Ive been doing a lot of political/philosophical reading lately, and I thought Id be a very interesting question to ask ourselves. I havent quite decided what to vote myself.

 

 

 

 

* Oligarchy is a form of government where most political power effectively rests with a small segment of society (typically the most powerful, whether by wealth, military strength, ruthlessness, or political influence). The word oligarchy is from the Greek for "few" and "rule". Some political theorists have argued that all societies are inevitably oligarchies no matter the supposed political system.

I believe in democracy, but not as it is now. I don't believe in a "natural right" for everyone to vote, and the idea that every vote is worth the same is ludicrous. So I guess the answer would be no.

#Yes. Its definently not perfect, but its the best we've got

Yes, with all my heart. Democracy takes many forms, of course, none of them perfect - there was a famous article that found hundreds of adjectives that have been applied to democracy: liberal democracy, popular democracy, semidemocracy, transitional democracy, parliamentary democracy, post-authoritarian democracy, protodemocracy and so on and so on... But at the heart is the idea that government should be chosen by the people and accountable to them, and it's a good one.

 

Democracy is not itself a solution to any problem. It is merely a way for tensions to be released without violent conflict, and for compromises to be reached.

Maybe I'll change my religion to Democracy. After all, I believe in it with all my heart and soul. Sometimes I don't like how my fellow citizens vote, but I would rather suffer through the bad decisions of my fellow citizens than enjoy the false prosperity of any tyranny.

Personally I believe in a further form of Democracy where you get rid of biased Party Politics where they spend the entire term in office trying to get one over on the other and get basically sod all done - and have devoted Representatives instead and have a Democracy where cocnerns of the people are put before a Council and debated. The people are encouraged to get involved in the process as much as possible.

 

And then on entry to the real world...

Well, voter apathy has already gone beyond recovery (in the UK at least) - the representatives would require extremely close regulation to stop factionism and the last Council-based system didn't go down well with the bulk of the world...

 

But no, if I had gone into stasis last week and woke up yesterday to find the world mostly devastated with the survivors relying on me to reform civilisation, then I would try and enforce that policy.

 

So what am I saying? Yes I beleive in Democracy, but not the Democracy we have now - it's crap and could be much better - it needs another kick up the arse like what happened in the 19th century. In the UK at least. But that's my own opinion. Hell, I am 19 after all - I know everything...

The idea of Democracy appears sound, but if you look to the realities it becomes more complex. Very few(if any) countries have democracies who are not Oligarchian in some way, and many elected representatives sympathise with deeply undemocratic ideas such as the neo-conservative Straussianism.

 

 

And can we really trust people to take mature, informed decisions at all times? In fact, is it responsible to allow people to vote if thats not the case?

I definitely believe in democracy but unfortunately very few countries/nations actually put it into practice and therefore despite calling themselves a democratic country are far from it...

 

I believe that we all have the same rights as at the end of the day we're all human and are capable of the same amount of goodness and cruelty... no one is perfect... so we all have the right to vote...

 

Well, thats my two cents

 

DL

Sometimes I think people should take a proficiency test before being allowed to vote. I mean you have to do it before you can drive and to qualify for employment. But any tom **** or harry no matter how clueless can vote.

 

Perhaps a computerised exam fail and your vote is void pass and your vote gets counted.

I don't think you could say that democracy produces the most effective or efficient government possible - unelected technocrats might do better, at least in the short term. Democracy is more about legitmacy - if I'm not allowed to vote, why should I respect the government and obey the laws it makes. If I don't agree with government policy, why should I accept it, if not because a majority of my fellow citizens have chosen it and I was out-voted. Perhaps it's not about getting a 'good government', but about getting a government that everyone can put up with (which is more of an achievement than it sounds).

The idea of Democracy appears sound, but if you look to the realities it becomes more complex. Very few(if any) countries have democracies who are not Oligarchian in some way, and many elected representatives sympathise with deeply undemocratic ideas such as the neo-conservative Straussianism.

 

 

And can we really trust people to take mature, informed decisions at all times? In fact, is it responsible to allow people to vote if thats not the case?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the problem.

 

It is unconscionable -- knowing the foibles of humans as evidenced in Communist regimes, for example -- to deploy a government that doesn't include a form of representation. It makes sense to broaden the representation as widely as possible, with the understanding that not all parts are equal. Much as the personal computer is a complex group of components, so too a society is disperate groups of self-interested parties.

 

I think part of the problem with our democracies is that the roles, responsibilities, penalties and costs are not codified: not clearly defined. I see no problem with giving the public servants, and this means politicians, whatever is required for them to do their jobs without impediment. I see a big problem with a laissaz-faire implementaion of this principle leading to politicians lining their own pockets (e.g. their superannuation packages), pork-barrelling (buying votes in constituencies), and generally creating a new powerbase just as dangerous as a monarchy or a plutocracy. One of the benefits of the class system in the UK (and I'm not a big fan of it, believe me) is that the nobility were groomed for selfless public service -- they had no need for reimbursement, after all.

 

Democracies are a compromise. Majority rules, but minorities are not ruled out. The will of the majority may not necessarily be a sufficient mandate to control the minority who disagree. (There are obvious exceptions, like murder is not acceptable; but there are always soft edges to hard rules: what about self-defence? What about a slight, young female using the only means to prevent assault by a large, combat-trained brute by shooting him? What about state-sanctioned death penalty? Who decides? Etc.)

 

All good management systems include a feedback loop, even development cycles. Otherwise the system can very quickly shoot off in a tangent to its purpose.

 

The biggest issue with decision making ANYWHOW is information. Fewer contributors making an informed decision is must better than everyone making uninformed decisions.

 

I'm all for voting on every issue, unfortunately that isn't going to work. The whole point of seperating government out as a task to be done by a specific group of individuals is to let that group specialise (savings in time and effort due to economies of scale) and leave the other group(s) to specialise in their particular areas of interest.

 

The problem is verifying the work.

 

This is done in business by employing an audit company. Enron notwithstanding, this system works. So what we need is a government that is elected based on similar principles as now, with a seperate group of auditors whose sole role is to check the rectitude of the members of parliament. They should have sufficient power to prevent abuse of the political system by politicians.

 

This could be a funtion of the judicial system, although it would be a better idea to have a seperate entity.

 

Another final point. A good constitution is not sufficient to produce a robust democracy. Liberia has the exact same constitution as the USA. What is required is a constitution, a judiciary, a legislature and an exexutive (and I would add an audit group) all elected independant of each other, all working together and seperately.

 

Legislative Assembly (House of Commons) creates bills of parliament. Senate ensures the bills are consistent with the spirit and letter of established laws, especially the constitution. Executive is the Project Manager of the Legislature. The juditiary implements (further interprets) the laws. Auditors scrutinise the politicians and their decisions for fraud of any sort. Likewise with the juditiary.

 

At the moment we are all reliant on the news media to alert the public to any egregious behaviour, ad hoc, in the legislative and judicial offices (and there is nothing that can be done about any judicial contraventions, especially in the UK).

 

It needs to be spelled out, codified in law and enforced. That will prevent any misconceptions about roles and responsiblities and -- I think -- reduce all types of fraud.

Speaking of democracies, how is it that Blair could mentain power in the UK?

Didn't his side only get like 20% or am I way off here?

 

In Denmark, the center right block (3 parties) got around 53% in our latest election, which makes more sense than what I, as an outsider of course, can see in the UK system.

Speaking of democracies, how is it that Blair could mentain power in the UK?

Didn't his side only get like 20% or am I way off here?

 

In Denmark, the center right block (3 parties) got around 53% in our latest election, which makes more sense than what I, as an outsider of course, can see in the UK system. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blair's New Labour platform garnered 35% of the popular vote, which is just slightly less than Hitler's National Socialists did (36%) in 1934.

 

The electoral system in the UK is not proportional voting, it is "First Past The Post". Consequently you put an "X" next to the candidate you want to win, not a ordered number of preferences, which means the system is overly simplistic. (Commentators worked out on election night that each Labour seat cost 15,000 votes, each Conservative 30,000 votes -- 33% of the popular vote -- and each Liberal Democrat seat 65,000 votes. This is due to the relative population sizes of the electorates that were won by the parties.)

 

Then again, the other extreme is Italy, where Berlusconi's Forza Italia is the longest serving government in Italy's republican history (i.e. since June 2, 1946).

Speaking of democracies, how is it that Blair could mentain power in the UK?

Didn't his side only get like 20% or am I way off here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The 20% figure comes if you include people who didn't vote (the turnout was about 60%). So only one in five Britons actually voted for Labour. On the other hand, people obviously didn't feel strongly enough to vote him out, so I guess he can stay on. For the moment.

The 20% figure comes if you include people who didn't vote (the turnout was about 60%).  So only one in five Britons actually voted for Labour.  On the other hand, people obviously didn't feel strongly enough to vote him out, so I guess he can stay on.  For the moment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's his last term anyway. Either Gordon Brown takes over somewhere along the line, or he has to step down before the next election.

 

If you look at what was required to get the conservatives in it was always going to be a task. The only realistic way it was it was going to happen was for the lib dems to say vote conservative. But since they have dellusions of grandeur that was never going to happen so Labour more or less won by default. Though the drop in seats makes it a somewhat pyric victory.

 

I'd much rather see the election as a fight between two parties with preliminary rounds since then you dont get split votes.

Thanks for the clarifications, I still think your system is odd though. :D

I believe somewhat in democracy. Direct democracy doesn't work, but representative democracy works somewhat. I think in a representative democracy, or Republic, the voting system should be proportional, that way people who vote for smaller parties who more accurately represent their views don't feel like they're wasting their vote. Much like the previous federal election here, I voted NDP, which is the social democrat party here, but they lost out to the CPC(Conservative Party of Canada) by like 200 votes. So me, a social liberal with socialist economic views, is being represented by a social conservative with conservative economic views, and they weren't elected by a large margin so its not like I'm a small minority. IMO the first past the post voting system somewhat undermines the democratic system.

 

As to the poll, I can't vote for just one. I believe in democracy, but representative democracy is still oligarchic

As long as goverment doesn't interfere in my affairs. "

I'm a constitutional democrat with all my heart. There are things which I believe no amount of a majority disliking them should be able to remove, certain inalienable rights that transcend democracy. People should not be allowed to force their will on others without their consent, and the closest practical system to that ideal is a democracy.

I'm a constitutional democrat with all my heart.  There are things which I believe no amount of a majority disliking them should be able to remove, certain inalienable rights that transcend democracy.  People should not be allowed to force their will on others without their consent, and the closest practical system to that ideal is a democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or installing me as a benign dictator. Honest.

Didn't democracy kill Socreates?

 

I have a tough time beleiveing some peoples vote is worth more then others, when people get all there news from a television box. i wonder if they have a mind still after frying it from a tv for so many hours a week. passive learning is the worse type. We need better education systesm throughout the world Speaking of oligarchi Kaftan, The US is becoming one! a coprarete military theologocal oligarchi, its so very scarey. iceland is the purest form of democracy we have right now, it is the oldest.

Didn't democracy kill Socreates?

 

I have a tough time beleiveing some peoples vote is worth more then others, when people get all there news from a television box. i wonder if they have a mind still after frying it from a tv for so many hours a week. passive learning is the worse type. We need better education systesm throughout the world     Speaking of oligarchi Kaftan, The US is becoming one! a coprarete military theologocal oligarchi, its so very scarey. iceland is the purest form of democracy we have right now, it is the oldest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isle of Man has the oldest continuous democracy: Iceland had a break for fifty years or so back in the last century of the first millennium (er, the tenth century, then).

I don't believe in true Democracy which involves everybody would vote for everything in the goverment and to many people are misinformed or uninformed. Representative democracy I think works better however must people elected only repersent the people that voted for them. I think its really sad that republican congress spend more time debating if two male or females unions should have the same rights as male and female union then debating going to war. Instead of finding places where the budget can be cut they worry about a single woman that could or could not be alive. I can't believe how much time they are spending on steroids in sports. Lets face the fans don't mind if they are buying the tickets. If you want to use drugs to make you better but risk shorting your life then thats your choice. If kids are using drugs its the parents to control their kids. I think the war a drugs is a waste of money. Look how cheap drugs have become its really sad.

I understand democrates doing this because they believe in the goverment to put its nose into everything but republicans supposely want less goverment.

I don't believe in true Democracy which involves everybody would vote for everything in the goverment and to many people are misinformed or uninformed. Representative democracy I think works better however must people elected only repersent the people that voted for them. I think its really sad that republican congress spend more time debating if two male or females unions should have the same rights as male and female union then debating going to war. Instead of finding places where the budget can be cut they worry about a single woman that could or could not be alive.  I can't believe how much time they are spending on steroids in sports. Lets face the fans don't mind if they are buying the tickets. If you want to use drugs to make you better but risk shorting your life then thats your choice. If kids are using drugs its the parents to control their kids. I think the war a drugs is a waste of money. Look how cheap drugs have become its really sad.

I understand democrates doing this because they believe in the goverment to put its nose into everything but republicans supposely want less goverment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lots of points there, none really about democracy, except the first and last. I agree, governments seem to have taken the distraction tactics to help cloak there real behaviour, whether out of fear of identification, or just avoiding malpractice complaints. And that is all governments.

 

The biggest problem is that anybody who actually wants to be a politician is the wrong type of person to be one.

 

Arthur C Clarke described a couple of brilliant techniques in his novels, one was for truly secret ballots, whereby everyone could vote and comment electronically for a referrendum type issue with total impugnity, to encourage honest and meritocratic appraisal of the issues.

 

The other -- I don't think he was the first, or will be the last -- was the concept of a lottery for the role of president. Sort of like a one person jury, just an average person chosen at random to fill the role for twelve months.

 

Well, maybe one person is a little dangerous, so maybe a real jury of twelve people would be a better idea.

 

Anyway, one point of the few you made, I would be concerned that if drugs is permitted in sport, then those entering competitive sport will necessarily feel obligated to take drugs to win. And that means teenagers in Pro Foorball taking steroids and needing a kidney transplant on their medical insurance, followed by a lifetime of medicine. (You don't work for a multi-national pharmaceutical company, do you? )

Didn't democracy kill Socreates?

 

I have a tough time beleiveing some peoples vote is worth more then others, when people get all there news from a television box. i wonder if they have a mind still after frying it from a tv for so many hours a week. passive learning is the worse type. We need better education systesm throughout the world     Speaking of oligarchi Kaftan, The US is becoming one! a coprarete military theologocal oligarchi, its so very scarey. iceland is the purest form of democracy we have right now, it is the oldest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isle of Man has the oldest continuous democracy: Iceland had a break for fifty years or so back in the last century of the first millennium (er, the tenth century, then).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A mere technicality