FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > True meaning of Democracy
True meaning of Democracy
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? " Yes. Mass dissatisfaction with a political party will cause a change of government. If things haven't changed then the party winning 19 times is seen by the voting majority as the best choice. | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? Yes. Mass dissatisfaction with a political party will cause a change of government. If things haven't changed then the party winning 19 times is seen by the voting majority as the best choice. " Ok so let me ask a different question, is there any real point to it? Elections are not free of cost, both financial and in the social division they create. Is the cost worth it to get a different party for 3/60 years? | |||
| |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? Yes. Mass dissatisfaction with a political party will cause a change of government. If things haven't changed then the party winning 19 times is seen by the voting majority as the best choice. Ok so let me ask a different question, is there any real point to it? Elections are not free of cost, both financial and in the social division they create. Is the cost worth it to get a different party for 3/60 years? " Yes.... see the above. If a party does a good enough job...it gets back in. If it fails then it gets booted out. That's how it works. | |||
"It's normally every 5 years but yes it is vital to do so. A government is held to account by the public at an election. If they fail badly enough then they will be voted out. See 1997 and 2010 for details. Trouble is around 20% will always vote Tory and 20% will always vote Labour, even if one party put up Jesus as a candidate and the other put up Hermann Goring. So elections always come down to the swing voters like me who change their vote based on party policies and manifesto pledges. If they are not upset enough to change sides then the government is unlikely to change. " See now you are getting to the point I'm hinting at. Are swing voters the heart of democracy then? | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? Yes. Mass dissatisfaction with a political party will cause a change of government. If things haven't changed then the party winning 19 times is seen by the voting majority as the best choice. Ok so let me ask a different question, is there any real point to it? Elections are not free of cost, both financial and in the social division they create. Is the cost worth it to get a different party for 3/60 years? " Yes !!! | |||
"It's normally every 5 years but yes it is vital to do so. A government is held to account by the public at an election. If they fail badly enough then they will be voted out. See 1997 and 2010 for details. Trouble is around 20% will always vote Tory and 20% will always vote Labour, even if one party put up Jesus as a candidate and the other put up Hermann Goring. So elections always come down to the swing voters like me who change their vote based on party policies and manifesto pledges. If they are not upset enough to change sides then the government is unlikely to change. See now you are getting to the point I'm hinting at. Are swing voters the heart of democracy then? " If there were no swing voters then nothing would ever change so I suppose we must be. There are times when I could bang my head on the wall to see people vote for a party because their dad did or because of something another party did in 1863. Let's face it, the Tories bought in section 28 but the current party wouldn't so I can hardly be dumb enough to hold that up as a reason not to vote for them now. More recently Gordon Brown sold a crap load of our gold reserve at rock bottom price but I don't hold thay against today's Labour party, that would be equally dumb. People should vote for the party that has the best policies for them. If more people did so, politics would be FAR more interesting and politicians would have to work far harder to get our votes. | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? Yes. Mass dissatisfaction with a political party will cause a change of government. If things haven't changed then the party winning 19 times is seen by the voting majority as the best choice. Ok so let me ask a different question, is there any real point to it? Elections are not free of cost, both financial and in the social division they create. Is the cost worth it to get a different party for 3/60 years? Yes !!!" Why? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just out of interest, did anyone get which country i was indirectly referring to? " . What China?. Doesnt count, its a completely different culture, China is more like early 19th century Victorian UK | |||
"Just out of interest, did anyone get which country i was indirectly referring to? . What China?. Doesnt count, its a completely different culture, China is more like early 19th century Victorian UK" Nope, try again  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Hong Kong" Japan | |||
"Hong Kong Japan" . Weirdos  | |||
"Hong Kong Japan. Weirdos "It's a culture that prizes stability. Since you indicated that even British democracy is really a choice between "two and a half" parties. Which country do you think is the most democratic? | |||
| |||
"Hong Kong Japan. Weirdos
It's a culture that prizes stability. Since you indicated that even British democracy is really a choice between "two and a half" parties. Which country do you think is the most democratic? ". No were run by the rich for the rich. The Japanese and the Chinese are run by the rich for the benefit of everybody | |||
"Again in all seriousness you cant compare the Orient to western countries, there culturally? completely different. And whats more they wont tolerate multi culturalism like the West does" Japan doesn't. China does. China even has different laws for different racial groups or regions, basically all perks. Ethnic minorities were allowed more babies when the one child policy was in force. Hong Kong gets special privileges and don't get me started on taiwan. | |||
"Again in all seriousness you cant compare the Orient to western countries, there culturally? completely different. And whats more they wont tolerate multi culturalism like the West does Japan doesn't. China does. China even has different laws for different racial groups or regions, basically all perks. Ethnic minorities were allowed more babies when the one child policy was in force. Hong Kong gets special privileges and don't get me started on taiwan. " . Why, is Taiwan like Gibraltar  | |||
"Again in all seriousness you cant compare the Orient to western countries, there culturally? completely different. And whats more they wont tolerate multi culturalism like the West does Japan doesn't. China does. China even has different laws for different racial groups or regions, basically all perks. Ethnic minorities were allowed more babies when the one child policy was in force. Hong Kong gets special privileges and don't get me started on taiwan. . Why, is Taiwan like Gibraltar "It's like a foresome involving Gibraltar, Spain, Catalonia and Scotland. | |||
"Again in all seriousness you cant compare the Orient to western countries, there culturally? completely different. And whats more they wont tolerate multi culturalism like the West does Japan doesn't. China does. China even has different laws for different racial groups or regions, basically all perks. Ethnic minorities were allowed more babies when the one child policy was in force. Hong Kong gets special privileges and don't get me started on taiwan. . Why, is Taiwan like Gibraltar
It's like a foresome involving Gibraltar, Spain, Catalonia and Scotland. ". Sounds messy,i just hope theres no deep fried Mars bars involved .
| |||
"Again in all seriousness you cant compare the Orient to western countries, there culturally? completely different. And whats more they wont tolerate multi culturalism like the West does Japan doesn't. China does. China even has different laws for different racial groups or regions, basically all perks. Ethnic minorities were allowed more babies when the one child policy was in force. Hong Kong gets special privileges and don't get me started on taiwan. . Why, is Taiwan like Gibraltar
It's like a foresome involving Gibraltar, Spain, Catalonia and Scotland. .
Sounds messy,i just hope theres no deep fried Mars bars involved .
"I'll just say this. 89% of countries in the world don't recognise taiwan as an independant country, of those that do none are in europe and it doesn't have a seat at the UN. | |||
| |||
| |||
"percentage voting or as it's known P R is the only real free and fair way ! The most Votes wins ! Simple !" I'd be more for PR if not everyone was allowed to vote or everyones vote wasn't equally weighted. This was actually the view of many enlightenment thinkers such as John Stuart Mill. | |||
"Again in all seriousness you cant compare the Orient to western countries, there culturally? completely different. And whats more they wont tolerate multi culturalism like the West does Japan doesn't. China does. China even has different laws for different racial groups or regions, basically all perks. Ethnic minorities were allowed more babies when the one child policy was in force. Hong Kong gets special privileges and don't get me started on taiwan. . Why, is Taiwan like Gibraltar
It's like a foresome involving Gibraltar, Spain, Catalonia and Scotland. .
Sounds messy,i just hope theres no deep fried Mars bars involved .
I'll just say this. 89% of countries in the world don't recognise taiwan as an independant country, of those that do none are in europe and it doesn't have a seat at the UN. ". Is it culturally? different than China or just a break away anti communist state? | |||
| |||
"Again in all seriousness you cant compare the Orient to western countries, there culturally? completely different. And whats more they wont tolerate multi culturalism like the West does Japan doesn't. China does. China even has different laws for different racial groups or regions, basically all perks. Ethnic minorities were allowed more babies when the one child policy was in force. Hong Kong gets special privileges and don't get me started on taiwan. . Why, is Taiwan like Gibraltar
It's like a foresome involving Gibraltar, Spain, Catalonia and Scotland. .
Sounds messy,i just hope theres no deep fried Mars bars involved .
I'll just say this. 89% of countries in the world don't recognise taiwan as an independant country, of those that do none are in europe and it doesn't have a seat at the UN. .
Is it culturally? different than China or just a break away anti communist state?"It is now. It was chinese and then Japan successfully invaded and occupied it. So the culture was heavily influenced by japan. That was the divergent point and then the anti-communists put their stamp on it. | |||
"I had a look at the democracy index we rank 16 and Norway tops the table.Japan is consider a flawed democracy along with the USA and a few other EU countries. Bottom of course is North korea and Syria .Its an interesting list of 116 countries." Interesting that we aren't flawed when the last time it wasn't a labour or conservative led government was world war one. | |||
"I had a look at the democracy index we rank 16 and Norway tops the table.Japan is consider a flawed democracy along with the USA and a few other EU countries. Bottom of course is North korea and Syria .Its an interesting list of 116 countries. Interesting that we aren't flawed when the last time it wasn't a labour or conservative led government was world war one. " I agree.The index of countries is divided into. 19 full democracies 57 flawed democracies 40 hybrid regimes 51 Authoritarian regimes | |||
"I had a look at the democracy index we rank 16 and Norway tops the table.Japan is consider a flawed democracy along with the USA and a few other EU countries. Bottom of course is North korea and Syria .Its an interesting list of 116 countries. Interesting that we aren't flawed when the last time it wasn't a labour or conservative led government was world war one. I agree.The index of countries is divided into. 19 full democracies 57 flawed democracies 40 hybrid regimes 51 Authoritarian regimes" Both China and Japan are considerably better at long term planning than the UK, but China is only ever 5 years away from another "bad emperor" like Mao who can ruin the country on his own. | |||
"I had a look at the democracy index we rank 16 and Norway tops the table.Japan is consider a flawed democracy along with the USA and a few other EU countries. Bottom of course is North korea and Syria .Its an interesting list of 116 countries. Interesting that we aren't flawed when the last time it wasn't a labour or conservative led government was world war one. I agree.The index of countries is divided into. 19 full democracies 57 flawed democracies 40 hybrid regimes 51 Authoritarian regimes Both China and Japan are considerably better at long term planning than the UK, but China is only ever 5 years away from another "bad emperor" like Mao who can ruin the country on his own. " Maybe Democracy has limits to how far it can take us.The Chinese model might achieve greater things long term. | |||
"I had a look at the democracy index we rank 16 and Norway tops the table.Japan is consider a flawed democracy along with the USA and a few other EU countries. Bottom of course is North korea and Syria .Its an interesting list of 116 countries. Interesting that we aren't flawed when the last time it wasn't a labour or conservative led government was world war one. I agree.The index of countries is divided into. 19 full democracies 57 flawed democracies 40 hybrid regimes 51 Authoritarian regimes Both China and Japan are considerably better at long term planning than the UK, but China is only ever 5 years away from another "bad emperor" like Mao who can ruin the country on his own. Maybe Democracy has limits to how far it can take us.The Chinese model might achieve greater things long term." I'm not sure i want to import their system anytime soon. For all democracies flaws, it never gave us anyone as bad as Mao. | |||
"I had a look at the democracy index we rank 16 and Norway tops the table.Japan is consider a flawed democracy along with the USA and a few other EU countries. Bottom of course is North korea and Syria .Its an interesting list of 116 countries. Interesting that we aren't flawed when the last time it wasn't a labour or conservative led government was world war one. I agree.The index of countries is divided into. 19 full democracies 57 flawed democracies 40 hybrid regimes 51 Authoritarian regimes Both China and Japan are considerably better at long term planning than the UK, but China is only ever 5 years away from another "bad emperor" like Mao who can ruin the country on his own. Maybe Democracy has limits to how far it can take us.The Chinese model might achieve greater things long term. I'm not sure i want to import their system anytime soon. For all democracies flaws, it never gave us anyone as bad as Mao. " I like the Singapore model.Pragmatism is the order of the day.It has flaws also but delivers results. | |||
"I had a look at the democracy index we rank 16 and Norway tops the table.Japan is consider a flawed democracy along with the USA and a few other EU countries. Bottom of course is North korea and Syria .Its an interesting list of 116 countries. Interesting that we aren't flawed when the last time it wasn't a labour or conservative led government was world war one. I agree.The index of countries is divided into. 19 full democracies 57 flawed democracies 40 hybrid regimes 51 Authoritarian regimes Both China and Japan are considerably better at long term planning than the UK, but China is only ever 5 years away from another "bad emperor" like Mao who can ruin the country on his own. Maybe Democracy has limits to how far it can take us.The Chinese model might achieve greater things long term. I'm not sure i want to import their system anytime soon. For all democracies flaws, it never gave us anyone as bad as Mao. I like the Singapore model.Pragmatism is the order of the day.It has flaws also but delivers results. "Asian culture is way more pragmatic than western. They simply don't care if they are consistent or logical. It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice. | |||
| |||
"has anyone mentioned switzerland yet?" No, what about them? | |||
"has anyone mentioned switzerland yet? No, what about them? " upon seeing the title of your thread i thought you's be familiar with the principles of demark democracy ... or at least interested in it ... but i'm probably wrong in saying that ... ignore what i said ... carry on | |||
"has anyone mentioned switzerland yet? No, what about them? upon seeing the title of your thread i thought you's be familiar with the principles of demark democracy ... or at least interested in it ... but i'm probably wrong in saying that ... ignore what i said ... carry on" That was a genuine question, what do you think is unique about switzerland / denmark? | |||
"has anyone mentioned switzerland yet? No, what about them? upon seeing the title of your thread i thought you's be familiar with the principles of demark democracy ... or at least interested in it ... but i'm probably wrong in saying that ... ignore what i said ... carry on That was a genuine question, what do you think is unique about switzerland / denmark? " demark not denmark .... it's probably easier if you look yourself as attempting to type it all out here would take ages | |||
"has anyone mentioned switzerland yet? No, what about them? upon seeing the title of your thread i thought you's be familiar with the principles of demark democracy ... or at least interested in it ... but i'm probably wrong in saying that ... ignore what i said ... carry on That was a genuine question, what do you think is unique about switzerland / denmark? demark not denmark .... it's probably easier if you look yourself as attempting to type it all out here would take ages " I can't even find it on Google... | |||
"has anyone mentioned switzerland yet? No, what about them? upon seeing the title of your thread i thought you's be familiar with the principles of demark democracy ... or at least interested in it ... but i'm probably wrong in saying that ... ignore what i said ... carry on That was a genuine question, what do you think is unique about switzerland / denmark? demark not denmark .... it's probably easier if you look yourself as attempting to type it all out here would take ages I can't even find it on Google..." well then try swiss political system or politics of switzerland or summut similar ... if i have to explain how to surf the web then i definately ain't gonna try explaining what a demark democracy is lol | |||
"has anyone mentioned switzerland yet? No, what about them? upon seeing the title of your thread i thought you's be familiar with the principles of demark democracy ... or at least interested in it ... but i'm probably wrong in saying that ... ignore what i said ... carry on That was a genuine question, what do you think is unique about switzerland / denmark? demark not denmark .... it's probably easier if you look yourself as attempting to type it all out here would take ages I can't even find it on Google... well then try swiss political system or politics of switzerland or summut similar ... if i have to explain how to surf the web then i definately ain't gonna try explaining what a demark democracy is lol" Great contribution to a discussion forum 
The word 'demark' doesn't even appear on the wikipedia page of "politics of switzerland" so i don't think I'm the only person not intelligent enough to get your reference. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Have to say I think UK is a real democracy you only have to love at the Brexit referendum if that was Ireland we would have a second and third referendum until we "got it right". The brits got a result they didn't wanted but agreed to the will of the people. The only problem I have with UK democracy is the single first past the post system PR is a fairer system and represents a fair split of seats dependent on the vote." So what's your view on Japanese democracy? | |||
"percentage voting or as it's known P R is the only real free and fair way ! The most Votes wins ! Simple ! I'd be more for PR if not everyone was allowed to vote or everyones vote wasn't equally weighted. This was actually the view of many enlightenment thinkers such as John Stuart Mill. " That sounds a wee bit "All animals are equal, But some animals are more Equal than others" George Orwell Written not as words Of recommendation, More as words of caution. . Can I ask, Who would be granted a vote in its entirety Who would be granted a vote Less worthy Who would be left vote free. . Genuinely interested | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? " In democratic theory there is a debate about whether free and fair elections are sufficient for true democracy, or whether they are simply necessary, but not sufficient in themselves. I would argue, personally, that they are necessary but not sufficient and that there are other necessary conditions to create a true democracy. Should these other conditions exist, it would be unlikely that 19 of 20 elections over the course of 60 years would be won by a single party. However, I don't think such an outcome would preclude democracy, either - it's more indicative. Democracy doesn't require change, it requires choice. | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? In democratic theory there is a debate about whether free and fair elections are sufficient for true democracy, or whether they are simply necessary, but not sufficient in themselves. I would argue, personally, that they are necessary but not sufficient and that there are other necessary conditions to create a true democracy. Should these other conditions exist, it would be unlikely that 19 of 20 elections over the course of 60 years would be won by a single party. However, I don't think such an outcome would preclude democracy, either - it's more indicative. Democracy doesn't require change, it requires choice." So if it's not true democracy then is it really worth the financial cost and social upheaval? As i understand it, the party leadership contest is effectively more important than a general election. But it is not democratic. | |||
"percentage voting or as it's known P R is the only real free and fair way ! The most Votes wins ! Simple ! I'd be more for PR if not everyone was allowed to vote or everyones vote wasn't equally weighted. This was actually the view of many enlightenment thinkers such as John Stuart Mill. That sounds a wee bit "All animals are equal, But some animals are more Equal than others" George Orwell Written not as words Of recommendation, More as words of caution. . Can I ask, Who would be granted a vote in its entirety Who would be granted a vote Less worthy Who would be left vote free. . Genuinely interested " Well I'm disputing that all animals are equal to start with. It's been a while since i looked at it but the basic structure is that some, better educated, people have more votes than others. 1, 3 and 6 from memory. Unemployed people can't vote, no representation without taxation basically. | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? In democratic theory there is a debate about whether free and fair elections are sufficient for true democracy, or whether they are simply necessary, but not sufficient in themselves. I would argue, personally, that they are necessary but not sufficient and that there are other necessary conditions to create a true democracy. Should these other conditions exist, it would be unlikely that 19 of 20 elections over the course of 60 years would be won by a single party. However, I don't think such an outcome would preclude democracy, either - it's more indicative. Democracy doesn't require change, it requires choice. So if it's not true democracy then is it really worth the financial cost and social upheaval? As i understand it, the party leadership contest is effectively more important than a general election. But it is not democratic. " I never said it wasn't a true democracy. I said it wasn't enough in itself to consitute a true democracy. I still think it is a necessary condition for democracy - so yes, it's worth the social upheaval. What we shouldn't have is supposedly more important decisions (like leadership contests) being made undemocratically. | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? In democratic theory there is a debate about whether free and fair elections are sufficient for true democracy, or whether they are simply necessary, but not sufficient in themselves. I would argue, personally, that they are necessary but not sufficient and that there are other necessary conditions to create a true democracy. Should these other conditions exist, it would be unlikely that 19 of 20 elections over the course of 60 years would be won by a single party. However, I don't think such an outcome would preclude democracy, either - it's more indicative. Democracy doesn't require change, it requires choice. So if it's not true democracy then is it really worth the financial cost and social upheaval? As i understand it, the party leadership contest is effectively more important than a general election. But it is not democratic. I never said it wasn't a true democracy. I said it wasn't enough in itself to consitute a true democracy. I still think it is a necessary condition for democracy - so yes, it's worth the social upheaval. What we shouldn't have is supposedly more important decisions (like leadership contests) being made undemocratically." But do you think it's worth it virtually whatever the costs? I'd say that elections in Afghanistan and Iraq did more harm than good. Despite what the BBC would have you believe, I've don't believe the average Chinese person wants them either. | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? In democratic theory there is a debate about whether free and fair elections are sufficient for true democracy, or whether they are simply necessary, but not sufficient in themselves. I would argue, personally, that they are necessary but not sufficient and that there are other necessary conditions to create a true democracy. Should these other conditions exist, it would be unlikely that 19 of 20 elections over the course of 60 years would be won by a single party. However, I don't think such an outcome would preclude democracy, either - it's more indicative. Democracy doesn't require change, it requires choice. So if it's not true democracy then is it really worth the financial cost and social upheaval? As i understand it, the party leadership contest is effectively more important than a general election. But it is not democratic. I never said it wasn't a true democracy. I said it wasn't enough in itself to consitute a true democracy. I still think it is a necessary condition for democracy - so yes, it's worth the social upheaval. What we shouldn't have is supposedly more important decisions (like leadership contests) being made undemocratically. But do you think it's worth it virtually whatever the costs? I'd say that elections in Afghanistan and Iraq did more harm than good. Despite what the BBC would have you believe, I've don't believe the average Chinese person wants them either. " Now that is an entirely different question. No, I don't think western democracy is the right (or only correct) form of government for every country. But that is a more complicated topic to discuss and not one I think I could do justice to in short posts on a forum. For those countries that hold western democractic values as integral to their own ideology - yes, free and fair elections should be pursued relentlessly. | |||
"percentage voting or as it's known P R is the only real free and fair way ! The most Votes wins ! Simple ! I'd be more for PR if not everyone was allowed to vote or everyones vote wasn't equally weighted. This was actually the view of many enlightenment thinkers such as John Stuart Mill. That sounds a wee bit "All animals are equal, But some animals are more Equal than others" George Orwell Written not as words Of recommendation, More as words of caution. . Can I ask, Who would be granted a vote in its entirety Who would be granted a vote Less worthy Who would be left vote free. . Genuinely interested Well I'm disputing that all animals are equal to start with. It's been a while since i looked at it but the basic structure is that some, better educated, people have more votes than others. 1, 3 and 6 from memory. Unemployed people can't vote, no representation without taxation basically. " I'm pretty sure the animal thing, Is referring to the equality of the animals, In animal farm. Not really as a general rule, Encompassing all animals world wide. That would just be stupid talk. . I'll be honest,I'm not a fan of the enlightened society. Any system where elitist hold all the power, At the expense of,and reliant on, The denial of rights,and power for others. Is not for me. . For Most,education is more a financial thing, than an intelligence thing. The children of Rich parents, Will generally be well educated, Despite their intelligence. The children of poor people, Will generally,be poorly educated, Also despite their intelligence. . To be honest,as a political system of rule, All a can see are endless flaws. With no saving graces. In fact,for me,it has nothing, I would even associate with, or recognise as society. It's Definitely not somewhere I would like to live. . On the upside,I'm pretty sure there was a movie, starring Arnold schwarzenegger Based on that exact system.  | |||
"percentage voting or as it's known P R is the only real free and fair way ! The most Votes wins ! Simple ! I'd be more for PR if not everyone was allowed to vote or everyones vote wasn't equally weighted. This was actually the view of many enlightenment thinkers such as John Stuart Mill. That sounds a wee bit "All animals are equal, But some animals are more Equal than others" George Orwell Written not as words Of recommendation, More as words of caution. . Can I ask, Who would be granted a vote in its entirety Who would be granted a vote Less worthy Who would be left vote free. . Genuinely interested Well I'm disputing that all animals are equal to start with. It's been a while since i looked at it but the basic structure is that some, better educated, people have more votes than others. 1, 3 and 6 from memory. Unemployed people can't vote, no representation without taxation basically. I'm pretty sure the animal thing, Is referring to the equality of the animals, In animal farm. Not really as a general rule, Encompassing all animals world wide. That would just be stupid talk. . I'll be honest,I'm not a fan of the enlightened society. Any system where elitist hold all the power, At the expense of,and reliant on, The denial of rights,and power for others. Is not for me. . For Most,education is more a financial thing, than an intelligence thing. The children of Rich parents, Will generally be well educated, Despite their intelligence. The children of poor people, Will generally,be poorly educated, Also despite their intelligence. . To be honest,as a political system of rule, All a can see are endless flaws. With no saving graces. In fact,for me,it has nothing, I would even associate with, or recognise as society. It's Definitely not somewhere I would like to live. . On the upside,I'm pretty sure there was a movie, starring Arnold schwarzenegger Based on that exact system. "To be honest I'm pretty happy with first past the post as it self regulates to keep the loonies out. The UK doesn't have an area comparable to california so our nut jobs seem reasonably evenly distributed around the country and their votes amount to nothing. Every system that's ever been and will be has elites who hold power. What really matters to me is wether the absolute (not relative) standard of living for the the average person is improving or not. As long as it is then i really don't care what 'elites' do with themselves. This by the way is why most Chinese people don't care for democracy, 40 years of double-digit growth under dictatorship beats a vote in their eyes. Over the long run the european trend is undoubtedly upwards but in the last 8 years it hasn't and that's rather a long blip for my liking. | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? In democratic theory there is a debate about whether free and fair elections are sufficient for true democracy, or whether they are simply necessary, but not sufficient in themselves. I would argue, personally, that they are necessary but not sufficient and that there are other necessary conditions to create a true democracy. Should these other conditions exist, it would be unlikely that 19 of 20 elections over the course of 60 years would be won by a single party. However, I don't think such an outcome would preclude democracy, either - it's more indicative. Democracy doesn't require change, it requires choice. So if it's not true democracy then is it really worth the financial cost and social upheaval? As i understand it, the party leadership contest is effectively more important than a general election. But it is not democratic. I never said it wasn't a true democracy. I said it wasn't enough in itself to consitute a true democracy. I still think it is a necessary condition for democracy - so yes, it's worth the social upheaval. What we shouldn't have is supposedly more important decisions (like leadership contests) being made undemocratically. But do you think it's worth it virtually whatever the costs? I'd say that elections in Afghanistan and Iraq did more harm than good. Despite what the BBC would have you believe, I've don't believe the average Chinese person wants them either. Now that is an entirely different question. No, I don't think western democracy is the right (or only correct) form of government for every country. But that is a more complicated topic to discuss and not one I think I could do justice to in short posts on a forum. For those countries that hold western democractic values as integral to their own ideology - yes, free and fair elections should be pursued relentlessly." What do you consider the most important "democratic values"? Things like high moral standards and tolerance of minorities are higher elsewhere in the world in my opinion. | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? In democratic theory there is a debate about whether free and fair elections are sufficient for true democracy, or whether they are simply necessary, but not sufficient in themselves. I would argue, personally, that they are necessary but not sufficient and that there are other necessary conditions to create a true democracy. Should these other conditions exist, it would be unlikely that 19 of 20 elections over the course of 60 years would be won by a single party. However, I don't think such an outcome would preclude democracy, either - it's more indicative. Democracy doesn't require change, it requires choice. So if it's not true democracy then is it really worth the financial cost and social upheaval? As i understand it, the party leadership contest is effectively more important than a general election. But it is not democratic. I never said it wasn't a true democracy. I said it wasn't enough in itself to consitute a true democracy. I still think it is a necessary condition for democracy - so yes, it's worth the social upheaval. What we shouldn't have is supposedly more important decisions (like leadership contests) being made undemocratically. But do you think it's worth it virtually whatever the costs? I'd say that elections in Afghanistan and Iraq did more harm than good. Despite what the BBC would have you believe, I've don't believe the average Chinese person wants them either. Now that is an entirely different question. No, I don't think western democracy is the right (or only correct) form of government for every country. But that is a more complicated topic to discuss and not one I think I could do justice to in short posts on a forum. For those countries that hold western democractic values as integral to their own ideology - yes, free and fair elections should be pursued relentlessly. What do you consider the most important "democratic values"? Things like high moral standards and tolerance of minorities are higher elsewhere in the world in my opinion. " Determining who has "high moral standards" depends on what you consider moral, surely? In any case, I was thinking more along the lines of self-determination and equality under the law - along with at least some degree of tolerance for minorities (though the nature of democracy would necessitate some degree of majority power over minorities, so the level of tolerance will be relatively low). There's more to it then this, and these values are debated by scholars regularly, but the foundations shouldn't be hard to define. Where self government is valued, free and fair elections are integral and of utmost importance. I think most self proclaimed democracies around the world could do a lot to make their own elections more fair, too. | |||
" Determining who has "high moral standards" depends on what you consider moral, surely? " I'm really talking about the voluntary restraint of power. Because the UK has rule of law then people rarely think of moral behaviour. So we get things like highly aggressive tax avoidance schemes that exploit legal loopholes and the first defence is always "i didn't do anythinh illegal". I think there are other countries that don't actually have good legal systems but for cultural reasons the elite are far more willing to restrain behaviour they could legally get away with. " In any case, I was thinking more along the lines of self-determination and equality under the law - along with at least some degree of tolerance for minorities (though the nature of democracy would necessitate some degree of majority power over minorities, so the level of tolerance will be relatively low). There's more to it then this, and these values are debated by scholars regularly, but the foundations shouldn't be hard to define. Where self government is valued, free and fair elections are integral and of utmost importance. I think most self proclaimed democracies around the world could do a lot to make their own elections more fair, too." They could but turkeys don't vote for thanksgiving. You can't expect the party that just won an election to be much in favour of changing the system they just successfully navigated. That would require strong moral discipline | |||
 | |||
"EUs democracy is better cos they are not like britains union, where it is the size of the country that counts and how many lives there that have the majority of the say of whats hapening, such as if scotland can get independence, whilst eu have a better system where it doesnt matter the size of a country, for example, if germany and sweden agrees on a thing, then if denmark say no, it will be a no "Only until the EU asks them to vote again. | |||
"If a country held 20 free and fair elections over a 60-year period and 19 of those were won by the same party, would you say that is a democracy in the real meaning of the term as opposed to the literal? " I would say yes | |||
"It's normally every 5 years but yes it is vital to do so. A government is held to account by the public at an election. If they fail badly enough then they will be voted out. See 1997 and 2010 for details. Trouble is around 20% will always vote Tory and 20% will always vote Labour, even if one party put up Jesus as a candidate and the other put up Hermann Goring. So elections always come down to the swing voters like me who change their vote based on party policies and manifesto pledges. If they are not upset enough to change sides then the government is unlikely to change. See now you are getting to the point I'm hinting at. Are swing voters the heart of democracy then? If there were no swing voters then nothing would ever change so I suppose we must be. There are times when I could bang my head on the wall to see people vote for a party because their dad did or because of something another party did in 1863. Let's face it, the Tories bought in section 28 but the current party wouldn't so I can hardly be dumb enough to hold that up as a reason not to vote for them now. More recently Gordon Brown sold a crap load of our gold reserve at rock bottom price but I don't hold thay against today's Labour party, that would be equally dumb. People should vote for the party that has the best policies for them. If more people did so, politics would be FAR more interesting and politicians would have to work far harder to get our votes. "  | |||
"EUs democracy is better cos they are not like britains union, where it is the size of the country that counts and how many lives there that have the majority of the say of whats hapening, such as if scotland can get independence, whilst eu have a better system where it doesnt matter the size of a country, for example, if germany and sweden agrees on a thing, then if denmark say no, it will be a no
Only until the EU asks them to vote again. "The EU is not democratic and if you think it is then you are easily fooled | |||
| |||
"Its perfectly democratic...I just disagree with what they want" Your idea of democracy and mine and many in this land is very different. The whole idea of a democratic EU is impossible and could never exist | |||
"Its perfectly democratic...I just disagree with what they wantYour idea of democracy and mine and many in this land is very different. The whole idea of a democratic EU is impossible and could never exist" . I don't disagree with your assesment, we all want something slightly different and some of us want something radically different! I can't slag anybody off for protesting different view points, I've spent a life time doing just that, I'm a working class guy who understands how the other half feel, I also understand something about economics and the neo liberals argument and I don't argue that for the educated the EU worked out well. I was the only brexiters that said we'll take a kicking,,... But a kicking that we need | |||
| |||
"EUs democracy is better cos they are not like britains union, where it is the size of the country that counts and how many lives there that have the majority of the say of whats hapening, such as if scotland can get independence, whilst eu have a better system where it doesnt matter the size of a country, for example, if germany and sweden agrees on a thing, then if denmark say no, it will be a no
Only until the EU asks them to vote again. The EU is not democratic and if you think it is then you are easily fooled"I agree that's why I said "until the EU asks them to vote again" until they get the answer they want. | |||
"The trouble with elections is the voters." Lol | |||
"Its perfectly democratic...I just disagree with what they wantYour idea of democracy and mine and many in this land is very different. The whole idea of a democratic EU is impossible and could never exist. I don't disagree with your assesment, we all want something slightly different and some of us want something radically different! I can't slag anybody off for protesting different view points, I've spent a life time doing just that, I'm a working class guy who understands how the other half feel, I also understand something about economics and the neo liberals argument and I don't argue that for the educated the EU worked out well. I was the only brexiters that said we'll take a kicking,,... But a kicking that we need" You are probably right about taking a kicking but I do believe in time we will be stronger and better for leaving but there is a rocky road ahead | |||
