Militant students at Warwick

[french frank]

I thought I would look this up as it didn't seem right to me.
And you are wrong i'm afraid

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/Complete-set-of-provisional-turn-out-figures-for-referendum-now-published

If the turnout was 42% then 67.9% of the 42% voted for the status quo, then that's NOT a "huge majority of the electorate" by any means at all as most of the electorate didn't vote.

But this is still skating round the point. You can:

Have a choice of two in which everyone with the entitlement was legally bound to vote. Would that be democratic if the result was 48%/52%?

Or you could have your weighted votes in favour an elite - but still only two choices.

Or you can have a lot of different parties with those entitled being legally obliged to vote.

Or you can have a lot of different parties with no obligation to vote.

Would you be confident that if there was a 'none of the above', all those entitled to vote who didn't vote for 'any of the above' would choose that option, if obliged to vote?

What exactly is your idea of a system that would deliver a 'democratic' result - using your notion of 'democratic'?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

T

I think (again and NOT entirely seriously ;-) ) we should make it harder for people to vote, we should also have a system where not everyones vote is worth the same, people who really DO understand things (and I don't mean myself at all) should get extra votes. A phd should give you 4 votes, a pit bull type dog should mean you only get 0.5 votes and David Attenborough should have 10 votes. If you make it worth something people will value it more.

Does that mean Mr Gove gets only 0.1?

[MrGongGong]

I'm not sure that fetishising the idea of being 'democratic' is a good idea at all.

What I find objectionable is when folks pretend that things are the result of choice when they are nothing of the sort.
What people involved in politics often fail to understand (like the kipper plant on QT the other night) is that those who are critical of the system aren't necessarily suggesting that THEY should decide what happens at all.

Voting is only one way of making decisions and in many cases isn't the best way at all.

[MrGongGong]

Does that mean Mr Gove gets only 0.1?

Wash your mouth out

He gets f*ck all.

[ahinton]

I fear you fail to understand the nature of the UK democratic system, which no doubt explains your clear confusion on the matter, if I may be so outrageously bold enough to say so!

Fear what - and as much as - you want; your fears - if that's what they really are - are entirely of your own making, the confusion is likewise yours, not mine and your outrageousness and self-credited boldness are your own prerogative, although neither cuts any ice hereabouts.

The electorate does not appoint leaders that is the job of MPs and party members.

Of course that is true insofar as it goes but, when one considers that increasing acrimony and enmity between Blair and Brown and the latter's longstanding near desperation to supplant the former as leader of the Labour Party, the inevitable diffeences of approach when Brown took over deserve due recognition for what they were, not least in that that there was no General Election at the time of that leadership change.

We have a constituency system where we simply elect individuals whether they belong to a party or not. It is up to a majority of these MPs of whatever or no party to form a government which of course is the regular practice in PR systems on the continent. If no majority is forthcoming the largest group can attempt to run a 'minority' administration, all eventually rubber-stamped by Queenie, of course. That is the way our democracy works so whether the eventual Prime Minister turns out to be Brown, Black, White or Green is wholly irrelevant as far as the legitimacy of the democracy is concerned

I do happen to know what system we have, thank you.

The system itself was endorsed overwhelmingly by voters in a 2011 referendum so there is absolutely no case to claim that the people haven't had a chance to change not just the government but the very system itself.

Whilst an interesting point, it is not the principal one here, which is that, as I have already pointed out, if there are few material differences between the major parties (i.e. those that might stand some chance of either being elected or forming a coalition with at least one of the others), it is less the electoral system itself but the comparative paucity of available democratic choice that is at issue; for example, whilst it is well known to some here that I am not of socialist persuasion, the fact that there has for the past three decades or more been scant evidence of a credible, viable, forceful and readily identifiable socialist opposition in UK has done damage to political conduct and debate and, as such, has gone some way to undermine a sense of true democracy.

Moreover, where goes your argument when it is an indisputable fact that no one who marked their ballot papers in the last UK General Election voted for a coalition?

[ahinton]

Yes, you are undeniably correct as the official dictionary definition of 'electorate’ is 'those who are entitled to vote' so my use of the word is inaccurate in this particular instance. I can only apologise to you profusely, MrGongGong ... a salutary lesson in the vital importance of dictionaries, don't you think?

However, those wretches who cannot even be bothered to vote in elections/referenda... naturally I exclude the very old, infirm, etc who are unable to vote despite a postal facility ... voluntarily, if temporarily, disenfranchise themselves and therefore are excluded from the process.

Of those who did vote there was a thumping 2-1 majority in favour of retaining the current system ... is that not an impressive-enough verdict for you, Mr GongGong ... or would you advocate a compulsory voting system?

While accepting your apology here, it remains true that those entitled to vote but do not do so remain a part of the same democratic (or otherwise) electoral process in UK and they have the same human rights as all other UK citizens.

[french frank]

Voting is only one way of making decisions and in many cases isn't the best way at all.

So, what IS the best way to take decisions on how the country is run?

[MrGongGong]

So, what IS the best way to take decisions on how the country is run?

When people vote they aren't really deciding on how the country is run, merely selecting a person/group whom they think might make a better hash of it than the last lot.

Asking everyone what they think about things that the know little about doesn't seem very sensible to me.
Some folks, the kippers being the current group who espouse this, think that all one needs to do is to ask people what they want then give it to them. The problem with this being the whole question about how do people arrive at an idea of what they want in the first place.
Voting is great for some things BUT not all.
Exactly WHICH things is a matter of debate.

It's interesting to note that many of those who bang on about how important democracy is also are supporters of the Royal Family.

[french frank]

You have elaborated on what you think is NOT the way - but haven't answered the question on what would be better.

[Beef Oven!]

Asking everyone what they think about things that the know little about doesn't seem very sensible to me.
Some folks, the kippers being the current group who espouse this, think that all one needs to do is to ask people what they want then give it to them. The problem with this being the whole question about how do people arrive at an idea of what they want in the first place.

Ok, tell us a little bit about a different way of going about it.

Voting is great for some things BUT not all.
Exactly WHICH things is a matter of debate.

What things should we vote on?

It's interesting to note that many of those who bang on about how important democracy is also are supporters of the Royal Family.

No. It's not "funny"

Of the top 5 democracies in the world, on the global democracy ranking, 3 are constitutional monarchies. The top 2 are constitutional monarchies.

[P. G. Tipps]

While accepting your apology here ...

Grateful thanks, ahinton, for accepting the apology offered to Mr GongGong ... :-)

it remains true that those entitled to vote but do not do so remain a part of the same democratic (or otherwise) electoral process in UK and they have the same human rights as all other UK citizens.

Yehhhsss ... and ... ??

Are you advocating that those who don't vote should be represented by a Nobody Party with a Nobody elected in every constituency when the greatest number of the electorate don't vote for Anybody?

[Serial_Apologist]

You have elaborated on what you think is NOT the way - but haven't answered the question on what would be better.

I think the answer lies in MrGG's devotion to collective empowerment through individual self-realisation, by means of musical expression in a co-operative context, encouraging awareness and setting up the kinds of context that bring out the fullest and most rounded potential in people.

That to me amounts to establishing one vital precondition for future change in getting people to understand the ways and whys of the world.

[P. G. Tipps]

I think the answer lies in MrGG's devotion to collective empowerment through individual self-realisation, by means of musical expression in a co-operative context, setting up the kinds of context that bring out the fullest and most rounded potential in people.

So Mr GG thinks music groups and bands are a really super idea ....?

[amateur51]

Ok, tell us a little bit about a different way of going about it.




What things should we vote on?



No. It's not "funny"

Of the top 5 democracies in the world, on the global democracy ranking, 3 are constitutional monarchies. The top 2 are constitutional monarchies.

Top 5 democracies? On whose say-so?

Any chance of a reference?

[Serial_Apologist]

So Mr GG thinks music groups and bands are a really super idea ....?

Insofar as music making opens minds and offers a responsible and creative means of involvement in an active society, yes.