To think that democracy isn't necessarily the best form of government?

[Thebestwaytoscareatory]

For example, I'm interested in politics and governance and have spent time learning about the topic, yet my vote counts exactly as much as someone who thinks all brown people are rapists or that all women are nothing more than broodmares.

This doesn't sit right with me. Surely we should acknowledge that some opinions are not as valid as others and take steps to ensure that the lowest common denominator isn't represented equally at elections?

At the moment, as some posters have mentioned, (aside from rare referendums) we trust the MPs who have access to more info and whose job it is to learn about the issue before voting for it to do so . They defend their voting record based on info they gathered about X issue. We recognise that an informed opinion is valuable and useful when casting a vote. But we then are saying that that same principle doesn't matter when it comes to GE? That you can be as uninformed as you like, you just have to be 18 and not in prison. The basis for not giving under 18s the vote is that they are not likely to be knowledgeable enough to vote responsibly, but I don't think it's secret knowledge that vast numbers of over 18s aren't either..have zero knowledge of the most basic aspects. So yes, I do think bring able to name party leaders and that MPs vote at the HoC (in a multiple choice test) should be a basic requirement and access issues can be overcome with multiple tools..the illiterate can use the reader programmes or ask for assistance at the centre, ditto with language barriers. Those with learning disabilities, assuming they are able to function sufficiently to be aware of GE and want to vote, would also be entitled to assistance to access the test in whatever format they need. I simply don't agree that it's right that people with not the slightest clue about the most basic function of government should be able to participate. Again, NOT assessment of people's political views, just level 1 of the "citizenship" that PPS have mentioned should be taught in schools.

21 countries had mandatory voting as at January this year, apparently. (I didn't know it was that many!)

The issue of EU membership was far too complex to put to a referendum, and it affected far more people than just individuals. If you are voting for a local MP, you are voting for a person tp represent you in Parliament. The Brexit referendum has affected virtually every industry in the UK. Most of which no one had any clue about, like the Horizon programme. It was also not something you think @Oh Ive made a mistake, Ill vote differently next time. It should not have been allowed to be put to a referendum.

I think most of our problems come from too few people voting, not too many. I agree with the above and mentioned before that I am in favour of compulsory voting. We need to change the voting system to make it more representative and also to allow new voices to represent us. The current two parties are parties of a bygone era. They are coalitions, it seems to people with little in common who either hate each other or do whatever they can to undermine the other faction of the party. If we had PR then various parties would have to negotiate like grown ups and parties would not be able to hide within parties. People give the example of the Greens tail wagging the SNP dog but doesn't the ERG wag the Tory Party dog, even though UKIP have never ever been elected in any seat?

We also need to ensure that peoples votes are not being stolen by others. If we had minimum voting requirements it would be even easier for a husband to coerce a wife into saying she doesn't know what the chancellor does and deny her the vote. In many fundamentalist communities, this would certainly happen.
In any case, surely anywhere that has a voting system of any kind is some form of democracy, even a bad one. If the OP is arguing that democracy is not the best form of government, surely you should be arguing for the benefits of no one voting at all- so a one party state?

The UK government rarely uses referenda. 1975 EU, 2011 voting system change (did any of you vote for change?) and 2016 EU again. So three times in 50 years isn’t much. Parliament makes decisions and is better equipped to do it. Brexit was all about Cameron being rattled by UKIP and agitators in the Con Party who had been rattling the cage as far back as the 90s and fell out with the Major government.

I probably won’t vote in the next election. I don’t find either main party appealing and the same party gets in here anyway. I doubt I’m in a marginal seat! I strictly prefer middle ground policies but we lurch to extremes which I do not like. We are divided as a country in so many ways.

No government will ever vote for testing citizens pre voting. The more complex our problems and policies are, the less likely many people will understand what they are voting for. We are in the era, again, of three word slogans building on “Labour isn’t working” in the late 70s. This gets at the people who don’t think too much. 66% vote and this is surely affected by votes not mattering and disinterest in politics.

NI is very much missing Stormont. The oriole there have voted in these idiots though. NI needs a new party to represent modern collaborative views.

On a small point of pedantry 1975 was the EEC as the EU didn't exist.

I did vote in favour of PR in the 2011 referendum.

The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship, but as actually benevolent dictators are rather hard to come by I'll stick with democracy, thanks.

I would say direct your ire at Parliament.

However, we have a doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty which means Parliament is the Supreme Legislator in the UK. So, they have the power to allow referendums as we've seen in 1973 (Northern Ireland), 1975 (EEC), 2014 (Scotland) and 2016 (EU).

Indeed, referendums in the UK are advisory, but Parliament also has the power to put it through into action.

As I said, Parliament is the Supreme Legislator. You can check which parties voted to honour the 2016 result. IIRC, all did except for SNP who opposed it on the grounds in reality for it making IndyRef2 more difficult (not for reasons they stated publicly).

However, we have a doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty which means Parliament is the Supreme Legislator in the UK.

Except the entire leave campaign was predicated on telling us it wasn't.

Three UK wide referendums since the 1970s, yes.

But UK referendum history actually began with the 1973 Northern Ireland one. Further referendums in the UK include 1998 (Northern Ireland) and 2014 (Scotland).

Northern Ireland's problems is more complex for this thread, but a significant issue is the fact the Belfast Agreement was amended in 2007 without the people voting via referendum. Under Belfast Agreement rules, DUP would still have taken the role of First Minister as largest designation gets it rather than party. Currently, it also prevents Alliance taking the FM role in future too.

However, Belgium has the record for longest span of time without a functioning government. Northern Ireland, in contrast, has a devolved form so Westminster is still sovereign (direct rule does not breach Belfast Agreement).

Parliament showed it was by the votes by MPs to honour the 2016 advisory referendum. 🤦‍♂️

And the Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty since, including the Miller case as well as the two UKSC rulings that slapped down the SNP for acting ultra vires......

Next.

You can't just brush that off.

A - if not the - key plank of the Leave campaign was an out and out lie. No ambiguity. No nuance. Just a bald lie.

Brexit was bought with a dud cheque. And just like a real dud cheque, every time you present it at the bank, it gets returned to drawer. And will keep on being returned to drawer.

Theresa May tried to buy the 2017 election with her dud cheque. And got nowhere.

Boris Johnson tried tippexing out the banks stamp and represented the same dud cheque in 2019.

Yes - Leave won. Christ knows we know they won. But what have they actually bought with their winnings ? And since their "winnings" came at the expense of the whole country being the stakes, I still fucking well want to know. Because frankly at this length of time, even Dusty Bin would have been a better prize than the literal flood of shit we are being washed in daily.

I am happy for anyone to vote for whatever their conscience, their brain, and their feelings prompts them to vote for. And I claim the same right.

This is not a serious argument vis a vis Parliamentary Sovereignty!

Parliament showed its own Sovereignty by voting FOR the electorate to be able to vote on EU membership.

And AGAIN when Parliament voted to honour the result.

And AGAIN when Parliament was unconstitutionally prorogued!

Then you off on a tangent unrelated to the question of Parliamentary Sovereignty!

Jesus wept. 🤦‍♂️

As most of us don’t vote in NI or Scotland, it’s slightly irrelevant to the majority of us. Thank God probably! It’s always divisive. Look at Scotland. Never ending arguments about Indy ref 2.

The Supreme Court settled the proroguing issue I recall. You can argue parliament must pass a referendum bill (or even do something illegal) but of course the majority party win that so it’s rubber stamping. It’s still poor governance. Brexit was too complicated for many to understand so exit was presented in three word slogans that were misleading but very easy to repeat and understand. Like advertising. As many were happy to sever ties with Europe because they believed they were the source of all our problems, it just needed a final nudge of persuasion. Cummings and Vote Leave found many gullible people without ever having to explain anything. They just built on, and rammed home, distrust of the EU and little England sentiments. Farage drove this for many years. He’s an arch disruptor but again, people are easily led. Never got elected but drove this ludicrous vote and policy.

How we get people to engage in possible outcomes is our problem. People cannot see the bigger picture. Cannot envisage any problems. So they vote in their bubble. Politicians don’t have vision. They lurch from crisis to crisis with few longer term policies. Vote with the whip. Don’t have enough talent to have sensible policies. All are driven by what they think their voters want via policy groups. So there’s no wider vision. That’s why I don’t want to vote for any of them.

Ah! Another three sets of referendums in the UK was 1979 and 1997 (both Scotland on devolution), Wales in 1997 (devolution) also.

The Welsh devolution result is even tighter than the 2016 EU referendum, but you don't generally see someone trying to argue it shouldn't have passed through anyway.

Northern Ireland and Scotland have had major constitutional implications for the entire UK Constitution. Whether or not some in England are politically aware enough of this.

The 2015 EU Referendum Act was NOT merely "rubber stamping"! It was an expression of Parliament's sovereignty! The numbers of MPs voting for it speaks for itself - 544. Conservative and Labour numbers very similar. Only SNP opposed.

Oops, one more referendum in the UK was the Greater London Authority one in 1999!

Most referenda in the UK has been under the Labour Party. Most UK wide referenda has been under the Conservatives.

Well done you for research but devolution and London don’t affect everyone. There have been city devolution votes too. However they are not policy affecting everyone. So a bit of a side issue for the majority.

The constitutional implications of them do, e.g. they invariably lead to greater calls for a referendum on other issues with the argument that "a, b & c have had their say in referendums but d hasn't!". Its an exorable process from the first one in 1973 to the most recent one in 2016.

Since 1973, UK Government has ceded some degree of Sovereignty and decision making to the people in part of OR whole of the UK.

At the end of the day, it is entirely democratic for the UK Government to give decision making over EU membership to the people.

And I voted Remain at the time.

Which is understandable and for the record I respect everyone's right to vote etc.
It's just when people are giving the choice of voting on complex issues for parties in the General election, or e.g. Brexit but then they afterwards realise what a mistake it was, and then when you discuss with friends or people you know and they say oh newspaper x was saying y so I voted for that party, or we need our own trade deals, based on newspapers M,

But then you don't respect everyone's right to vote, because you can't possibly know why people vote. They could tell you they voted Tory because they looked at all the policies but really they just really like the colour blue. The ballot box is private. Your whole argument was that some people should not have the right to vote because they are too lazy/stupid.

I think we need AI as prime minister. Tireless, unbiased and able to swiftly calculate every permutation, not motivated by money or ego. Would need careful programming and parameters, but likely to be far superior to any of our previous leaders.

Yeah, lets all buy into the AI bullshit shall we. What could possibly go wrong ?

(I suspect the PP wasn't aware AI is now canvassing for opinions ....)

I've just read all my responses and comments on this thread, I have never once said or commented on people actually having the option to vote.

@SerendipityJane Sorry, I don't see the issue. Human politicians display the full range of flaws from corruption, to dictatorship to genocide. Are you thinking AI would be worse?