NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so basically for pretty much my whole life I've believed in the idea that a republic is sort of a morally superior government than a monarchy or dictatorship, even one that's benevolent. But a thought came across my mind the other day. Why would it make a difference to me if a government that I didn't support was elected rather than not? Either way, it is a government forced upon me.

I claim Godwin

Because if you don't vote, you can't complain when you get the nazi party in government.

Alternatively, if you don't vote, you can't complain when you get the stalinist party in government.

no matter who you vote for, the government always gets in. or words to that effect.


at least if you can vote there's a chance that your favoured representatives will get in and enact the changes that you wish to see.

A government elected by the majority, whether you like it or not, is much better than a government unelected

No, I mean if I am permitted to vote and do so, but the government I want to have loses, then why is that better than not getting to vote>

No, I mean if I am permitted to vote and do so, but the government I want to have loses, then why is that better than not getting to vote>

The majority get their choice though. With voting you have a chance to get who you want.

You only need to have one vote more than the other guy to win.

at least if you can vote there's a chance that your favoured representatives will get in and enact the changes that you wish to see.

Decent Chance
Little to No Chance

No, I mean if I am permitted to vote and do so, but the government I want to have loses, then why is that better than not getting to vote>

Because in most democracies, there are several seats in the parliament, council or whatever form of representation takes place.

In theory, that means that if 60% of the population support group A and 40% of the population supports group B, then 60% of the chamber will go to group A and 40% will go to group B.

In practice, it tends to differ a bit. The idea, however, is that it's entirely possible to live in a country where the party you vote for gets a measly 5% of parliament. Those 5% can, under certain cases, be enough to turn the vote because everyone thinks differently.

No, I mean if I am permitted to vote and do so, but the government I want to have loses, then why is that better than not getting to vote>

Beacuse some say, even if you loose, is better than no say, isnt it.

Because in most democracies, there are several seats in the parliament, council or whatever form of representation takes place.

In theory, that means that if 60% of the population support group A and 40% of the population supports group B, then 60% of the chamber will go to group A and 40% will go to group B.

In practice, it tends to differ a bit. The idea, however, is that it's entirely possible to live in a country where the party you vote for gets a measly 5% of parliament. Those 5% can, under certain cases, be enough to turn the vote because everyone thinks differently.

That system would probably get more people to vote in the United States. Right now, we have a winner takes all type of election. Each district votes for their own representative, and the person who gets the most votes goes to either the State Assembly, House of Representatives, Senate, and so on, depending on what he or she is running for.

No, I mean if I am permitted to vote and do so, but the government I want to have loses, then why is that better than not getting to vote>

Normally you have plenty of parties with many candidates per area going through in a situation where you don't know the 'winners' beforehand - In this situation you vote for the candidate you think represents your view best (or run for yourself) and hope he/she goes through. Usually the votes are also tallied by the party to balance out the vote differences between candidates who get "too many" votes and candidates with few votes.

In one candidate/area voting system your vote has less significance from your point of view - In this situation you don't usually vote for your agenda but support either the leading candidate or the candidate that is most likely to challenge the current leader, depending which of the candidates represents the lesser evil based on your desires.

Well, proportional representation just messes countries up completely.

Anyhoo, a benevolent dictatorship would probably be better than a crappy, elected government. Benevolent dictators, however, do not exist.

Well, proportional representation just messes countries up completely.

Anyhoo, a benevolent dictatorship would probably be better than a crappy, elected government. Benevolent dictators, however, do not exist.

How does proportional representation mess up governments?

And some of the Roman Emperors were very good.

How does proportional representation mess up governments?

Because you get lots of small parties splitting the vote. That's what happened in 1919-1933 Germany, IIRC

Anyhoo, a benevolent dictatorship would probably be better than a crappy, elected government. Benevolent dictators, however, do not exist.

I agree with the first part, it just seems that for every good one you have, you get two bad ones, and then a really bad one.

Decent Chance
Little to No Chance

of course, that is the problem with representative democracy and corporate funded politics. still doesn't justify political apathy.

my reasoning is that if you have lets say a monarchy and your leader turns out to be a dick you can't do anything about it (absolute leaders tend to be able to do the most damage)

whereas if its a democracy yes your leader is a dick but at least he can't screw up things too much...erm well at least as long as everybody else stops being a dick you can vote him out...

stop shattering my faith in democracy!

How does proportional representation mess up governments?

stalemates tend to occur if there are two or more large coalitions of parties

And some of the Roman Emperors were very good.

pfft yeah for the time they lived in

Well, proportional representation just messes countries up completely.

Anyhoo, a benevolent dictatorship would probably be better than a crappy, elected government. Benevolent dictators, however, do not exist.

Ireland isn't doing too bad with proportional representation.

At least I think that's how our elections work. All I really remember is that they're complicated and confusing.

whereas if its a democracy yes your leader is a dick but at least he can't screw up things too much...erm well at least as long as everybody else stops being a dick you can vote him out...

stop shattering my faith in democracy!

If they're really a dick, they'll just abolish the democratic system. Then you have to deal with it as a autocracy.

*Grins evilly as he is shattering faith*

pfft yeah for the time they lived in

In a couple hundred years time I bet you that people will be saying that about us.

At least I think that's how our elections work. All I really remember is that they're complicated and confusing.

have you ever tried reading party manifesto's or worse...trade agreements!

If they're really a dick, they'll just abolish the democratic system. Then you have to deal with it as a autocracy.

why would they do that when there making so much money?

In a couple hundred years time I bet you that people will be saying that about us.

me next Wednesday: "back in my day we gave children contraceptives and called it progressive, nowadays the nurses actually have sex with the students!"

actually thats not that bad an idea its like having regulated hookers who the government can do regular checks on....hmmmmmmm

A government elected by the majority, whether you like it or not, is much better than a government unelected
If only we had that...Labour managed about 33% of the vote (with voter turnout of around 60%) in the last election and have a 60 seat majority or something ridiculous like that.

So if you can get 20% of the country to vote for you, you win. Great.

I claim Godwin

Because if you don't vote, you can't complain when you get the nazi party in government.

Alternatively, if you don't vote, you can't complain when you get the stalinist party in government.

To paraphase a George Carlin quotation:
Of course I can complain...I didn't elect these assholes, you did! Not being able to complain because you did not vote is a rediculous notion. Tell that to people that live in nations with absolutely rigged elections. Absurd at best.

Because in most democracies, there are several seats in the parliament, council or whatever form of representation takes place.

In theory, that means that if 60% of the population support group A and 40% of the population supports group B, then 60% of the chamber will go to group A and 40% will go to group B.

In practice, it tends to differ a bit. The idea, however, is that it's entirely possible to live in a country where the party you vote for gets a measly 5% of parliament. Those 5% can, under certain cases, be enough to turn the vote because everyone thinks differently.I have been led to believe that is possible for a party to win a general election with only 5-6 million votes out of a total population of approximately 60 million.

If you really get down to it then it is technically possible to win a general election with around 800 votes.

pfft yeah for the time they lived in

Still, emperors like Trajan, Augustus, and Hadrian made the Empire prosper and the lives of its citizens were good. However, you do have crazies like Nero and Caligula who really messed up the Empire.

Still, emperors like Trajan, Augustus, and Hadrian made the Empire prosper and the lives of its citizens were good. However, you do have crazies like Nero and Caligula who really messed up the Empire.

Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, both as a social movement and the later consolidation of economic and political power.

You can end up with incompetent leaders in any political system. The difference is that it's easier to replace the idiots in charge in a democracy. When they mess up just point it out to the idiots who voted for them to demonstrate that it wasn't such a good idea after all. The coalition in power here in Sweden is an example of this, they keep proving themselves to be as dumb as rocks so their popularity keeps sinking like a rock. At the current rate they won't have any chance at all to win the next election.
Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, both as a social movement and the later consolidation of economic and political power.
The Roman Empire destroyed Christianity, the political power the Roman emperors gave Christianity corrupted it from it's early form into Catholicism.

Okay, so basically for pretty much my whole life I've believed in the idea that a republic is sort of a morally superior government than a monarchy or dictatorship, even one that's benevolent. But a thought came across my mind the other day. Why would it make a difference to me if a government that I didn't support was elected rather than not? Either way, it is a government forced upon me.

True, but at least it ensures that the majority of people support the government, unlike other current systems of government.

True, but at least it ensures that the majority of people support the government, unlike other current systems of government.How does democracy insure that? All it insures would be that the majority voted for the government, not that they support it. Oh, and then you have all the problems about not needing a majority to win...

The most important thing about a democratic political system is not that the government is elected - but that the government is sometimes changed. This forces governments to be repsonsible: they simply cannot assume that they can get away with any abuse of power, because should they lose the election, then under the rule of the next govt. they will be held accountable for what they had done. So if there is a legal procedure to change governments, the governments will always be (somewhat) law-abiding and self-restraining. The crucial element is not 'election' but 'change'. The same effect could be achieved if there was no elections, only some kind of 'candidate-lottery'. But elections seem a bit more efficient, and they also provide the people with a degree of 'positive freedom', i.e. participation in rule.

Because you get lots of small parties splitting the vote. That's what happened in 1919-1933 Germany, IIRC
Which is why New Zealand, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Spain, South Africa and Japan are all on the brink of collapse, no? If anything, FPTP would have given the Nazis a Reichstag majority out of their 40% of the vote.

How does democracy insure that? All it insures would be that the majority voted for the government, not that they support it. Oh, and then you have all the problems about not needing a majority to win...

Because they vote for the government they want? Whats so complex about that? Yes they may not like what they vote for eventually, but they are more likely to support it then a father knows best style government. Besides if the winning party doesn't get a majority, their power is limited (in theory) so they can't pass too many unpopular acts.

Because they vote for the government they want? Whats so complex about that?There's only one election when I actually truly supported the candidate I voted for. All the other times I thought I was voting for the lesser evil.
Yes they may not like what they vote for eventually, but they are more likely to support it then a father knows best style government.So democracy is only means of making government seem legitimate?
Besides if the winning party doesn't get a majority, their power is limited (in theory) so they can't pass too many unpopular acts.Remember that the current government was elected to a majority, but with only 33% of the vote. So the majority of voters voted against New Labour, but New Labour is able to pass any law it wants without having to resort to the support of other parties.

Voting is an offensive weapon to be wielded against elected officials when they get out of line. Voting insures that there's only so much you can get away with before the populace you rule votes you out of office.

Voting does nothing in small numbers.


In a larger setting, it tends to have a dramatic effect. To better put it into perspective, consider it like this:

You have one pebble in your shoe. It's annoying, but you don't really care too much. If you have 100, you can't even fit your entire foot in the shoe.


Then again, I'm not a proponent for democracy anyway. No idea why I'm defending it.

The Roman Empire destroyed Christianity, the political power the Roman emperors gave Christianity corrupted it from it's early form into Catholicism.

The social movement of early Christianity threatened the order and power of the emipire, however early Christianity encompassed numerous sects with some very different components (some that focused on apostles rather than Jesus). This social uprising was encorporated into the power sturcture to satisfy the movement. Doing this consolidates and universalizes (catholic) the movements' perspctive into a corporate hierarchy with strict power relationships. In a sense then, yes, the diverse landscape of early Christianity was destroyed. However, this considation of power in the Catholic power structure lead to the fall of the Roman Empire and the redistribution this wealth, throught the Roman Catholic Church, to Europe. With this qualification, both our arguments are correct.

A government elected by the majority, whether you like it or not, is much better than a government unelected

Not necessarily.

Ultimately, it is not the form of government that determines its legitimacy, but rather what that government does.

The only proper role of government is to protect individual rights. The form taken by government is only a means to that end.

Too many people lose sight of that, and begin treating representative government as an end in itself.

That's a problem.

A benevolent dictator who respects individual rights is infinitely preferable to an elected government that violates them.

Stop Voting, Change the Country
Why Your Vote Will Never Matter

http://counterpunch.org/rothenberg08202007.html


the above in the short term.



in the long term (and for the long term to develop, we'd better get developing a new short term, no?)
let us democratize our workplaces,
those that ride the bus might want to participate in the decisions of bus operations in their towns,
neighborhood groups, etc....
democracy, democracy, and more democracy,
top-down is quite undemocratic, no?

The majority get their choice though. With voting you have a chance to get who you want.

Wonderful. A roulette wheel where you bet on which member of the oligarchy is more aesthetically pleasing than the rest.

Democracy is nothing more than the ruling classes greatest attempt yet to stave off anger and revolution. The people are convinced that they are calling the shots, but they only take part in their own fleecing.

Democracy is nothing more than the ruling classes greatest attempt yet to stave off anger and revolution. The people are convinced that they are calling the shots, but they only take part in their own fleecing.

Quite right. Power structures will incorporate social movements into the structure to give the appearance of negotiation and change (Christianity and Roman Empire; Civil Rights Movements and US Gov), while still maintaining power. Even greater for them, is the social conflict that arises from those groups who opposed the changes. You then get bottom level disputes/grievances/conflict which only serves to keep attention from the actual structural inequities.