NationStates Jolt Archive

well?

Well if the USA counts then I don't see why not.

Where you going with this?

I'm fine thank you, and i'd say it's one version of a democracy, perhaps better in some respects to other nations but worse off in other respects.
So it depends on what your ideal democracy would have in it for me or you to say it is a democracy. Then there's the option that it is a democracy but it doesn't work for some people, but then is it really a democracy?

-in short yes but it can depend on alot of other variables, some are very difficult to measure-

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Sort of... as I understand it, it's a parliamentary democracy, while the United States is a democratic republic.

Neither are true democracies.

You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Oh here we go injecting class into it again...

im curious because according to websites like wikipedia, were not, becuase we still have a monarchy, we also have a state religion which i thought democracys couldnt have

Oh here we go injecting class into it again...

That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of...

It's as good a democracy as any other. No better or worse.

Well the question was is it a democracy. Id say yes.

Ideal democracy... Hell no but I think you'd be challenged to find one.

im curious because according to websites like wikipedia, were not, becuase we still have a monarchy, we also have a state religion which i thought democracys couldnt have

that's sort of right. But the British monarch (the Queen) actually wields very little power, although the royal family could try it would probably be shouted down after just about any motion it tried.

You could have a country that has a monarch leading a democratic country, it would be very complicated if the monarch actually had power, i suppose in a way it could be argued that the US president has monarch-like power but in a democratic country. I know it's stretching terms a bit but it could be seen like that.

-in short Britain's monarchy has no real power, most major decisions made by government come from the Cabinet/house of commons/prime minister. Therefore it is a democracy.-

That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of...

Please, please good people, I am in haste! Who lives in that castle?

There is no reason a democracy cannot have a state religion as long as it is not compulsory.

We are a representative democracy. We vote for representatives who then lie to us about weapons of mass destruction and drag us into wars.

It is a democracy but not a true one. I don't think there are currently any countries that are true democracies.

ok then if we are a democracy, then is democracy the best system?

Perhaps it would benefit to establish to what rigor we intend to apply the taxonomies of governments, or whether the meat of discourse is cut more from the general premise of participatory government.

Now, you two stay here.

Yes with a but, or no with an if.

ok then if we are a democracy, then is democracy the best system?

Depends on what you want.

Depends on what you want.

The Federation from Star Trek.

Depends on what you want.

Freedom, Equality, Fair Legal System, Progressive Education System, Proportional Representation, Only Wars that are absaloutley neccesary, something like Star Trek yeah! :-D

I believe the Royals could have an input if they wanted, I know Queenie can remove the PM is she wants too, plus its her royal army/navy/air force. She's the C&C not the PM. Shes also the defender of the faith, not government.

Anyways, isn't the UK officially an constitutional monarchy. But we vote for our parliament which runs the nation. Which is obviously democratic (Minus Gordon Brown, who wasn't voted in by either the public, or his own party.)

I honestly can't say :P

I just want to live in a world where I can travel back in time in 40+ different ways.

Freedom, Equality, Fair Legal System, Progressive Education System, Proportional Representation, Only Wars that are absaloutley neccesary, something like Star Trek yeah! :-D

Immense bureaucracy, no purpose-built vessels, and really gay uniforms.

im curious because according to websites like wikipedia, were not, becuase we still have a monarchy, we also have a state religion which i thought democracys couldnt have

Very technically speaking, the UK is a constitutional monarchy - all power (extremely theoretically) resides in the hands of the Queen. In practice, we are a parliamentary democracy.

Freedom, Equality, Fair Legal System, Progressive Education System, Proportional Representation, Only Wars that are absaloutley neccesary, something like Star Trek yeah! :-D

Hmm most of those are true in the US democracy except for proportional representation and education system.

Proportional representation will only happen in a utopia and as for education if the government had the power to make it better then it would probably not be a democracy (like China)

By the way how do you people get pics on the side and signatures at the bottom?

Hmm most of those are true in the US democracy except for proportional representation and education system.

Proportional representation will only happen in a utopia and as for education if the government had the power to make it better then it would probably not be a democracy (like China)

By the way how do you people get pics on the side and signatures at the bottom?

Your user control panel - the links is at the top left of the screen.

Proportional representation is in no way the sole province of utopias - many nations nowadays use some form of prop rep. Indeed, it is even used in the UK for some purposes.

Hmm most of those are true in the US democracy except for proportional representation and education system.

Proportional representation will only happen in a utopia and as for education if the government had the power to make it better then it would probably not be a democracy (like China)

By the way how do you people get pics on the side and signatures at the bottom?

I see how it is "you people"!! We didn't steal them if that's what you mean.

Freedom, Equality, Fair Legal System, Progressive Education System, Proportional Representation, Only Wars that are absaloutley neccesary, something like Star Trek yeah! :-D

As good as we've come up with yet anyway.

Proportional representation is in no way the sole province of utopias.

Exactly, proportional representation is a terrible form of democracy.

Yes. It is.

Iran is also technically a democracy. Not comparing Iran and the UK, but you get my point. The common man not electing the figurehead doesnt invalidate you as a democracy.

Hmm most of those are true in the US democracy except for proportional representation and education system.
I'll give you freedom, but I call BS on the rest.

Proportional representation will only happen in a utopia and as for education if the government had the power to make it better then it would probably not be a democracy (like China)

Also bullshit.

Yes. It is.

Iran is also technically a democracy. Not comparing Iran and the UK, but you get my point. The common man not electing the figurehead doesn't invalidate you as a democracy.

If you go by the general definition then yes Iran is democracy, but if you go by the criteria of most political scientists, poli sci classes, etc. which are:
Selection to the highest public offices is on the basis of free, fair election
The freedom of political parties to organize
Policy decisions being made through due process
All citizens possessing political and civil rights
independent judiciary
Then the UK is a democracy and Iran is not.

If you go by the general definition then yes Iran is democracy, but if you go by the criteria of most political scientists, poli sci classes, etc. which are:
Selection to the highest public offices is on the basis of free, fair election
The freedom of political parties to organize
Policy decisions being made through due process
All citizens possessing political and civil rights
independent judiciary
Then the UK is a democracy and Iran is not.

Actually, it would still be a democracy, just an illiberal one.

No if you look at the house of representatives in the US the group that is supposed to be close to the people most of the people elected are rich. A poor person is never truly represented because poor people don't ever get elected.

If you go by the general definition then yes Iran is democracy, but if you go by the criteria of most political scientists, poli sci classes, etc. which are:
Selection to the highest public offices is on the basis of free, fair election
The freedom of political parties to organize
Policy decisions being made through due process
All citizens possessing political and civil rights
independent judiciary
Then the UK is a democracy and Iran is not.

Bush 2000 & 2004, wink wink say no more.

Exactly, proportional representation is a terrible form of democracy.

I think you misunderstood my statement - I was saying that not only is proportional representation a common feature of utopias, it is also implemented in the real world in many places.

I also happen to think it is one of the better forms of democracy - it sure as hell beats first past the post and similar systems, although I'm generally opposed to 'representative' democracy on principle.

I'll give you freedom, but I call BS on the rest.



Also bullshit.

oh really? proove to me that the education system in the US is good.

Actually, it would still be a democracy, just an illiberal one.

Blah technicalities. Either way Britain is a lot closer to democracy then Iran and to compare the two is misleading.

oh really? proove to me that the education system in the US is good.

how good is good?

we have a 99% literacy rate, and some of the best universities in the world.

oh really? proove to me that the education system in the US is good.

I never said it was. I meant that out of that list only freedom applies to the US.

It is idiocracy, like most of Western world.

What say the English?

how good is good?

we have a 99% literacy rate, and some of the best universities in the world.

Well that is true. But our public school system doesn't do as well as other systems do.But this is a topic for another thread.

I think you misunderstood my statement - I was saying that not only is proportional representation a common feature of utopias, it is also implemented in the real world in many places.

I also happen to think it is one of the better forms of democracy - it sure as hell beats first past the post and similar systems, although I'm generally opposed to 'representative' democracy on principle.

Yeah I deliberately took your post out of context!

And the first past the post system is better; it produces stronger cabinets, and is in fact far more democratic. Voters know exactly who and what policies they are voting for. PR systems create coalitions that noone has voted for, generally with watered down policies.

2004, wink wink say no more.

Except he won that won fair and square.

Except he won that won fair and square.

We'll never know for sure...

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/diebold-audit-l.html

What say the English?

I am in the UK, and live here. The correct answer has already been provided.

Yeah I deliberately took your post out of context!

And the first past the post system is better; it produces stronger cabinets, and is in fact far more democratic. Voters know exactly who and what policies they are voting for. PR systems create coalitions that noone has voted for, generally with watered down policies.

FPTP has massive inequities arising out of its very nature. For example, it is heavily biased against parties with a very thinly spread support base - it is perfectly possible to arrive at 5% of the national vote and not win a single seat.

By contrast, a well implemented PR system provides a parliament which reflects the people's will much more accurately - our previously mentioned 5% party will now hold 5% of the seats, not none.

If one still insists on 'strong government' (which always struck me as a bad idea), then a hybrid system such as AMS or AV+ provides a much more accurate reflection of the general will than a pure plurality system such as FPTP.

No.

I'd consider it a Constitutional parliamentary republic, even though it doesn't have a written constitution per se. But it and the United States aren't democracies in the strictest sense.

We'll never know for sure...

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/diebold-audit-l.html

No. We will. He won by a large enough margin where even a few stolen votes wouldnt have made a difference.

He won because he ran against John Kerry.

ok then if we are a democracy, then is democracy the best system?

Don't be ridiculous. Empowering the commonality leads to such wonderful political milieus as ours, in which the voter can either vote for blue centrism, or red centrism, neither of whom, due to the need to play for the votes of the centre, can propose or effect anything of any note.

The only reconciliation between myself and democracy would be when those in state housing, the illiterate, the unemployed and those with an IQ below 100 are excluded from franchise.

What say the English?

We're no less democratic than most democracies.

No.

I'd consider it a Constitutional parliamentary republic, even though it doesn't have a written constitution per se. But it and the United States aren't democracies in the strictest sense.

erm...

im curious because according to websites like wikipedia, were not, becuase we still have a monarchy, we also have a state religion which i thought democracys couldnt have

Well if we are going down this road then the UK is a Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy.

But then the US is not a democracy either it is in fact a Federal constitutional Republic.

Now in the sense that people are able to elect their representatives then yes the UK is a democracy and so is the US. There is no country in the world where their government type is simply a democracy.

I am in the UK, and live here. The correct answer has already been provided.



FPTP has massive inequities arising out of its very nature. For example, it is heavily biased against parties with a very thinly spread support base - it is perfectly possible to arrive at 5% of the national vote and not win a single seat.

By contrast, a well implemented PR system provides a parliament which reflects the people's will much more accurately - our previously mentioned 5% party will now hold 5% of the seats, not none.

If one still insists on 'strong government' (which always struck me as a bad idea), then a hybrid system such as AMS or AV+ provides a much more accurate reflection of the general will than a pure plurality system such as FPTP.

Strong governments is never a bad idea, especially in a system with so many checks and balances, like in the UK. While it may not create democracy in its purest sense, pure democracy is both difficult to implement and ultimately undesirable. I do not really see how a weaker cabinet would be more desirable, it certainly has not created more stability in a country like Italy.

FPTP may result in a two-party system, with a possible 'strong' third party, and I do not see this as particularly negative. This majoritarian system eliminates 'extreme' parties, such as Communist and Fascist, from the political process. While you may argue that they should have a say because they received votes, the tyranny of the majority should always prevail.

I am not against PR being implemented for the elections of a 2nd chamber, I just feel that the 1st chamber should create strong cabinets that can make quick decisions. So were the House of Lords to be reformed into an elected chamber, I would argue that PR should be used there, this would create a democratic check and balance system, which the UK kinda lacks, and would give smaller parties at least some power.

We're no less democratic than most democracies.

I've always wanted to ask something. Americans say, and firmly believe, the US is a democracy. (I know this is about the UK) Sometimes it feels, and this is not to create bumps with the Americans of NSG, that the US firmly believes this country is the only democracy in the world. If one follows the definition of democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy), "a form of government in which power is held by " the people" under a free electoral system.", wouldn't this be the case, wouldn't places like Spain (Constitutional Monarchy) or the UK (Parliamentary Monarchy) be democracies too?

Your answer would seems to prove that.

Yes.

What say the English?

England =/= the UK.

of couse we are.

The UK is part of the EU and the EU is not a democracy.

Strong governments is never a bad idea, especially in a system with so many checks and balances, like in the UK. While it may not create democracy in its purest sense, pure democracy is both difficult to implement and ultimately undesirable. I do not really see how a weaker cabinet would be more desirable, it certainly has not created more stability in a country like Italy.
Those checks and balances don't exist. There is virtually no distinction between the executive and the legislature, various perogative powers and powers to create secondary legislation vested in Cabinet and no written constitution detailing how the three branches of government interact. I would go so far as to say that the doctrines of separation of powers and parliamentary supremacy (which we theoretically hold on to) are mutially exclusive.

And, for the record, FPTP does not gaurantee strong cabinets, Canada being a good example. On the other hand, Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Spain, New Zealand and most other European states PR and don't suffer from the Italian nightmare.

FPTP may result in a two-party system, with a possible 'strong' third party, and I do not see this as particularly negative. This majoritarian system eliminates 'extreme' parties, such as Communist and Fascist, from the political process. While you may argue that they should have a say because they received votes, the tyranny of the majority should always prevail.
It isn't eliminating the BNP in local elections. Unfortunately, FPTP less deals with the problem of political extremeism and more covers it up. Given the ability of FPTP to put a minority into power, I would also be concerned that in the (unlikely) event of an extemeist movement becoming popular, it could come into power despite a majority voting against it.

I am not against PR being implemented for the elections of a 2nd chamber, I just feel that the 1st chamber should create strong cabinets that can make quick decisions. So were the House of Lords to be reformed into an elected chamber, I would argue that PR should be used there, this would create a democratic check and balance system, which the UK kinda lacks, and would give smaller parties at least some power.
They do this in Australia, albeit with preferential voting rather than FPTP. Not a bad idea.

The UK is part of the EU and the EU is not a democracy.
I see.

Yes, the UK is a democracy, although not a constitutional democracy. We might call it a de facto democracy.

This disproves the equality "republic=democracy".

The UK is part of the EU and the EU is not a democracy.

The EU isn't a "-cracy" of any kind, because it has no direct power (kratos => -cracy) anyway.

Here's the subject of the OP, as applied to the US. Maybe you'll find it educational, and see which form of government you have

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

But we vote for our parliament which runs the nation. Which is obviously democratic (Minus Gordon Brown, who wasn't voted in by either the public, or his own party.)


Gordon Brown was elected by the public. He is an MP elected by his constituents and then given the position of Prime Minister by HM Queen, the same as every other Prime Minister.
no written constitution

Actually the UK has a written constitution, just not a codified constitution.

Gordon Brown was elected by the public. He is an MP elected by his constituents and then given the position of Prime Minister by HM Queen, the same as every other Prime Minister.
Gordon Brown was voted for by 24,278 people, out of a population of ~61 million, in a constituency that was created that year in an act of predictable gerrymandering. Not only did a significant majority of the British Public not vote for him (99.96%, in fact), but those few that did were most likely planted there to secure his ascendancy.

Gordon Brown was voted for by 24,278 people, out of a population of ~61 million, in a constituency that was created that year in an act of predictable gerrymandering. Not only did a significant majority of the British Public not vote for him (99.96%, in fact), but those few that did were most likely planted there to secure his ascendancy.

So, apart from it being a new constituency, what makes him any different from any other Prime Minister?

So, apart from it being a new constituency, what makes him any different from any other Prime Minister?
Don't play that fact down. No Prime Minister (at least, not for as long as the position has been so called) has ever come to power while in the first term of a brand new constituency, never mind in the middle of that term and without an electoral mandate. The whole thing stinks of a cynical manipulation of democratic process.

Don't play that fact down. No Prime Minister (at least, not for as long as the position has been so called) has ever come to power while in the first term of a brand new constituency, never mind in the middle of that term and without an electoral mandate. The whole thing stinks of a cynical manipulation of democratic process.

He had an electoral mandate. He was elected by his constituents. Now, it was a new constituency, but he was elected by those constituents and thus he had a mandate. Everything has followed the letter of the law and followed democratic process as laid down by that law. Those same voters could well have not elected him, but they did so there is his mandate. Just because it's a new constituency and it's the first time that a Prime Minister has been selected from a new constituency doesn't make it a manipulation of the democratic process. Brown, whether people like him or not, has been an elected MP since 1983 and been in government since 1997, and he was accepted by HM Queen to be her Prime Minister, his legal mandate is clear.

No, it's an elected dictatorship, by far the most efficient method of government.

He had an electoral mandate. He was elected by his constituents. Now, it was a new constituency, but he was elected by those constituents and thus he had a mandate. Everything has followed the letter of the law and followed democratic process as laid down by that law. Those same voters could well have not elected him, but they did so there is his mandate.
To govern his constituency. Which, curiously enough, hitherto had not existed.

I get what you're saying; that any member of parliament has the legal authority to be Prime Minister. But here's what happened - The previous government made it logistically infeasible for Brown to not be elected to the Commons (by constructing constituency borders in such a way as to secure the support for him) and then proceeded to make it logistically infeasible for anyone to challenge his ultimate taking of the top position by quashing any potential dissent.

It wouldn't have mattered if exactly 25,000 people in the whole of the United Kingdom could be persuaded to vote for him. He would still, by an unstoppable process, have gotten to the position he is in now (or, at least, been made the leader of the parliamentary Labour party). And there is not a damned thing any member of the public that is not one of those 25,000 could have done about it.

That is not democracy; that is Oligarchy.

No, it's an elected dictatorship, by far the most efficient method of government.
Much to its detriment. This government rushes through the things that we disagree on while trying to distract us with what little happens that there is universal accord over. The converse should be true - only those laws that reach universal agreement should be allowed to pass unscrutinised.

Efficiency can be a very dangerous property in a government.

To govern his constituency. Which, curiously enough, hitherto had not existed.

I get what you're saying; that any member of parliament has the legal authority to be Prime Minister. But here's what happened - The previous government made it logistically infeasible for Brown to not be elected to the Commons (by constructing constituency borders in such a way as to secure the support for him) and then proceeded to make it logistically infeasible for anyone to challenge his ultimate taking of the top position by quashing any potential dissent.

It wouldn't have mattered if exactly 25,000 people in the whole of the United Kingdom could be persuaded to vote for him. He would still, by an unstoppable process, have gotten to the position he is in now (or, at least, been made the leader of the parliamentary Labour party). And there is not a damned thing any member of the public that is not one of those 25,000 could have done about it.

That is not democracy; that is Oligarchy.

Right lets address this.

The PM is the MP most likely to be able to command a majority in Parliament. That is the requirement that has been followed for just about every PM going.

Brown stood in an election with no competitors true. However he was nominated by 313 (iirc) Labour MPs before nominations closed. I.e. a definite majority among MPs.

Constituency borders are not created by the government of the day (by overwhleming convention if not law) but by an independant body.

Why would they do it anyway? Under FPTP there are some seats that will only go one way. In his previous seat (which he'd been elected to since 1983) he got 65% of the vote with his nearest rival on 15%. Not exactly a marginal.

The boundary commission changes seats regularly, it makes no real difference to a PMs legitimacy. It's no more arbitrary than one that got created a couple of centuries ago.

Strong governments is never a bad idea, especially in a system with so many checks and balances, like in the UK. While it may not create democracy in its purest sense, pure democracy is both difficult to implement and ultimately undesirable. I do not really see how a weaker cabinet would be more desirable, it certainly has not created more stability in a country like Italy.

"Stability"... hmm.
Back in the '50s and '60s, the italian parliaments lasted their whole terms. The cabinets lasted much less. There were both Communists and Neofascists in the parliament.
Result? Economy flourished, and at least two attempts at coups d'etat were prevented.

After the 1994 electoral reform (almost no proportional law anymore):
Parliament elected 1994 lasted two years, with Berlusconi I cabinet from April 1994 to November 1994, and then Dini cabinet till 1996.
Parliament elected 1996 lasted five years, with Prodi I cabinet until November 1998, D'Alema I and II cabinets till 2000, Amato cabinet till 2001.
Parliament elected 2001 lasted five years, with Berlusconi II and III cabinets till 2006.

After the 2006 electoral reform (proportionality with 54% majority in the lower house granted to coalition gathering most votes AND a 4% threshold):
Parliament elected 2006 lasted two years, with Prodi II cabinet until early 2008.
Parliament elected 2008 with Berlusconi IV cabinet.

Result: economy's gone amiss.

Stability of government =/= Stability of cabinets
Stability of government =/= Stability of parliaments
Stability of government =/= Economy working ok

While you may argue that they should have a say because they received votes, the tyranny of the majority should always prevail.

Tyranny of the majority: as the term explains, it is tyranny.
The difference between a democracy and a tyranny of the majority is that:
1.in a democracy, rights of the minority are granted: in a tyranny of the majority, no
2.in a democracy, decisions are taken by the majority of the representatives... but the majority isn't ALWAYS the same. Example: back in the late '60s, the italian cabinet had the confidence by a coalition between Christian Democrats (centre) and Socialists (left). The law instituting divorce was voted by Liberals (right), Socialists and Communists (left), which attained a parliamentary majority without changing cabinet. The law about workers' rights was voted by Christian Democrats, Socialists and Communists.

Parliamentary democracy, elections through pure proportional law and weak cabinets work. Or, at the very least, worked very well here.

Well, the UK is A democracy, but not THE democracy. It is not represenatative. If you got 10 % of votes, you should get 10 % of seats, not any other way. It does not happen.

Her Majesty has little power, but she still is the boss - every civil servant serves her.

ok then if we are a democracy, then is democracy the best system?

Democracy isn't the best conceivable political system ever. Though it is probabily the best we've managed to achieve currently, because it helps to lessen internal conflicts and to resolve them more or less peacefully.

Yes. It is.

Iran is also technically a democracy. Not comparing Iran and the UK, but you get my point. The common man not electing the figurehead doesnt invalidate you as a democracy.
KoL go to freedomhouse.org to find out about iran's political freedom level and whether or not it is a democracy. it is an islamic republic. also, there is a book called Engaging Iran, which i have looked at in a library when i was at school, which mentions iran's politics. it is moving that way (democracy) but not there yet. it is a new book, 2008, i think, but check me on the year. you sir/madam, would get something out of it if you did this.

The EU isn't a "-cracy" of any kind, because it has no direct power (kratos => -cracy) anyway.

Utter balls. The EU has arrogated to itself an unjustifiably intrusive and extensive array of powers.

The EU isn't a "-cracy" of any kind, because it has no direct power (kratos => -cracy) anyway.

So what are MEPs for?

Utter balls. The EU has arrogated to itself an unjustifiably intrusive and extensive array of powers.

Which our elected representatives have signed up to.

Which our elected representatives have signed up to.

Mine haven't. I haven't approved of a single British "elected representative" since Thatcher, and frankly, resent being ruled by politicians elected by the average prole.

Here's the subject of the OP, as applied to the US. Maybe you'll find it educational, and see which form of government you have

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

nice video.

Mine haven't. I haven't approved of a single British "elected representative" since Thatcher, and frankly, resent being ruled by politicians elected by the average prole.
:)

Yeah, democracy sucks when people I don't like are elected! It is suddenly, somehow, flawed.

The answer to this is, of course, stand for election yourself.

Or start a revolution.

Oh no wait, you still need popular support for that.....

Mine haven't. I haven't approved of a single British "elected representative" since Thatcher, and frankly, resent being ruled by politicians elected by the average prole.
Single European Act? Also welcome to democracy.


Utter balls. The EU has arrogated to itself an unjustifiably intrusive and extensive array of powers.
Technically since the UK can leave the EU those are voluntarily taken on by us. A case of if you want to be in our club you must obey those rules. Not direct power and in theory at least parliamentary sovereignty is retained.

Yes. It is a parliamentary democracy. You vote for your local representatives, and the party that wins the majority of seats across the country (or is able to form a coalition to get a seat majority, or is willing to serve as a minority government if this is not possible) is appointed by the monarch (since choosing someone else goes against modern convention and would now pretty much get the monarchy abolished pretty sharpish). Its not a proportional system, but you get a choice of candidates, and there are a clear set of electoral and parliamentary rules to decide who governs and how often elections must be held. And that, in the modern sense of representative rather than direct democracy, pretty much fits the definition.

:)

Yeah, democracy sucks when people I don't like are elected! It is suddenly, somehow, flawed.

The answer to this is, of course, stand for election yourself.

Or start a revolution.

Oh no wait, you still need popular support for that.....

Popular support is not necessary; popular acquiesence, however, is.

If the British electorate were more politically active, intelligent and educated, I'd have no objections; I resent, however, having government determined by X-factor viewers and the like.

Also welcome to democracy.
Well, welcome to poorly representative, ultimately unnaccountable, pseudo-democracy.

But that's a quibble.

It is, but the way the voting works means that only perhaps 200,000 votes in ten to fifteen constituencies out of 50,000,000 in 650 COUNT for anything. Constituencies are handed out as prizes to those who kiss the boss's bottom.

A situation that leaves new voters - like my daughters - disillusioned and "veterans" like me dismayed

Popular support is not necessary; popular acquiesence, however, is.
Semantic hair-splitting that in no way invalidates my point.

If the British electorate were more politically active, intelligent and educated, I'd have no objections; I resent, however, having government determined by X-factor viewers and the like.

What is the biggest problem? Not enough education? Not enough political education and activism by the establishment? Again, you can contribute to the solution instead of railing against it.

Or is it more that people just don't come up to your intellectual standards? Well, welcome to the world! That will likely never change unless your standards do. So why bother complaining about it?

-snip-

The problem is, is that it causes some populist twit to get elected, based on charisma and vague platitudes they can spout out (like Blair and probably Cameron next), rather than anything substantial.

The problem is, is that it causes some populist twit to get elected, based on charisma and vague platitudes they can spout out (like Blair and probably Cameron next), rather than anything substantial.

True, but on the other hand, we should therefore be supporting the fact that they lie when in power. As that means they are doing their job and not just doing what they said they would to get elected (which would be a bunch of populist crap peddled to idiots).

Sounds like everyone would prefer a benevolent dictatorship of philosopher-kings.....

True, but on the other hand, we should therefore be supporting the fact that they lie when in power. As that means they are doing their job and not just doing what they said they would to get elected (which would be a bunch of populist crap peddled to idiots).

Sounds like everyone would prefer a benevolent dictatorship of philosopher-kings.....

I volunteer for the job as philosopher-king. It sounds like a really sweet gig.

Sounds like everyone would prefer a benevolent dictatorship of philosopher-kings.....
A functioning, genuinely accountable, genuinely representative, genuinely democractic set-up would be preferrable.

I volunteer for the job as philosopher-king. It sounds like a really sweet gig.

You need to be smart, and know what is best for everyone else.

Irrational hatred of poets is also a bonus.

A functioning, genuinely accountable, genuinely representative, genuinely democractic set-up would be preferrable.

My head is asploding just trying to work out what that would look like, or how it would function in the real world.

True, but on the other hand, we should therefore be supporting the fact that they lie when in power. As that means they are doing their job and not just doing what they said they would to get elected (which would be a bunch of populist crap peddled to idiots).

I don't think they lie nessecerilly, they just keep their comments and promises deliberately vague so that they look good whatever their policies be.

You need to be smart, and know what is best for everyone else.

Irrational hatred of poets is also a bonus.

I'm there!

You need to be smart, and know what is best for everyone else.

Irrational hatred of poets is also a bonus.
And, IIRC, no material possesions, nor partners, and you'd have to be 50 before becoming one.

Actually, it would still be a democracy, just an illiberal one.

Bahai'i among other groups do not receive recognition, legally or politically. Excluding groups on a basis of religion fails to meet the criteria the other poster outlined.

the problem is, is that it causes some populist twit to get elected, based on charisma and vague platitudes they can spout out (like blair and probably cameron next), rather than anything substantial.

qft.

And, IIRC, no material possesions, nor partners, and you'd have to be 50 before becoming one.

But you get sex, just no marriage.

A functioning, genuinely accountable, genuinely representative, genuinely democractic set-up would be preferrable.
But tragically impossible for a nation of 60-odd million.

But tragically impossible for a nation of 60-odd million.

Hence, limit franchise.

Hence, limit franchise.

That's an interesting definition of "genuinely representative", not to mention "genuinely democratic".

But tragically impossible for a nation of 60-odd million.
How so?

I see no inherent impossibility in a system of representatives voted in under a more fair system than FPTP, whose decisions/actions are acountable to those they represent, resulting in a more democratic system of governance.

Where do you see the impossibility lying?

That's an interesting definition of "genuinely representative", not to mention "genuinely democratic".

Representative of those with the intelligence, education and wherewithal to merit a vote.

How so?
Because one person can only really represent their own views, and anything after that is a compromised version of everyone's beliefs. You might call it a consensus, I'd call it a waste of time.

there will never be a perfect 'democracy', because most people in politcs want a postion of power. we have it much better than many other countires

Strictly speaking, UK is not a democracy, it has a republican system. Democracy means that people have direct control over goverement, what we in the west have is republican-democracy system meaning we do elect, but we elect people to do our direct goverance for us.

And is democracy a best system? Define a best system. Democracy balances between 3 most important aspects of what people want, safety, freedom and financial prosperity, by imposing regulations on each but trying to have each of them equaly important.
Which means depending on goverement either our safety, our freedom or our economic prosperity will be biggest issue, and ALL of them will at all time controled and limited to a point.
Some systems are generaly safer(some forms of dictatorship=, or better for freedom (anarchy for example) or economic (corporate goverement) but democracy is so far most popular because it balances all the aspects best.

Strictly speaking, UK is not a democracy, it has a republican system.
No it very obviously doesn't.

hmm, wrong word, you are right, but the election system is not strictly democratic since people are elected to represent citizens on the vote on issues instead of having a freaking nationwide voting every day.

Representative of those with the intelligence, education and wherewithal to merit a vote.
With these criteria decided by those with the intelligence, education and wherewithal to decide criteria, one presumes?


Because one person can only really represent their own views, and anything after that is a compromised version of everyone's beliefs. You might call it a consensus, I'd call it a waste of time.
I'd agree that representative democracy has a limitation in representation, I was just baulking at your (perhaps unimplied) suggestion that the system could not be made better.

With these criteria decided by those with the intelligence, education and wherewithal to decide criteria, one presumes?


It would, yes, be a subjective judgement. However, within politics, what isn't?

It would, yes, be a subjective judgement. However, within politics, what isn't?
A system where one group of people not only have a voting monopoly, but also decide who is worthy of inclusion into the favoured group is, to put it mildly, prone to abuse.

On the note of the EU not being a "democracy", Last time I checked, the MEP's were all, you know, voted for? Funny that.

A system where one group of people not only have a voting monopoly, but also decide who is worthy of inclusion into the favoured group is, to put it mildly, prone to abuse.

Nevermind that one could make the same argument for the "silent majority"/ politically apathetic centre/ uneducated fuckwiths to whom the British parties currently pander, with policy thus reflecting their interests as opposed to those of the their core voters.

Yeah, I dont see where its not...

Id say their Parliament works better than our Congress...Although, I wouldnt like the idea of my Head of Government being chosen by the Majority Party rather than my individual vote...


But, since ours is done by the Electoral College anyway, id say its a moot point, lol...

On the note of the EU not being a "democracy", Last time I checked, the MEP's were all, you know, voted for? Funny that.

Fundamentally, however, you cannot dispute that EU legislation, affecting Britain and determining it's policy, can be redacted and passed without the assent of British MEP's.

Hurrah for Nigel Farage.

Fundamentally, however, you cannot dispute that EU legislation, affecting Britain and determining it's policy, can be redacted and passed without the assent of British MEP's.

Hurrah for Nigel Farage.

But doesnt Britain already opt out of lots of EU legislation anyway...

Off the top of my head, the Economic Policies...

But doesnt Britain already opt out of lots of EU legislation anyway...

Off the top of my head, the Economic Policies...

I find the imposition of any legislation not actively passed within Parliament to be an affront to sovereignty; that we are permitted some autonomy is latitude is hardly to be celebrated.

Nevermind that one could make the same argument for the "silent majority"/ politically apathetic centre/ uneducated fuckwiths to whom the British parties currently pander, with policy thus reflecting their interests as opposed to those of the their core voters.
Not sensibly you couldn't.

Fundamentally, however, you cannot dispute that EU legislation, affecting Britain and determining it's policy, can be redacted and passed without the assent of British MEP's.


By remaining in the EU, Parliament is tacitly approving EU legislation. Parliamentary sovereignty remains.

Isn't the UK basically a police state? if not it is well on its way to become one.

Not sensibly you couldn't.



By remaining in the EU, Parliament is tacitly approving EU legislation. Parliamentary sovereignty remains.

I clearly could, and just have; it may be more modulated in its severity in as much as it is organic and not an intended feature of the political process, however, this hardly alters the fact that a politically apathetic central corpus of voters are empowered above those with more sophisticated and considered political views.

Reagrding Parliamentary sovereignty, I disagree; Parliament is conferred with an unpartible, indivisble legislative power, that cannot then be devolved or delegated onto another body.

I suppose if Britain doesnt feel Democratic enough...surely we Americans, could "Introduce" one to it...

I clearly could, and just have; it may be more modulated in its severity in as much as it is organic and not an intended feature of the political process, however, this hardly alters the fact that a politically apathetic central corpus of voters are empowered above those with more sophisticated and considered political views.
Not even in the same ballpark as actually restricting the franchise.


Reagrding Parliamentary sovereignty, I disagree; Parliament is conferred with an unpartible, indivisble legislative power, that cannot then be devolved or delegated onto another body.

You know that most if not all EU regulations/directives etc are transposed into UK legislation?

But if you say that only parliament can make laws then you're throwing out a shedload of British political practice. Parliament rather clearly has devolved/delegated/etc. You can argue that it shouldn't, but that is the current situation.

The simple test is this. Can Parliament get rid of EU legislation. Answer, yes, by leaving the EU. Therefore Parliament has ultimate power over whether EU legislation applies in this country and have ultimate sovereignty.

And that's assuming that they don't vote it through Parliament as well, which they often do.

The simple test is this. Can Parliament get rid of EU legislation. Answer, yes, by leaving the EU.

What if they take an, "unpleasant" approach to you Leaving the EU....

Nevermind that one could make the same argument for the "silent majority"/ politically apathetic centre/ uneducated fuckwiths to whom the British parties currently pander, with policy thus reflecting their interests as opposed to those of the their core voters.
I fail to see how replacing a system we both admit as broken with one involving an elite minority holding all political power solves any issues of accountability or representativeness.

Reagrding Parliamentary sovereignty, I disagree; Parliament is conferred with an unpartible, indivisble legislative power, that cannot then be devolved or delegated onto another body.
It's my understanding that this is simply not the case. Many institutions have had power legitimately, in the eyes of Parliament itself, devolved to them from Westminster (e.g., the Scottish, Welsh and Irish legislative assemblies, along with numerous QUANGOs, and other institutions), and as long as Parliament is a signatory to any number of documents, such as the UNCoHR or the ECoHR, then they too are legitimate restrictions on sovereignty.

Parliament quite cleary can devolve or delegate legislative power to another body.

Isn't the UK basically a police state?
No. Don't be retarded.
if not it is well on its way to become one.
Uhu...

Oh yes calling me retarded is real great. Even though you have to have ID cards,Cameras are everywhere,people can be thrown in jail for long periods of time with no reason,protests in front of parliament are forbidden unless you have a permit. Idk sound like the path to police state?

Oh yes calling me retarded is real great. Even though you have to have ID cards,
Currently being trialled, and unless they push it through damn quick it SHOULD be scrapped by the likely next government before they actually happen.


Cameras are everywhere,
True enough. Although more correctly there are lots of them in certain areas and few outside urban centres.

people can be thrown in jail for long periods of time with no reason,
EDIT: 28 days without being charged. Multiple Warrants are required from a magistrate etc for it to happen with reasons given. 42 days was on the cards but got rejected.


protests in front of parliament are forbidden unless you have a permit.
Annoyingly true.

Idk sound like the path to police state?
It's true, you don't know. I'm not a fan of defending our current authoritarian government's stance on liberty, but we're on the way to a police state in the same way going to east to Germany is on the way to China.

Oh yes calling me retarded is real great.
Yes, yes it is.
Even though you have to have ID cards
Nope.
Cameras are everywhere
"Oh no"
people can be thrown in jail for long periods of time with no reason
28 days, and it's by no means an everyday occurance.
protests in front of parliament are forbidden unless you have a permit.
Yeop.
Idk sound like the path to police state?
Not really, no.

42 days without being charged.
28, the 42 days' amendment hasn't been passed through the Lords yet IIRC.

28 days, and it's by no means an everyday occurance.
.

Wait......Tell me Im not reading this right....You brits can just randomly be thrown in jail for 28 Days....:eek:





Then again...I think our government can just randomly waterboard us for 28 days so....nvm, lol...

28, the 42 days' amendment hasn't been passed through the Lords yet IIRC.

The thing that always holds me back slightly from shouting about reforming the Lords too loudly is they do tend to keep doing sensible things from time to time.

Wait......Tell me Im not reading this right....You brits can just randomly be thrown in jail for 28 Days....:eek:
Randomly my arse.

You have to fulfill a whole bunch of criteria -

- Long term interest from the secret services
- Magistrates being given evidence
- Brown skin
- A really plausible explanation for why you can't be let out

etc.

Wait......Tell me Im not reading this right....You brits can just randomly be thrown in jail for 28 Days....:eek:


Iirc basic arrest is 24 hours. Longer than 24 has to be confirmed by senior police officer. Longer than a few days a warrant has to be got from a judge and renewed at regular intervals to keep them longer.

Iirc 6 people have gone to the limit thus far.

The thing that always holds me back slightly from shouting about reforming the Lords too loudly is they do tend to keep doing sensible things from time to time.
Damned right. The Lords are top.

Randomly my arse.

You have to fulfill a whole bunch of criteria -

- Long term interest from the secret services
- Magistrates being given evidence
- Brown skin
- A really plausible explanation for why you can't be let out

etc.

Iirc basic arrest is 24 hours. Longer than 24 has to be confirmed by senior police officer. Longer than a few days a warrant has to be got from a judge and renewed at regular intervals to keep them longer.

Iirc 6 people have gone to the limit thus far.

Ah, okay, that makes alot more sense, I didnt think yalld let something like that happen, lol...


thats basically the same thing as here in that case, carry on, lol...

But it has become a nanny state.

But it has become a nanny state.

Define nanny state.

But it has become a nanny state.
Err not really. Also could you just post as one poster rather than 3 or 4 puppets -_-

Define nanny state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_State

It could possibly fit this definition...But, Im at a loss for Western Nations who dont...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_State

It could possibly fit this definition...But, Im at a loss for Western Nations who dont...

Oh Britain quite possibly could be. But it's something that tends to have a very moveable definition.

im curious because according to websites like wikipedia, were not, becuase we still have a monarchy, we also have a state religion which i thought democracys couldnt have

The queen isn't even allowed to vote. Aside from swearing in new PM's, she really can't do anything else when it comes to politics. Aside from dissolve parliament, but that won't happen.

She's basically a tourist attraction, and this just proves to me that wikipedia isn't worth looking at.

The queen isn't even allowed to vote. Aside from swearing in new PM's, she really can't do anything else when it comes to politics. Aside from dissolve parliament, but that won't happen.

She's basically a tourist attraction, and this just proves to me that wikipedia isn't worth looking at.

The easy way to describe the British constitution is as a cartoon character who's run off the edge of the cliff but won't fall until he looks down. In theory the queen has lots of powers and all sorts of other problems exist. A long series of conventions and gentleman's agreements exist so that in practice it works the way we like it. It all works as long as you don't get too worried about why and how :tongue:

Oh yes calling me retarded is real great.

The truth is nice.

Even though you have to have ID cards

As does France, it makes us a police state how?

Cameras are everywhere

If your in public people can see you, having cameras up helps in evidence in cours.

people can be thrown in jail for long periods of time with no reason

96 hours is not a long period of time. For 28 days they need reasonable grounds for believing that his detention without being charged is necessary to secure or preserve evidence relating to an offence for which he is under arrest or to obtain such evidence by questioning him.

protests in front of parliament are forbidden unless you have a permit.

In a police state they would not allow any kind of pretest surely?

Idk sound like the path to police state?

Not really.