[Closed] Is modern Democracy fundametaly flawed?

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

yes, but it's better than living in mud huts and being terrified of the sun god in the sky.

I miss TJ....you lot are sh1t at arguing.

@kaesea, if you don't vote you have no voice and in my view no right to comment. Not voting isn't a "protest" it isn't making any kind of statement, it's simply opting out an shirking your responsibility. You and others might not care about politics but I assume you do care about what this country is like to live in. You are one creating an "elite" by not participating.

The time you have spent posting on here would be far better spent voting.

+1 to all that stuff about floating voters and winning them over with some exciting topical stuff in your new spangly election manifesto.

I would add that the floating voter bit is all the worse since it is only the floating voters in marginal-ish seats that clinch it. Floating voters in safe seats make no difference at all to general election results in FPTP.

You could have a 'swing' of 15,000 votes in my constituency and still not shift the current MP as it is a hugely safe seat. Meanwhile in the adjacent constituency, (with the many of the same local issues/employers etc) voting has always been more close ,and over the years the change from conservative to labour to conservative could have been made with swings of just 6-700 votes.

Democracy is flawed because it allowed people like Hitler to get power quite legally

Dear me what a poor argument. Genocide isn't legal even if you're in power!

Loum hit upon a good point up there. PR FTW!

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.

What has happened to Kaesae? it used to be all spouting forth about bearings for bikes and denigrating the Royal Mail for mislaying parcels. Now all this Higher Grade modern studies nonsense?

Kaesae - you need to ask a sensible structured question to get a sensible answer.

For a start - what do you mean by "modern democracy" ? In the Peoples Democratic Republic of China they hold democratic elections (Tick box A to vote for the Communist Party, tick box B to vote against the Communist Party, and have your entire family sent to labour camps).

They get a good turnout.

By "flawed" do you mean, not achieving what it is designed to achieve ? Our system of democratic elections in the UK is designed to elect representatives to conduct the administration required to run a country. Under those terms, it seems to be working fine.

You may not like the outcome, but that doesn't make the democratic system flawed. As others have pointed out, it's the best we have. Are you really suggesting every single administrative decision of government should be run over your desk first ?

What is it about politics that eludes those who do not consistantly vote for one party? What is the deeper understanding that those who always vote for the same party hold?

No single answer...

Many vote for the party their parents voted for... Is that just laziness / indoctrination? Possibly

Or does it reflect consistency in principles and values within that family group?

I have always voted consistently for the same party. That party is still the party that best represents the mix of values that I hold close as my personal set of values. It's is far from a perect match, but that will always be the case.

I'd be more concerned about the millions of the British public that follow whatever a particular tabloid tells them to do... 🙁

What is it about politics that eludes those who do not consistantly vote for one party? What is the deeper understanding that those who always vote for the same party hold?

No single answer...

Many vote for the party their parents voted for... Is that just laziness / indoctrination? Possibly

Or does it reflect consistency in principles and values within that family group?

I have always voted consistently for the same party. That party is still the party that best represents the mix of values that I hold close as my personal set of values. It's is far from a perect match, but that will always be the case.

I'd be more concerned about the millions of the British public that follow whatever a particular tabloid tells them to do... 🙁