Voting - The Illusion of 'Choice'? Watch

Imrightyourleft
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
'Voting (or democracy) is the illusion of choice and therefore futile - it matters not who we vote for because an agenda exists among the elite, of whom intend to ultimately carry out this agenda regardless'

Firstly, do you agree with above statement? If so or if not, elaborate.

Secondly, my personal view is that democracy can work, but it has to be absolute - effectively either all or nothing. I do not believe our current, half-hearted system of democracy represents that. Either supreme power lies directly within the hands of the people, or it does not. For me, there should be no in-between or cherrypicking in a healthy democracy. In other words, I believe the way forward is direct democracy rather than what we have now - representative democracy.

I otherwise see no reason to believe that the above title of this post is untrue.

Thirdly, to those who may ask what I mean by 'the elite', I refer to 'the few', AKA 'the 1%', AKA those who hold very high, international and influential positions, sit at the top of the hierarchy and execute their decisions from behind closed doors. You know who I'm talking about - the Rothschilds, Rockafellas, some might say the Barlcay Brothers, to name a few etc. and who knows - maybe the devil himself for all I know.


Thanks for your contributions in advance.
1
reply
WhiteLivesMatter
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Do you think the far right or even far left parties are parties outside this hegemonic establishment?

They're always seen as extremist parties but their media calls them that and the media is one of their pillars of control.


Why is it that after so many countless Conservative parties in power, we never had any change to immigration? People have short memories, they blame the previous Labour government when they're all as guilty.

What about foreign policy it seems wherever America is involved in causing trouble that Britain follows it.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I don't agree. Representative democracy is the least worst option, IMO. Direct democracy risks being the tyranny of the majority. The public can have a tendency to react instinctively and irrationally to moral panics, lashing out with consideration. We'd never have legalised homosexuality, and the death penalty would be back. Quite possibly specifically for sex offenders, too.

Additionally, the public can be quite bad at being internally consistent. Policy would be everywhere; look at California, a State which has been in a terrible condition for the last decade or so precisely because the public kept voting for lower taxes but also for increased spending. Nobody balanced the books.

Ultimately the problem is that direct democracy leaves nobody to be responsible for government. At least in representative democracy we have someone to hold to account and punish electorally. If it's the fault of the people through a referendum, then nobody's at fault, really; what do you do? It's the tragedy of the commons: nobody wants to step up to the bat because they'll get all the blame and none of the credit, even though the reverse is likely true.

Even the Ancients recognised these problems, which is just why representative democracy came about. Direct democracy can be unfair, too. In Greece, it basically helped the 1%, as they were the ones with the best location and free time to attend the legislative assembly, while the workers were busy working, and the farmers were too far away to join in. Hence why Greek democracy was erratic and short-lived, while the Roman Republic survived for centuries.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Imrightyourleft)
'Voting (or democracy) is the illusion of choice and therefore futile - it matters not who we vote for because an agenda exists among the elite, of whom intend to ultimately carry out this agenda regardless'

Firstly, do you agree with above statement? If so or if not, elaborate.

Secondly, my personal view is that democracy can work, but it has to be absolute - effectively either all or nothing. I do not believe our current, half-hearted system of democracy represents that. Either supreme power lies directly within the hands of the people, or it does not. For me, there should be no in-between or cherrypicking in a healthy democracy. In other words, I believe the way forward is direct democracy rather than what we have now - representative democracy.

I otherwise see no reason to believe that the above title of this post is untrue.

Thirdly, to those who may ask what I mean by 'the elite', I refer to 'the few', AKA 'the 1%', AKA those who hold very high, international and influential positions, sit at the top of the hierarchy and execute their decisions from behind closed doors. You know who I'm talking about - the Rothschilds, Rockafellas, some might say the Barlcay Brothers, to name a few etc. and who knows - maybe the devil himself for all I know.


Thanks for your contributions in advance.
What is the agenda of elites and why should we oppose it?
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
I don't agree with the statement per se. I would broaden the definition of an illegitimate or false.democracy.

As far as I'm concerns in order to have a fit and proper democracy (direct, representive, whatever) requires an electorate that needs to be a) fully informed of the facts surrounding any decision b) the ability to process and critically examine that information to make a logical and considered decision.

Now I believe it is in the interest of some in our society to make that as difficult as possible. That is normally achieved by primarily sub standard education but also by making that information difficult to find and interpret as well as providing an overload of conflicting information and a political system which is incredibly adept at de-legitimising opposition.
1
reply
landscape2014
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Imrightyourleft)
'Voting (or democracy) is the illusion of choice and therefore futile - it matters not who we vote for because an agenda exists among the elite, of whom intend to ultimately carry out this agenda regardless'

Firstly, do you agree with above statement? If so or if not, elaborate.

Secondly, my personal view is that democracy can work, but it has to be absolute - effectively either all or nothing. I do not believe our current, half-hearted system of democracy represents that. Either supreme power lies directly within the hands of the people, or it does not. For me, there should be no in-between or cherrypicking in a healthy democracy. In other words, I believe the way forward is direct democracy rather than what we have now - representative democracy.

I otherwise see no reason to believe that the above title of this post is untrue.

Thirdly, to those who may ask what I mean by 'the elite', I refer to 'the few', AKA 'the 1%', AKA those who hold very high, international and influential positions, sit at the top of the hierarchy and execute their decisions from behind closed doors. You know who I'm talking about - the Rothschilds, Rockafellas, some might say the Barlcay Brothers, to name a few etc. and who knows - maybe the devil himself for all I know.


Thanks for your contributions in advance.
'Voting (or democracy) is the illusion of choice and therefore futile - it matters not who we vote for because an agenda exists among the elite, of whom intend to ultimately carry out this agenda regardless'

I agree that ’democracy ’ is an illusion but voting (however ineffective it is, using FPTP, in reflecting the true representation of a constituency’s political dispositions ) need not be. Scrupulously recorded votes (for one or against all candidates) can give a true indication of the support for or disenchantment with the electoral system but only if the bulk of the electorate vote. Totalitarian and oligarchic governments employ electoral systems (remember the defunct communist states) to legitimize their control. Democracy, direct or representative, relies on an interested and informed electorate to flourish - we get the politicians we deserve because we allow our ‘representatives’ to be chosen for us (not even directly by the local area party members - they like the electorate are presented with candidates chosen for them by the selection committees). So the party system is not organised on democratic principles. With their relatively small number of members they could use direct democracy to select their candidates - they don‘t because that would put power in the hands of the members rather than the hierarchy. Our politicians don‘t believe in democracy they believe in a paternalistic mandated oligarchy. The bulk of electors appear to accept that the un-democratic participatory mandate first past the post election system where candidates are selected for them by the various party establishments not directly by the party members and about 60% of the total constituency electorate are denied representation for life produces a representative democratic form of government. Voting is our opportunity of subscribing to the status quo or registering our dissatisfaction with it, no more, no less which may be acceptable but democracy it isn‘t.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are your favourite crisps?

Kettle Chips (38)
15.97%
McCoys Salt and Vinegar (17)
7.14%
McCoys Flame Grilled Steak (17)
7.14%
Walkers Prawn Cockail (26)
10.92%
Monster Munch (18)
7.56%
Pringles (62)
26.05%
Walkers Oven Baked Crisps (14)
5.88%
Walkers Beef and Onion (3)
1.26%
Thai Sweet Chili Sensations (43)
18.07%

Watched Threads

View All