Quote: sootyj @ October 18 2013, 1:36 PM BST

Democracy is a funny beast, proportional representation has been pretty awful where it's been used. In Israel it allows loony minority parties to band together and hold the country to ransom.

Democracy as a sort of vague approval for what is essentially an elected dictatorship does seem to work.

View original

Yep - PR might be better but it is also flawed in all its forms. ie To "threshold" or not to threshold? The Liberals in Germany have been sunk by a 5% requirement which was designed to keep out the fascists rather than them. That's not good. Still, at least it isn't the Israeli position you have eloquently described.

On vagueness, in 1979 we were lamenting how turnout had fallen dramatically here since the early 1960s. We were noting too how the two main parties in combination were getting a far lower share of the vote. These trends have continued so that vague representation became vaguer. The big turning point for me has been the combination of that trend and the sheer political distance now between politicians and the public.

It is a system that will not survive this century. I think the same is true of money. A paternal state is one thing but now it is all principally driven by egos. And those will ultimately only be tolerated in celebrities.

I think Churchill put it best when he said

"it's the worst form of government, except for all the others"

Some of the stuff I've seen about the paralysis in the US system thanks to monied vested interests, is really, genuinely terrifying.

Quote: sootyj @ October 18 2013, 1:54 PM BST

I think Churchill put it best when he said

"it's the worst form of government, except for all the others"

Some of the stuff I've seen about the paralysis in the US system thanks to monied vested interests, is really, genuinely terrifying.

View original

Agreed but technology has moved on. Here's the challenge. To get 650 candidates to stand at the 2015 general election under the banner "IT Democracy". IT Democracy has only one policy. To immediately abolish Parliament and replace it with policy agreed weekly on the basis of IT voting by the general public. More frequent voting if quick decisions are required. Campaign to focus on the old fashioned and out of touch system. Do we really still do things in that way? I can't see why it isn't underway. It's only a matter of time!

Quote: Horseradish @ October 18 2013, 7:13 PM BST

Agreed but technology has moved on. Here's the challenge. To get 650 candidates to stand at the 2015 general election under the banner "IT Democracy". IT Democracy has only one policy. To immediately abolish Parliament and replace it with policy agreed weekly on the basis of IT voting by the general public. More frequent voting if quick decisions are required. Campaign to focus on the old fashioned and out of touch system. Do we really still do things in that way? I can't see why it isn't underway. It's only a matter of time!

View original

A direct democracy works well with a small population of several thousand, but weekly referenda just wouldn't work with a population of millions. It's a nice idea, but very few people have the intricate, detailed knowledge of policies that would allow them to make informed decisions on a weekly basis. We'd just end up with even more reactionary and short-sighted policies.

Quote: Harridan @ October 18 2013, 7:25 PM BST

A direct democracy works well with a small population of several thousand, but weekly referenda just wouldn't work with a population of millions. It's a nice idea, but very few people have the intricate, detailed knowledge of policies that would allow them to make informed decisions on a weekly basis. We'd just end up with even more reactionary and short-sighted policies.

View original

Well that's a decent argument. There are many things about which I'd probably disagree with the majority of the public. If they decided to require future voting to be by mobile phone for example. I don't want to own a mobile phone - ever - and at least with IT people can go to libraries etc.

But in choosing a democratic way forward, I doubt that my preferences should count for more than the preferences of the majority. And while it is true that there would be a problem with detail, I would be more persuaded by that point if we were all basking in our country's success.

I can't see why any democracy could possibly be against "IT Democracy" candidates in an election.

Quote: Harridan @ October 18 2013, 7:25 PM BST

A direct democracy works well with a small population of several thousand, but weekly referenda just wouldn't work with a population of millions. It's a nice idea, but very few people have the intricate, detailed knowledge of policies that would allow them to make informed decisions on a weekly basis. We'd just end up with even more reactionary and short-sighted policies.

View original

But instead of someone making decisions with or without our approval, wouldn't it be better if their job was to recognise when we need a new policy or to do something and then persuade the public that we need to do it, telling us why? Also I really do think there would be a heck of a lot more interest in politics if everyone was that closely involved with it.

Quote: Hannah G @ October 18 2013, 7:50 PM BST

But instead of someone making decisions with or without our approval, wouldn't it be better if their job was to recognise when we need a new policy or to do something and then persuade the public that we need to do it, telling us why? Also I really do think there would be a heck of a lot more interest in politics if everyone was that closely involved with it.

View original

Yes I agree - and more young people would engage.

Your system is less radical and more sophisticated. I guess you could retain the current structures but require Governments before starting on any policy direction to issue an IT question to the public "Is this what you had in mind when you voted for us?" If it's a "no", they would then have to go back to the drawing board. It wouldn't simply be advisory as in consultation. It would have prevented tuition fees etc.

Quote: Horseradish @ October 18 2013, 8:03 PM BST

Yes I agree - and more young people would engage.

Your system is less radical and more sophisticated. I guess you could retain the current structures but require Governments before starting on any policy direction to issue an IT question to the public "Is this what you had in mind when you voted for us?" If it's a "no", they would then have to go back to the drawing board. It wouldn't simply be advisory as in consultation. It would have prevented tuition fees etc.

View original

Yes HR, something like a mix of what we have now and the IT thing you were speaking about. I think too many people are annoyed with the way things are getting now and would vote in something like this. But then I'm not an expert on politics so there's probably a lot of problems with it as well, I don't know.

Interesting to see the Tories all over the Chinese at the moment

They were accusing Milliband of being a Marxist and a socialist (lol!) recently

Am I out of date or isn't china a communist country?

That doesn't seem to bother them

Seems communist countries are actually fine - so long as theyre giving you millions and millions of pounds

Kill as many monks as you like , drive as many tanks over students as you want! Fine

Just keep the dosh coming and your ok with us

Bunch o c**ts

They're not really communists though, are they? They're totalitarian capitalists.

China will rule the world one day...

Nah, they'll run out of tigers soon and won't be able to make any more of their special magic powder, and they shall fall apart, boo hoo. F**k 'em.

*is in a bad mood with China*

No tigers in china

They must import dead ones now then.

Yes

They probably use their testicles as some aphrodisiac or something

Fckn crazy bastards