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?

@yourmotherknitssocksinhell the quotation you cite is from Winston Churchill and is the basis for the references to him here

@SerendipityJane

"And having paid "a fucktonne" of tax these past 40 plus years, I'm not impressed that the state now needs to ask for even more"

+++

Well technically it's not the state asking for more, it's voters electing politicians who say they will ask for more in taxation from the "rich" - ie anyone on a higher income than most voters.

I wonder if if would be better to have the Australian system where if is compulsory to vote. We would need a 'none of the above' but there may be people who knowing they have to get off their butt's and vote may do at least some cursory research into who they should vote for. It would also mean political parties would have to take an interest in all sections of society rather than just the people who vote ( over 60's)

Wow. I can't believe some are seriously arguing that only those who own land should vote. Welcome back the 1900s when only rich men could vote.

How about this as a criteria for voter eligibility.

On the basis that the whole American Revolution started over the principle of "no taxation without representation" then on the same principle how about moving to "no representation without x amount of taxation"?

So why do we pretend that the accountant's, joiner's, and doctor's opinion on the best way to run a country are all equally valid?

We don’t OP - we have a parliamentary democracy. We vote in politicians whose full time job it is to make decisions on good governance, and they get advised by specialised civil servants and specialist advisors so they can take the best decisions. Most of us don’t have the time or inclination to delve deeply into policy, which is why referendums are a terrible idea..

Admittedly, right now we have the most useless set of politicians in living memory, so the system isn’t working well, but we’d be better to address that than drop democracy, which is imperfect but the best option that exists. Anything else is a slippery slope to a totalitarian state.

I assume you know we all pay a certain amount of tax. So what you really mean is poor people should not vote.

But look how much better things were then.

Sounds like an idea ...

Yes sounds fair, so the richer you are the bigger say you have in how things go….and if you’re a low earner, or disabled, or a carer etc…you’re not worthy of a say 😒

people don’t half come out with some shit on here..

Then there will be a violent revolution

Remember the poll tax

we have a parliamentary democracy.

But not a representative democracy.

<Tongue in cheek post> if you depend on being given everything, then your representation is at the kindness of others, who don't want to see your children starve.

It’s along the same lines as op’s idea of only Drs etc

You are terrifying, OP. You do realise that every dictator ever started out thinking that they were doing what was best for the people? Nobody sets out to be evil, they all just think they’re smarter than the people who shouldn’t be allowed a voice.

There has to be a balance @StefanosHill . Otherwise the needy would vote en masse for more money and benefits, and anyone with money would scarper, removing the assets and income available to tax. I am already quite close to leaving for a/any country that has a non-lucrative visa programme. We earned every last penny we have, no inflation linked government pension and until May 2023, no inheritance, which wasn't a lifechanging amount. Taxes due all paid and in order. The people in situations like ours with options to choose thought about these questions 30 or 40 years ago, and saved what they could at the time.

Argentina is the political history you need to check out. It's flipflopped between being run for the rich and being run for the poor, and the last 30 years have been disastrous for most of the population.

Incorrect as a representative democracy is actually indirect.

What we are not is a DIRECT democracy.

I think democracy is the least worse option especially when set against Nazism, Fascism and Communism, not to mention some awful dictatorships around the world now. But the structure of democracy may need thinking about. Ancient Athens from where we mostly got the idea was a direct democracy where all citizens (excluding women, helots and foreigners) voted on all issues: there was no intermediate Parliament. It seemed to work for them but they executed Socrates. Our system is one in which we elect representatives to do our thinking and legislating for us but it is distorted by party political loyalty and subject to an unelected Lords. Moreover, a Party with a good working majority is unassailable even if incompetent until the next General Election. On the other hand, a system like the USA where the two Houses of Congress, President and Supreme Court can check each other can lead to gridlock. Many African countries inherited some form of Parliamentary democracy from the British complete with robes and wigs but now seem to have rejected it in some cases.

That is an issue and not a road I want to go down, and it does concern me generally after next GE

But I’d still not take votes off people

I mean you can’t, it’s fundamental regardless of income or education

What’s a ‘non- lucrative’ visa programme btw?

Terrible idea

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/12/05/everybodys-an-expert

@StefanosHill , non lucrative visa programmes are for migrants who have provable income streams that do not require you to seek work from the local economy. You cannot work in the country where you live. In most of the EU it means roughly that a couple need to prove income of 55k pa in euros and ability to pay health insurance. Ours is derived from the rent on commercial properties, state pensions and a tiny occupational pension. Most of the EU countries have them, because they don't want to force out people who want to restore property in regions where there are no jobs. But they are happy for people to breathe life into those areas because it is much cheaper than government funding. If it works, then new incomers arrive and the economic advantage snowballs.

It works in countries with rural depopulation basically. There are huge areas of France and Spain (only chosen because those are the countries I know) where young people flee to cities to earn enough to have a family. I think Italy is fairly similar though.

I do see why the majority think IABU. This is just something I've thought about on and off for a number of years and was reignited as I was rewatching Once Upon a Time in Iraq (Waleed Nesyif talks about how life was better under Saddam Hussain than it is now and it got me thinking about whether democracy is all that it's cracked up to be).

I also think that because I've spent a lot of time and energy in trying to engage with politics only to see everything going to shit with no apparent way of stopping it I'm just frustrated and disillusioned with democracy in general.

And in that frustration I laid the blame at the feet of voters for their apathy and unwillingness to see "the truth" or at least my truth anyway. But as I said, there's been plenty of good posts that show why that is unreasonable of me and that the fault isn't with democracy itself, rather in the people we elect to enact it.

Not really sure how that changes either, suppose I'll have to look at joining some campaigns that look to make politicians accountable.