D.e.m.o.c.r.a.c.y (((((((((dicttor))))))))))

[ilw]

Originally posted by Chame1eon@29 December 2003 - 21:28
If any group has power over another nothing is going to stop them from depriving the powerless group of the things they want and need.   

Thats really not necessarily true, I'm sure all major political systems these days have checks and balances to stop those in power abusing it too much and people in power don't necessarily abuse it. The way u seem to be arguing, the obvious thing to do in a full democracy would be to pick on a minority and abuse them, you could essentially make them slaves, they don't have enough voting power to change things, therefore giving those in power free rein to abuse them.

If everyone can play a part in making the decisions more people are happy, and cared for.

Well i disagree that less people would be happy and cared for in a non-full democracy, it doesn't really necessarily follow. Or are you perhaps suggesting some sort of placebo effect from ticking a box once every x years or maybe that in a democracy the people have no one to blame but themselves so they're inherently happier?

Also, like i ws saying, we don't have an accurate mesure of intelligence. 50 percent is kind of an arbitrary number...

I should never have brought up intelligence, i never thought it was a good way of deciding voting ability, but 50% isn't really an arbitrary number.

If 50% of people are below average that is half the population that needs to be represented.

I took this to mean that the less intelligent 1/2 of the population should be more strongly represented than the more intelligent 1/2 which sounded crazy to me, but I'm guessing thats probably not what you meant.

so I guess I get a little cranky when someone who doesn't vote starts a thread like this.

np

[Chame1eon]

I really hope you're not right.

"Cakes and Circus's"......

I think that people will vote for what they want, but i think they will put thought into it and not jsut vote for trivial things as the quote seems to suggest. (maybe that's not what you were suggesting)

..will probably not keep their manifesto promises..

I'm not sure how brittish government works, but here, if polititions are concerned about being reelected and or about looking like jerks in the public eye they will keep their promises. I know history proves that it's not perfect , but i think it does temper political honesty.

like a already said, i htink one of the most effective routes to reform right now is better education, about democracy, the alternatives, and about the issues that people in school will soon be effecting. I know that the people in my shcool at least could have benefited from a more challengeing and practical curriculum.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by SnnY@29 December 2003 - 16:33
I hardly ever vote for anything when it comes to larger elections, on the basis that I either don't know enough about the agendas of each party, or that what I know about these parties seem stupid.

I fear that many voters in my country only vote a certain way because they always have, or because their union sympathizes with a certain faction, or because they are doing like their parents, or because they are suckers ready to follow whoever shouts the loudest about feminism or enviromental preservation or whatever the next fad may be.

The politicians might not necessarily make a good point, mainly it's just empty rhetorics but still votes are given them because they are noticed.

To make matters worse, in my country, I sometimes can't even discern who is supposed to left-wing or conservative or whatever else just by looking at their politics, they just claim to be part of a certain ideology on the basis of tradition.

And if that isn't enough the media usually manages to make matters even more diffuse. I usually just vote blank just to show my displeasure with the system. That way the mistakes made aren't mine, of course this still makes me guilty of omission, which is a mistake in itself.

I agree completely. I think that is one of the major flaws. Most of the stuff that you see in the media 90% rhetoric Most of the information you get has nothing to do with real issues.
I aslo think that most of the people who do vote rely on oversimplified methods for choosing a president. That's why i think that voters should have more access to indiviual issues, and why the having to choose between 2 parties or individuals doesn't work.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by ilw@29 December 2003 - 17:11

If everyone can play a part in making the decisions more people are happy, and cared for.

Well i disagree that less people would be happy and cared for in a non-full democracy, it doesn't really necessarily follow. Or are you perhaps suggesting some sort of placebo effect from ticking a box once every x years or maybe that in a democracy the people have no one to blame but themselves so they're inherently happier?

Most countries are way to big for a full democracy, and i don't know if individuals have ienough time for that, but that would be ideal

[ilw]

I really hope you're not right.

"Cakes and Circus's"......

California governor is a good example isn't it? He's a big moviestar with a dodgy history = circus. No tax rises = cakes.
I find it hard to believe that he had the best long term fiscal policy or that he's the best person for the job, but he offered a small short term financial advantage and he managed to get enough press coverage and bingo.

I'm not sure how british government works, but here, if politicians are concerned about being reelected and/or about looking like jerks in the public eye they will keep their promises.

here both main parties are as bad as each other at keeping promises it seems, therefore even if they do badly they still have a fair chance of being reelected.

Interestingly some politicians are expecting the next general election to give a hung government for the first time in (i think) ages, this will no doubt give a much greater amount of power and coverage to the liberals (the 3rd party in British politics). I think they're also expecting a significant rise in votes for the liberals because hatred of the conservative party is still present, but labour have not acted as many hoped and Blair is blamed for taking this country to war. I think theres a general feeling of giving the liberals their shot just for the craic (and in some ways as a protest against the others).

[ilw]

Originally posted by Chame1eon@29 December 2003 - 22:51
Most countries are way to big for a full democracy, and i don't know if individuals have ienough time for that, but that would be ideal

A true democracy where everyone votes on everything would be terrible, theres no way everyone can be experts on everything. A representative democracy at least gives the possibility that the decisions are made by people who are fully aware of the situation.

Also in a democracy you will always have parties/groups because it is the best way of gaining power in a democracy. You sacrafice your influence on various topics, in order to gain power over the topics that are important to you. Together in a democracy you are strong, divided you are weak.

[Chame1eon]

I agree, but i think we could come closer

[Alex H]

Originally posted by Sid Hartha@29 December 2003 - 22:48
Where I live - not too long ago - a very major election was blown (in my opinion) because a minor third party candidate ran mostly on the premise that there wasn't any appreciable difference between the two "established" candidates. This message apparently caught on, mostly with moderate/liberal voters. They voted for the third party candidate - not because they thought he had a chance, but as a symbolic "other" vote to protest the mediocrity of the other two candidates.

Result: Bad, bad president. Two wars, economy in the shitter... hated by most of the world. I sometimes wonder if anyone who voted for Ralph Nader still believes there was essentially no difference between Bush and Gore.

Just a few votes would have changed all that. Voter apathy fucked us. When intelligent people stay at home (is this you?), that means the dumbasses pick our leaders (eg: USA).

There's always a difference between candidates.

edit/ so I guess I get a little cranky when someone who doesn't vote starts a thread like this.

Ralph Nader was an interesting one, because he has always remained passionate about fixing problems in society - he never "grew up" and became a "realist".

I was hardly his fault that Gore lost the election (what am I saying? He won&#33. If a few more people actually gave a shit about the society they live in, they would have got out and voted and the result would be different.

Minor political parties are important. They stir up shit (whether it's the major parties dumping on them, or them attacking their policies) and open discussion is imortant when the fate of your country is at stake.

I'd certainly support more referendums.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@30 December 2003 - 00:17
I was hardly his fault that Gore lost the election (what am I saying? He won&#33. If a few more people actually gave a shit about the society they live in, they would have got out and voted and the result would be different.

Minor political parties are important. They stir up shit (whether it's the major parties dumping on them, or them attacking their policies) and open discussion is imortant when the fate of your country is at stake.

I'd certainly support more referendums.

You are wrong about the election-Gore lost.

Google this: Electoral College

I will refrain from a recitation of Democrat shenanigans which took place in the 2000 Presidential election.

As for referendums, I say, YES!

People deserve what they get, whether it is due to ignorance, apathy, or wrong-headed beliefs.

I think a few miscast votes might have the effect of enlightening the hoi polloi. If more people paid close attention to what is being done "in their best interest" by the politicians they do/don't vote for, they would be sickened unto becoming educated about exactly what it is they are doing when they do/don't enter a polling place.

I used to think voter apathy was a bad thing; now I think we need a whole lot more/less of it.

And no, that last wasn't a mis-guided attempt to be funny. I mean it most sincerely.

[ilw]

Originally posted by j2k4@30 December 2003 - 05:00
As for referendums, I say, YES!

People deserve what they get, whether it is due to ignorance, apathy, or wrong-headed beliefs.

I don't really like that sentiment, I much prefer having someone in particular to blame. :-" But in many ways you don't actually get what you deserve, its like splitting a bill at a restaurant.