Yes democracy is flawed. The people get the government they deserve though.

Hang on! I don't get the government I deserve, but yes the majority of people get a government that is very much like them, FUBAR!

It's nice to see that you have moved on from your previous obsessive worrying about biblical sized floods kaesae.

And [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/stellar-realignment-theory ]Stellar Realignment[/url]

And since I do not vote I'll shut up and stop whining. Maybe if I really cared about it, I'd actually vote.

FTFY.

Elective dictatorship.

I'm becoming so cynical and bitter in my old age. I could crush a grape

Totally agree with OP

Also I refuse to vote I will not give credibility to a system that then assumes my right to be involved with the running of my life, especially when these days politicians are completely corrupt or about as useful as break dancing on your own nuts.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Maybe if I really cared about it, I'd actually vote.
FTFY.

LOL.. and then I woke up and there was brasso everywhere

agree with OP

Under logical analysis and intensive scrutiny, does modern democracy actually have any right to be called democracy.

Yes.
But assuming that all the faults that you list were fixed, and it became the perfect pure literal democracy, it would still be basically tyranny of the masses by another name.

Politics and voting is too me like a stranger asking me for my car keys, I don't **** ing know them I've never **** ing met them and I ain't giving them shit!

Sorry but almost no politicians for the past 500 years have had a clue about developing a country or enlightening a society, name one government that when removed from power hadn't been a bunch of complete and utter **** UP'S

If only a small percentage of individuals turn out for an election because the majority of people do not believe in the system

Well, it is flawed, but not for that reason. You don't vote, but you CAN vote. You can also stand for election, or organise a party. So no excuses there.

However the real problem with democracy is education. People have to have the facilities to make an informed decision, and politics and government is so complicated that it's just too difficult and/or too much effort for everyone to get properly involved. Even opposition politicians don't really have all the facts and answers.

So they say stuff that sounds good during elections, and then they see what they can actually do when they get in.

The biggest factor in the result of a democratic election is the state of the economy, which is pretty much a global thing and has little to do with the government.

Govts make decisions that take decades to gradually and subtly affect the way the world works, and only in conjunction with what other govts around the world do. So it's almost impossible to base a decision on manifestos.

Therefore the only way to vote is to do so on either competency or ideological grounds, or both.

Sorry but almost no politicians for the past 500 years have had a clue about developing a country or enlightening a society

That's not the point of a government. That stuff is up to US.

I miss TJ I think.

Sorry but almost no politicians for the past 500 years have had a clue about developing a country or enlightening a society

Good point - I blame the Roundheads.

name one government that when removed from power hadn't been a bunch of complete and utter **** UP'S

They're only human.

where is this democracy thing you talk of? you don't mean the good old uk do you? haven't you read orwell?

Maybe if you really cared enough to support your local politician, you would vote, right so I go I line up in a que the old fashioned way for fun or I vote online.

What if nothing happens do I get my vote back? what if they don't have a clue about money, because if they did they would get into business.

The problem I have is that after I vote I agree that I no longer have a say in the running of my life, I am no longer involved in making decisions that affect me! is that democracy.

Where we have the right to vote, but we are told who we can and cannot vote for and where every decision is made without our consent or input.

I can tell you now and categorically that those who are in charge do not have my confidence, my support or my best interests at heart.

I abstain from the voting system and I reiterate, that this is not a democracy but a dictatorship in disguise.

majority of people do not believe in the system

The problem is not belief in the system the problem is apathy towards the process of democracy.

I think there are a few reasons why people are apathetic towards politics:

1. Lots of folks in this country are relatively happy with their lot and so not motivated to try and change things.

2. The parties have all moved towards the centre because that's where the greatest number of voters lie. This means they all look a bit alike bolstering the notion that 'it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in'

It's not a dictatorship, obviously, and I think you do a disservice to the memory of all those people who've ever struggled with actual dictatorships.

A dictatorship is where one person does whatever he or she likes, with no comeback.

Currently, if politicians mess up, they get voted out.

That's the difference.

And they can't all ask you personally what you would like them to do. Sadly not practical.

The problem I have is that after I vote I agree that I no longer have a say in the running of my life, I am no longer involved in making decisions that affect me! is that democracy.

Yes. That's democracy. You elect representatives to take the decisions for you.

We vote for parties that have their own agenda's, so once in power their allegiance shifts from us to the success of the party.

Democracy has been hijacked. Our apathy caused it. Hijacked by those who finance political parties. Before anyone says "unions", they were brash about the power they held and suffered the consequences, the current crop of financial backers of all the main parties up until recently have remained quiet. Even when these people or organisations are are exposed, like tax exile Philip Green, we get angry and do nothing else.

We won't have a better democracy (not perfect) until others agendas are removed in place of the majority. Unfortunately this has also been hijacked, by the current crop of backers. They have brainwashed people into believing their "concerns" are ours. And so we throw away our terms and conditions year on year, in the hope that financial nirvana will return to us. Trouble is, that nirvana is reserved only for the most wealthy among us.

Always look on the bright side of life and all that.

They have brainwashed people into believing their "concerns" are ours.

Er, they have a point, to a degree. The money they get, they spend on goods and services. It doens't vanish.

Yes. That's democracy. You elect representatives to take the decisions for you.

That's only one aspect of it. Making decisions is another aspect. Although not so much in the limited form of the democracy which exists at the present.

a dictatorship in disguise.

So who is the individual running Britain then if we are a dictatorship?

So who is the individual running Britain then if we are a dictatorship?

A dictatorship doesn't have to be an individual.

The obvious example is a junta.

[img] [/img]

And he's a scouser which should keep kaesae happy.

The nice thing about a democracy is that if you don't like it you have a choice:

Ignore it and don't vote.

Vote for someone/something that you feel to be the least worst option.

Or...

Stand for election yourself.

Please note that if you choose the first option you have won the right to be ignored.

[quote=Spin ]
The problem is not belief in the system the problem is apathy towards the process of democracy.
I think there are a few reasons why people are apathetic towards politics:
1. Lots of folks in this country are relatively happy with their lot and so not motivated to try and change things.
2. The parties have all moved towards the centre because that's where the greatest number of voters lie. This means they all look a bit alike bolstering the notion that 'it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in'
This. When I first became aware of politics, there was a sense of "us and them", the Left vs the Right. That has largely disappeared.

Without getting into the pros and cons of Scottish Independence, at least in Scotland there is still one fundamental division which is causing folk to get a bit more involved in politics and the politicians they elect.

If [b]only a small percentage of individuals turn out for an election because the majority of people do not believe in the system[/B], or if votes are shared between different parties, then how can there be a majority vote?

Stopped reading after this innacurate piece of twoddle.

Average turnout for general elections in the UK since 1945 is over well 70%

[quote=muddy@rseguy ]
Stand for election yourself.
+1

A dictatorship doesn't have to be an individual.

I know that. Is there a junta running the UK?

I know that.

I was misled by you asking 'who is the individual running Britain then if we are a dictatorship'.

This. When I first became aware of politics, there was a sense of "us and them", the Left vs the Right. That has largely disappeared.

And why? Because both parties wanted to get as many votes as possible. The middle ground has the most voters.

Democracy in action. We're likely to find the average of all political positions, which you might argue is a good thing, since you're not always fighting extremes. We found the country's natural alignmnet, which is still different to many other countries so it is not a non-position.

Now - that national average middle position can still be influenced by plenty of things.. over a long period I think...

[quote=molgrips ] We're likely to find the average of all political positions, which you might argue is a good thing, since you're not always fighting extremes. We found the country's natural alignmnet, which is still different to many other countries so it is not a non-position.
I agree - "we get the government we vote for".

Which largely defeats kaseaes argument

Spin - Member
A dictatorship doesn't have to be an individual.
I know that. Is there a junta running the UK?

Yes but you spelt it wrong

I was misled by you asking who is the individual running Britain then if we are a dictatorship

I was being lazy by assuming that I didn't really have to define dictatorship in asking if 'Britain is a dictatorship who is / are the dictator(s)'.

Because both parties wanted to get as many votes as possible. The middle ground has the most voters.

Because both parties wanted the votes of the "floating voters".

The floating voters are a small minority who get to decide which way an election swings, and generally have little understanding of politics compared to committed voters.

Yes but you spelt it wrong

I'm more of a sourdough man myself.

I was being lazy by assuming that I didn't really have to define dictatorship in asking if 'Britain is a dictatorship who is / are the dictator(s)

Well a dictatorship can be any like minded group which shares a common interest. Including an entire class.

[quote=ernie_lynch ]The floating voters are a small minority who get to decide which way an election swings, and generally [s]have little understanding of politics compared to committed voters.[/s] don't agree with my politics
FTFY

Well a dictatorship can be any like minded group which shares a common interest.

Like, say, your local parish council?

No you haven't fixed it for me druidh - floating voters often agree with "my politics".

The clue is in the term "floating voters".

Rupert Murdoch?
Seems to have a lot of power and influence.

Like, say, your local parish council?

Whatever you like. White rule under Apartheid was a dictatorship. HTH

[quote=ernie_lynch ]No you haven't fixed it for me druidh - floating voters often agree with "my politics".
Aye - but that's just a lucky coincidence, wot with them not being as sophisticated as wot you are.

I think we're mostly ok until the voting floaters start to sway election results.

Down with teh floating voters, that's what I say

Dear god kaesae, what're you, 14 or something? Shouldn't you be writing some whiny poetry about that girl you'll never ****ing talk to instead of this inane claptrap?

So.. what can be done?

wot them not being as sophisticated as wot you are.

You need to read what I post if you want to comment. Let me help you "compared to committed voters", you know, the bit which you crossed out from my post. That includes committed Tory voters btw, in case you're wondering.

druidh 😆

I dunno, isn't floaty jobbies a sign of too much/not enough something in the diet?

Ok, forget I just said the word "diet".

Whatever you like. White rule under Apartheid was a dictatorship

That's not a great example of a dictatorship. Dominant minority or minority rule would be a better definition of the system of government in apartheid South Africa.

Stop bloody bickering, this thread was an interesting political discourse until the last few posts.

[quote=deadlydarcy ]druidh
I dunno, isn't floaty jobbies a sign of too much/not enough something in the diet?
Ok, forget I just said the word "diet".
Is that a banning offence...

...yet?

That's not a great example of a dictatorship.

It's an excellent example of a dictatorship, ie, where one group dictates to the rest of society.

Is that a banning offence...
...yet?

Only if you're on the iBan scheme.

It's an excellent example of a dictatorship, ie, where one group dictates to the rest of society.

I disagree as the government of apartheid SA was elected (albeit by a minority) and did not rule by decree. The fact that the majority of the population was disenfranchised does not make it a dictatorship but minority rule.

By the definition you offer pre universal suffrage Britain was a dictatorship.

By the definition you offer pre universal suffrage Britain was a dictatorship.

You might be starting to understand.

The modz Iron Fist rule of STW Forums could be described as a form of benign dictatorship.

It's an excellent example of a dictatorship, ie, where one group dictates to the rest of society.

I think I see where the confusion has arisen here.

As I understand it when we talk of a dictatorship being a 'group' it doesn't mean a societal or ethnic group like whites in SA or men in pre-suffrage Britain. It refers to a governmental group such as the Soviet Politburo.

Is our democracy flawed?

This depends entirely on the purpose of it.
If it's to represent the people of the country in the control of their destiny, then yes probably.
If it's to appease the majority whilst preventing serious change and enabling minority rule, then it's very effective.
IMO, it's more an instrument for stability than representation.
When was the last time we had a Government representing the majority of the voters, let alone the majority of the population?
The problem, for me , is that it's never in the interests of the ruling party (s) to change the system to make it more representative.

[img] [/img]

That said, I'll keep voting 'cos it's the only system we've got and it could be a lot worse.

You might be starting to understand.

I see. It was your own definition of dictatorship you were using and not just that you didn't understand the common definition of the word.

It was your own definition of dictatorship

Yours too surely. I feel certain that you wouldn't claim Britain before all adults had a vote was a democracy.

[quote=ernie_lynch ] Let me help you "compared to committed voters", you know, the bit which you crossed out from my post. That includes committed Tory voters btw, in case you're wondering.
Surely the floating voters actually understand politics [b]more[/b] than the "committed voters" as they actually consider what they're voting for and not just what colour of rosette the nice man/woman on the telly/at the door was wearing.

Yours too surely. I feel certain that you wouldn't claim Britain before all adults had a vote was a democracy.

There are all sorts of shades of grey between democracy and dictatorship and the absence of universal suffrage does not make a country a dictatorship but rather some form of partial democracy.

If you want a label for pre suffrage Britain then perhaps patriarchy would do.

Won't someone think of the children?

What do you call it when only adults are allowed to vote?

Surely the floating voters actually understand politics more than the "committed voters" as they actually consider what they're voting for and not just what colour of rosette the nice man/woman on the telly/at the door was wearing.

Well that's not my opinion based on my experience, obviously yours is different, and I can see by the way you keep returning to the subject that this seems to bother you 🙂

Yep, for me people who have some political commitment, including Tory voters/supporters, generally have a greater interest and understanding of politics, compared to those who regularly change their opinions based on what they have just read or how some individual preformed on the telly the night before.

Won't someone think of the children?

Big Eck is.

IMO, it's more an instrument for stability than representation.

This is a good point. I think stability is more important that representation.

[i]Yep, for me people who have some political commitment, including Tory voters/supporters, generally have a greater interest and understanding of politics, compared to those who regularly change their opinions based on what they have just read or how some individual has preformed on the telly the night before.[/i]

..yet still vote for the same political party.

Which typifies politics in the UK, and means that no real change will ever occur. The current 'We are the blue side of the coin, who you voted in when you got fed up of the red side of the same coin' is a perfect example.

yet still vote for the same political party.

Yes, the floating voter simply tips the scale in favour of one of the two maim parties, that's all. Which is why they are so important to the two main parties, even though they might be small in number.

I don't see why turning 18 qualifies anyone to vote. I didn't understand or care about politics the day before my 18th, and I didn't understand or care the day after.

People complain all the time about stuff the government does. But it's probably a really really hard job, and they're doing their best (most of the time). I don't think I could do any better.

You put one party in, some things get slightly better, and some things get slightly worse. Doesn't really seem to matter which.

Maybe this is a bit simplified, but like I said, I don't really care that much. I think even if I could vote via the computer or phone or something in a matter of seconds I still wouldn't.

Is modern Democracy fundametaly flawed?

Yes

Is it even a democracy?

Not really.

I've been struggling to remember a quote from Clive James, of all people, the TV critic. He was commenting on apartheid in SA and said something along the lines of 'The longer this situation goes on, the more likely it is that the inevitable revolution will be led by fanatics instead of moderates'.

The gist of it remains true in that the longer a compromised and essentially English ruling political elite are allowed to stage manage and direct a political system which benifits them above all else, the more likely that when a change comes it will be led by people who will move us as far away from that system as they can.

Who killed Plato?

The gist of it remains true in that the longer a compromised and essentially English ruling political elite are allowed to stage manage and direct a political system which benifits them above all else, the more likely that when a change comes it will be led by people who will move us as far away from that system as they can.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here? That we're heading for a revolution?

The white leaders in SA were largely of Dutch extraction not english (althought they played their part).

Clive James' quote was true of SA at that time and probably not intended as a generalisation on what you call 'english' political systems.

Churchill misquote: "Democracy is the worst system of government, apart from all the others"

"Is modern democracy fundamentally flawed?"

Easy-yes.
1)AFAIK in ancient Athenian democracy only the generals were appointed on merit.Other governement positions were drawn by lot wiping out the self serving political classes.
2)Democracy is flawed because it allowed people like Hitler to get power quite legally.Did the millions of executed German Jews ,Communists,disidents trade unionists,gypsies etc get the governemnt they deserved?
I think not

ernie_lynch - Member
So who is the individual running Britain then if we are a dictatorship?
A dictatorship doesn't have to be an individual.

The obvious example is a junta.

eton mafia innit

eton mafia innit