, economic cuts, is contrary to a working democracy and thus such a reality is undemocratic.

The MP is not necessarily in complete submission to the views of his constituents, considering that we have noted that different people have different perspectives and cannot all be represented. The MP must also remain loyal to his party adding a further clash in representation.

I'm arguing that we don't live in a democracy, but until we both have an understanding of democracy then I can't really get my point across.

The coming together of ideologies bears no relation to the relative democratic nature of the system. There is still a choice between 3 (you could argue that) main parties. There are also smaller parties and national parties which gain representation. Caroline Lucas was voted in as a Green MP in Brighton and people stand as independents too, so it's not as if voters have to choose between 3 of the same type of yes man MP.
And yes, MPs do have to listen to party whips, but that's the nature of party rule. If there was no party system to coordinate MPs then the system would be far too inefficient. The idea of the MP is not to represent every view of every person on every matter. They take into account their knowledge and advisors, and listen to the majority of their constituents.
Alright, how are you going to define democracy?
I'd say the OED is a pretty good place to go for definitions, right? "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives"

Reply 19