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?

You lost me at "yet my vote counts as much as someone". YABVU and seem to have a high opinion of yourself.

I wouldn't mind a system where a minimum level of knowledge was required to vote. After all democracy works best when the electorate is well informed and engaged. That's why the ownership of the press by those with specific interests and misinformation peddled on the Internet is so damaging.

Democracy isn't the issue.

It's those voted in by democratic process then using that power for their own gain and not the good of the electorate that are the issue.

It's the fact that the electorate don't fight against those bad decisions enough.

Currently we have a government that have removed our rights to protest and limited right to strike and I'm totally against that as being democratic. If the country is being run by people for the people then protest and strike wouldn't be the norm.

I think a big issue of proportional representation. It doesn't honestly represent the will of the electorate and means that limited areas get improvements during election time to sway the votes and other areas always lose out because their vote won't really swing a GE.

We need democracy. But we need a better democratic process.

Came here to say this!

yeah, you can pick holes in it but it doesn’t need to be perfect to be the best option we have.

If we want a society where the most effective long term decisions are made, which will benefit that society for generations to come then the democracy that we have is not the best model. It doesn't allow for long term planning and is dependent on the vagaries of a largely uneducated on the issues population.

If we want a society that reflects they way humanity is and operates generally (ie short term, knee jerk & emotional) then it's pretty good.

Some sort of benevolent dictatorship would probably be best for us all. Just need to find a non despotic dictator candidate....

So people who don't fit with your ideology should not get a vote. Hmmmmmm where have we seen that before?

We actually have an excellent system of governance here in U.K. imo. A democratically elected chamber representing the whole U.K. with an official opposition meant to challenge the government of the day. ( currently the Labour Party)
an unelected House of Lords in theory at least made up of experts in their fields or others that have served the country well and a constitutional monarchy as head of state plus an agressive ( often too aggressive imo and too partisan) media.
and it mostly works.
it failed somewhat during covid I think as all these groups did not challenge lockdowns enough ( media in particular) and went along with the status quo in-fact the official opposition wanted more lockdown but that’s an argument for another day!

It's a mix of perspectives

White male property owners over the age of 35 surely?
(Joke, before people pile in).

Hi-phi nation covered this a while back. Many years since I listened but I recall it being an interesting episode!

https://hiphination.org/season-3-episodes/s3-episode-5-demons-of-democracy/

It's those voted in by democratic process then using that power for their own gain and not the good of the electorate that are the issue.

This makes no sense at all.

The conservative government have showed who they are time and time again, and yet they continue to be voted in by the public - Boris Johnson got a huge majority.

So the natural inference of that is that the public know the tories are self interested and immoral. But continue to want them to govern regardless. Therefore it’s the public who actually seem to want corruption, right wing politics and a government who uses the power for their own gain.

It’s fashionable to make out the government are like Skynet, that they just came out of nowhere to impose their regime on us, so we should ‘get angry with the government not each other’. But it’s ‘each other’ who put them there.

What we need are a panel of experts such as Boris Johnson, Farridge, Gove, Rees-Mogg and Dorries (a good mix of public school and old school self-serving working class Tories who want to kick the ladder from beneath them) as our rulers. They should form a dictatorship and tell the little people what to do. It would be good to have a biased media and an uneducated electorate that votes every 4 years based on vague slogans or better still never votes at all, which gives the semblance of democracy but really allows the establishment to ride roughshod over the populace. Then have an offshore billionaire media that sucks up to them or better still diverts issues of poor governance towards the most vulnerable in society such as benefit claimants, single-mothers, feckless youth and asylum seekers.

seems such an ideal system.

So the natural inference of that is that the public know the tories are self interested and immoral. But continue to want them to govern regardless. Therefore it’s the public who actually seem to want corruption, right wing politics and a government who uses the power for their own gain

OR - the natural inference is that despite people paying lip service to "we want equality for all", or whatever, what they actually vote for is what works best for them or what they really think will keep society strong and safe. (I'm not saying they are right/ wrong I'm just saying people don't always vote for what they say they will)

If not democracy, then what do you suggest; back to monarchy assisted by well-educated, land owning lords?

I'm not so sure that we're are really that far away from this even though we have a universal franchise.

While there's a monarchy we will never have a true meritocracy. Power and wealth will remain concentrated in the hands of the privately educated, landed gentry and titled. They may be more subtle about it now, but it's still there. Very few challenge it.

We do have a good form of government however (yes, that old chestnut) what I think is that; to qualify to vote, you need to be a net taxpayer. So, not all taxpayers have the vote - just those who pay in more than they receive from the government/local council at that point in time.

If the country is like one big household, only those who currently contribute to the household income get to vote on total household policy reflected in spend allocation, when votes are needed.

It also doesn't exclude anyone from voting (unless at no point in your life you contribute to the household income.)

If you are a dependant you can give your opinion but (just like in personal households) you can't have a say in how the household money is spent.

There are millions in this (country) household, so individual opinions and wishes are taken into account but the most practical decisions are made, taking into account the needs of the vulnerable, young and old as much as possible.

It's what we as parents do, every month and every year - as head of our own households - balancing the books and trying to do the best for the long term security of the family as a whole, even if it means disappointing a family member from time to time on specific wishes or interests.

I lived in a communist dictatorship for a decade and people seemed a lot happier, to be honest. It was only the encroachment of western democratic ideals that started to tarnish it.

See I disagree with this.

The current government (as an example) are not governing off a mandate or elected PM.

That was Johnson. His manifesto was about levelling up, green policies etc.

These have been scrapped and the latest is the India deal gives a who,e host of cash to Sunak wife's family company for the visas.

Ok, Johnson was a self serving lying disaster. But he was what was voted in. Not Truss or Sunak. And the fact the polls have swung since partygate and these leaders show that the voting system does work in some way. As in they voted Johnson and not the Tory's as a whole.

Yes, you'll get people who will always be completely partisan to a particular party but I know so many people - like me - who are centric and swing voters.

What happened for Tory's to get in was a promise of levelling up in areas (which they never then did) that got them a big vote because of the first past the post system.

@milkandbread
I'm glad I'm not your dependent

Oh and before anyone suggests abolishing the H of Lords, you might reflect on the fact that they are the only people holding this govt's appalling legislative record to any kind of account or standard. The Lords are the only people insisting that law should actually be workable and not just politicising sloganeering put into a legal language.

If the “lowest common denominator” isn’t represented then does that mean they should get out of paying tax?

@sashagabadon I agree although it's not fashionable to agree. If you abolish the monarchy and the HoLords decisions are only made by the MPs. And our PM becomes our Head of State with all the associated power and status. I'd actually like to see a third set of representatives in Parliament along the lines of what someone mentioned upthread - like jury service - with people selected for five years only and representing small businesses, Trades Unions, Teachers, Doctors, Farmers, Council Tenants, Mothers, Pensioners, Students, Apprentices, retailers, etc etc. People who didn't have to pander to voters as they would never be re-elected but who would give another insight and level of power to decision making. And a much more sold, less corrupt Local Council system.

No system is perfect though

There are many forms of democracy.
Our first-past-the-post parliamentary system with an appointed, unelected second chamber (house of lords) is a terrible system.

Most votes are irrelevant, so people are disengaged, and it greatly benefits the existing party that is already in power.

You don't need to replace democracy with an autocratic one party system like China, just fix our electoral system so every vote actually counts.

@rampagingrobot - this is completely true

I agree that first-past-the-post is a terrible system and can't understand why the UK clings to it.

All forms of government seem to become corrupt in the end, even if the original motives are good, so democracy is the least harmful. However the power is always unbalanced, and tends to swing too far one way and then the other, with our first past the post method, but proportional voting seems to lead to stagnation.