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?

Yes, when you consider the amount of morons in the population, you're correct

Yes this first comment nails it.

We do agree that it’s intolerance and fascism by another name.

What about intolerance and communism, or is that ok?

It’s never OK. Obviously. 🙄

@Blossomtoes
I meant in a historical sense. Stalin and others. Intolerance of others on a grand scale usually means numerous deaths within the dissident population.

Thing is, you can't expect people to be interested enough in all that stuff to bother trying to learn a bit. It's just not realistic. What really gets me is complete know nothings, spouting bollocks and dismissing the knowledge of experts as if somehow they know better about economics and world trade that Pascal Lamy. I remember, during the EU referendum, the views of experts dismissed with a wave of the hand because 'they're all remainers' hmm... why would that be I wonder?

It's called polarisation @Kendodd . And it is getting worse, not healing over. Mea culpa, I did not foresee the endless rancour that would follow the 2016 referendum. I used to think that the inventiveness ( and imho, we are really good at inventive) of Britain would be freed to do better.

The UK was a seriously important member of the EU. The UK was more open to new ideas. We wrote and developed many of the basic protocols; Europol is completely based on Interpol, created by the UK between the two wold wars. The basic food hygiene technology and and handling rules. Massive amounts of the health and safety code originated in the UK. Maternity rights. The UK's NMW and living wage rates are at the top of the European league, even since leaving, because the rest have not kept up. The UK has been shockingly bad at claiming all the credit it should be due.

Thing is, you can't expect people to be interested enough in all that stuff to bother trying to learn a bit. It's just not realistic.

So the next best thing is to trust those that are interested in all that stuff and accept their knowledge.

The fundamental problem here is the lack of trust. And that's not an accidental situation. It's deliberately engineered to allow demagoguery to triumph.

This would be a fantastic replacement for the house of lords

@Barbadossunset

We do have an issue that manifestos are not followed when a party is in government.

Thats a good point. To all those posters advocating reading up on the plans of each party before the election - what if you like the idea of what they are proposing and then they don’t do it?
How are people to know which manifesto promises will happen and which won’t?"

+++
But to be fair politicians have to lie in manifestos or at least make the promises so vague ("improve education" "fix the NHS" etc ) to be measured, in order to become politicians in the first place.

Look if there two candidates A and B.
Candidate A promises to spend more on education and the NHS but it will mean tax rises.
Candidate B promises to spend more on education and the NHS but will get the money from "growing the economy" / "cutting waste" / "closing tax loopholes" etc etc.

Which one do you think will get elected? So when B does get elected and finds they can't get the money needed they then fail to deliver on their manifesto promises.

So the reason politicians lie is that democracy means they have to in order to get elected.

Many Chinese not only don’t believe that democracy is necessary for economic success but do believe that their form of government is legitimate and effective
In addition China views Western democracies as in decay and are happily supporting authoritarian regimes around the world.

Reading through some of these posts I think they may have a point.

So, if "those people" are not smart enough to pass the quiz and vote, then they should also be exempt from paying any taxes or fees. Only the voters pay for everything, the rest get a free pass. Because, if they don't get to have a choice, they shouldn't be responsible to pay for other's choices.

I get the feeling the OP thinks that the only ones who should be allowed to vote are the people that agree with her views on everything. smdh

I think our current “democratic” system is partly failing because of capitalism and the fact that money is generally needed and used to buy power.

It’s bad enough in the UK, but look particularly at the US leadership competitions. What are the genuine chances that a small group of the same families have all the best leaders, for example? Two Bushes? Two Clintons?

Democracy is the least worst we’ve seen. Some means of completely random selection, as others have outlined, might be better, but it’s a huge change. Equally, doing away with political parties and making all candidates independent might improve things, though the only way to find out would be to try. You’d still probably end up with men hugely over represented though, and various minorities underrepresented, so some problems would continue.

But I suspect the main problem with our current version of democracy is that those who seek power and have the money to do so are not necessarily those who are best suited to have it and they are certainly not representative of everyone.

I get the feeling the OP thinks that the only ones who should be allowed to vote are the people that agree with her views on everything. smdh

I think you’re right. If Labour win the next election I wonder if there will still be posts on here requiring a passed test before candidates can vote.

The Chinese success story is more or less built on it not being a democracy. One party who is never going to be out of power can make long-term decisions and implement a long-term strategy for growth. Of course they can also force people to work in areas they want to grow, knowing they don't have to rely on some idiot voting for them. So yes, in that sense, dictatorship is better than democracy- easier to plan ahead! Maybe OP thinks she will be one of the governing party rather than one of the worker drones?

This is the ironic thing. All the 'elf n safety' regulations in the EU were all proposed by us. We were the red tape masters of Europe, yet our governments ( successive) and Brexit supporting newspaper barons pretended this was all imposed on us. We were a big fish in a big pond, but outside the EU, we are a tiny fish in a pond of sharks who can all smell blood.

Tbf western democracies have had a good go over history even with democracy which some feel is too short term

And yes not many would prefer the lower freedoms

So yes, in that sense, dictatorship is better than democracy- easier to plan ahead!

I think history suggests that dictatorships tend to be quite vulnerable to outside attack. Dictators that weren't offed by their own side were defeated when a neighbouring country had enough.

The problem with dictatorships (I use as my example the Nazi regime, but you are free to find your own) is that eventually you end up with the craven, not the competent. People whose qualities begin - and end - with how quickly they can say "Yes, Mein Fuhrer". And with Hitlers "trick" of deliberately giving vague instructions to many people and letting them fight it out, you eventually end up with the crap of the crop.

There is a true scene in "The Death of Stalin" where the survivors state that because of Stalins repeated purges, there weren't any doctors that could have treated him around. They had all been sent to the Gulags.

Mentioning China ... look how much they are buying into the Big Man theory. Making Xi leader for life, etc, etc.

Have two democracies ever been to war ?

Hmm interesting question! Can't think of many! However some democracies do have a habit of playing war games with various dictators and dictatorships.

More importantly, who starts the wars?

I gave a fairly detailed account of why governments find it difficult to implement a manifesto some pages ago.

Also the Brexit mess was largely the making of politicians in the Conservative party and Farage. They drummed up public opinion. The gullible read a bit in the newspapers but the argument for staying in was too complex. Once you have the easy to understand ideals of Brexit pumped you day after day, it’s really difficult for many who voted to see the downsides. They believed everything Farage and others said about finance, sovereignty, trade deals, limiting immigration etc and it was simple to get across on slogans. The detail and possible problems were labelled as “project fear”. This again taps into mistrust and lies.

In many ways it was a protest vote but voters never get what’s promised. They mostly get a shadow of it.

@TizerorFizz

"In many ways it was a protest vote but voters never get what’s promised. They mostly get a shadow of it."

++++

What Brexit would actually look like was never defined other than "Brexit means Brexit " or " Brexit is red white and blue ".

So on that basis no one will ever be happy with the outcome whether they voted Leave or Remain.

So on that basis no one will ever be happy with the outcome whether they voted Leave or Remain.

I know. Great isn't it ? The next century can be spent wasting political bandwidth on the colour of a totally unnecessary Brexit, rather than holding those in power to account.

Cui bono ?

@1dayatatime
I think that’s inevitable. Brexit isn’t what people were sold snd could not be. Remain mostly haven’t changed and still see the obvious negatives. I guess some people will laud our trade deals, our lack of EU workers and increased border checks for goods but it doesn’t take much to see we have diminished influence in the world and very much with the US who are more aligned to dealing with the EU.

Referendums in this country are largely a mistake. Look at the voting system one. Hardly anyone knew what the options were let alone understand them. We see time and time again knee jerk reactions. Look at forcing the convicted to come to court to face the sentence. It’s assuming prisoners feel remorse and will go if the law says so. What about if they become violent? Upset the victims even more? What about injuries to those doing the forcing? We seem incapable of seeing issues in any depth.

We seem incapable of seeing issues in any depth.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Not at all, I've no issue with views that oppose mine providing they are informed and the holder is willing to engage on them. Ultimately I would want my views to be the prevalent one's in society, who wouldn't?

But as I said, since starting the thread I have released my main issue isn't about everyone having an equal vote. It's about the way in which democracy is administered in the UK, specifically around the lack of standards our elected officials are held too and the lack of mechanisms in place to challenge them of make them accountable.

Just look at how complaints against them are handled by the parliamentary standards commission. Almost all complaints that result in them finding an MP in breach of the standards are dismissed as being "inadvertant" or "on the lesser end of the scale" and no further action is taken.

Revent examples include our current PM, the guy running the country, the ex-chancellor and supposed financial guru, who was apparently so "confused" by the concept or registering conflicts of interest (that directly benefited his wife's investments) that the PCS found the rule breach to be "inadvertent" with no further action taken.

Or how about Barbara Keeley; who was accused of failing to register 3 conflicts of interest within the specified deadline only for it to be found during the investigation that there were 8 more breaches. But she apologies so that was the end of that. 11 breaches and no action taken!

It seems that MPs can breach rules, lie, fail to turn up to work for a year, abuse their position and there's nothing anyone can do about it until an election is called.

I've also never voted Labour in my life and I'm sure there are just as many corrupt Labour mps abusing their position as tory ones.

I've no issue with views that oppose mine providing they are informed and the holder is willing to engage on them

Indeed. But you can't force people to engage, not should you.

However, if someone only parrots a soundbite. and won't - or can't - explain why they agree with it (and that is assuming they actually understand it in the first place) then I don't see I need to really have much time or respect for that person.

Here's someone who clearly hadn't a fucking clue as to what he was busy supporting. Not a single fucking clue. The clue train stopped at every station, but nobody got one. He managed to fall out of the clue tree without hitting a single branch on the way down. The squandered their resistance for a pocketful of mumbles such are promises.

I bet they were also telling anyone who suggested they might want to actually think about their position to go fuck themselves as enemies of the people, we won, get over it etc etc .

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/ashamed-brexit-voter-holidays-affected-2581261