Is Democracy Obsolete?

[LlcoolJ]

For democracy to work relies on the voters to be properly aware of the issues they are voting on. That requires independent reasoning of the pros and cons and how that affects them specifically. The world we have is full of vested interests trying to convince people to vote one way or another, whether that be the politicians themselves, the media, companies, advertising agencies, landlords, unions, or the people funding the politicians, the media, the unions and so on.

When this information is not presented in a free, fair, trustworthy or equal manner we have problems; and when the voters do not partake of this information in an equal manner we have bigger problems. It means that democracy is in the hands of the press, amongst others, ergo 'It woz the Sun wot won it!', or the unions with block votes, or is influenced by slogans, not reality '£350 million a week to the NHS'

I agree with Trump that media agenda is a problem. It is then laughable that he attacks the BBC as the root cause whilst getting his information from Fox, but one can't have everything.

Sometimes Democracy works, but it is usually hostage to vested interests.

Superb and spot on.

 

[Titanic]

We need more Gina Millers to stop the slide

If more people vote for something you disagree with then you must have a hissy for, stamp your feet, go on a protest and start a pointless 'look at me' court case.

 

[Seagull]

The starting point to this question is to consider the amount of voters that do not bother to vote.

They are disinterested, disenfranchised, possibly unaware ...

In the 2005 general election the no shows (39%) easily outstripped the winner (Blair 35%) and it's been close in the last two elections too.

We could maybe make voting compulsory as in Australia http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23810381
Or have a none of the above option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above, which is being used in next month's Dutch election I believe.

 

[Baldseagull]

Those 3 million votes came from California.

The electoral college system ensures NY and California don't get to dictate to the rest of the nation what Government has power based simply on their huge population sizes.

Trump destroyed Clinton 3000+ counties to 400+.

This is quite funny, Demos = people, not places, ergo, not democracy.

 

[larus]

The starting point to this question is to consider the amount of voters that do not bother to vote.

Look at the EU Referendum - majority in favour of Leave = 1.3 million, those who did not vote = 13 million.

The real reason we are leaving the EU is APATHY.

It's also possible Donald Trump wouldn't have got elected President if those that thought he was going to lose bothered to get out and cast their vote to make sure that he did lose.

It always amazes me that people assume that those who didn't cast a vote would, if they had voeted, cast their vote to support their view. So, Remainers assume that the non voters were apathetic Remainers or c=Clinton supporters who were too confident.

This is the same line as those who say that those who voted BREXIT now regret their choice, but the polls indicate otherwise.

 

[Pavilionaire]

In the words of Geddy Lee...
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

This was ably demonstrated in the 1997 Welsh Devolution Referendum when there was only a 50% turnout and of the remainder only 50.3% voted for the Welsh Assembly. So the Welsh got an Assembly despite only 25.17% of the electorate voting for it.

 

[Brovion]

Democracy is all well and good all the while people vote for the things you agree with.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Democratically elected Members of Parliament voted to hold a referendum
The population of the country democratically voted in said referendum and took a decision.
A decision which the democratically elected Members of Parliament voted to begin enacting.
And a decision which the democratically elected Members of Parliament will in future vote to finalise (or not if they so wish).

Yet somehow democracy is broken because some people don't agree with the decision?

Well: "The population of the country democratically voted in said referendum and took a decision" - I argue that the people of the country voted to either (i) give £350m a week to the NHS, and/or (ii) make all the immigrants leave.

I don't mind the people doing that, but those things were (i) not on the table, (ii) admitted as not being on the table by the government, (iii) confirmed as not being on the table by the government after the referendum happened. Democracy is broken if people can be so easily swayed by slogans. Its also broken if politicians break their campaign promises as soon as they are in power - the Libdems got huge amounts of votes based on scrapping tuition fees, printed pledge cards to that matter, and then didn't vote against tutition fee rises once in power.

If you are promised something with your vote, and then don't get it, there is merely a pretence of democracy

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

This is quite funny, Demos = people, not places, ergo, not democracy.

That's far too erudite for this place!

 

[Wardy's twin]

Democratically elected Members of Parliament voted to hold a referendum
The population of the country democratically voted in said referendum and took a decision.
A decision which the democratically elected Members of Parliament voted to begin enacting.
And a decision which the democratically elected Members of Parliament will in future vote to finalise (or not if they so wish).

Yet somehow democracy is broken because some people don't agree with the decision?

The majority of the population eligible to vote for brexit DID NOT VOTE for it. This discussion is not about Brexit but about democracy. For democracy to work people in this country need to think themselves lucky there is a choice, the fact that the choice is narrow is still better than no choice.

 

[McTavish]

Well: "The population of the country democratically voted in said referendum and took a decision" - I argue that the people of the country voted to either (i) give £350m a week to the NHS, and/or (ii) make all the immigrants leave.

It could just as easily be argued that people voted to stay in the EU to (i) avoid an immediate emergency budget and/or (ii) to prevent third world war.

And surely the almost complete destruction of the Parliamentary party of the Lib Dems is a perfect example of democracy in action.

 

[binky]

This was ably demonstrated in the 1997 Welsh Devolution Referendum when there was only a 50% turnout and of the remainder only 50.3% voted for the Welsh Assembly. So the Welsh got an Assembly despite only 25.17% of the electorate voting for it.

or alternatively pitched as...

The Welsh got an Assembly because only 24.83% of the electorate voted against it.

The 50% who didn't vote made a choice, and indicated, by their absence from the vote, that they were happy to let others decide the issue for them.

 

[Brovion]

Well: "The population of the country democratically voted in said referendum and took a decision" - I argue that the people of the country voted to either (i) give £350m a week to the NHS, and/or (ii) make all the immigrants leave.

I don't mind the people doing that, but those things were (i) not on the table, (ii) admitted as not being on the table by the government, (iii) confirmed as not being on the table by the government after the referendum happened. Democracy is broken if people can be so easily swayed by slogans. Its also broken if politicians break their campaign promises as soon as they are in power - the Libdems got huge amounts of votes based on scrapping tuition fees, printed pledge cards to that matter, and then didn't vote against tutition fee rises once in power.

If you are promised something with your vote, and then don't get it, there is merely a pretence of democracy

Bollocks we did, we voted to leave a disgraceful corrupt capitalist club. Anyway thanks for proving my point.

 

[beorhthelm]

Specifically on bombs? Links to confirm that please.

It depends where the spending goes as to whether it is a good idea or not.

of course, the US Military will be spending increase budget on education, welfare and community projects.

or perhaps bombs, tanks, aircraft, warships, nukes, you know all the things that come under "military budget".

 

[binky]

Well: "The population of the country democratically voted in said referendum and took a decision" - I argue that the people of the country voted to either (i) give £350m a week to the NHS, and/or (ii) make all the immigrants leave.

I don't mind the people doing that, but those things were (i) not on the table, (ii) admitted as not being on the table by the government, (iii) confirmed as not being on the table by the government after the referendum happened. Democracy is broken if people can be so easily swayed by slogans. Its also broken if politicians break their campaign promises as soon as they are in power - the Libdems got huge amounts of votes based on scrapping tuition fees, printed pledge cards to that matter, and then didn't vote against tutition fee rises once in power.

If you are promised something with your vote, and then don't get it, there is merely a pretence of democracy

This is just a long winded way of saying that those who didn't vote the way you think they should have are dumb not to understand the issues as well as you do.
I'm not sure you are going to sway many voters with that argument.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

It always amazes me that people assume that those who didn't cast a vote would, if they had voeted, cast their vote to support their view. So, Remainers assume that the non voters were apathetic Remainers or c=Clinton supporters who were too confident.

This is the same line as those who say that those who voted BREXIT now regret their choice, but the polls indicate otherwise.

I don't think that is necessarily true. It would be true to say that there were probably Remaim supporters who didn't make the effort to vote who might hsve made a difference if they had done, just as the reverse wouod be true if the result had gone the other way.

But for me to think that EVERYONE who didn't vote in the Referendum would have voted Rermain, as I did, would be totally daft.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

This thread should really have been a poll...

 

[Pavilionaire]

It always amazes me that people assume that those who didn't cast a vote would, if they had voeted, cast their vote to support their view. So, Remainers assume that the non voters were apathetic Remainers or c=Clinton supporters who were too confident.

This is the same line as those who say that those who voted BREXIT now regret their choice, but the polls indicate otherwise.

Those 13 million people that didn't vote in the EU referendum had many different reasons for choosing not to vote, e.g. complete indifference, laziness, engaged but unable to decide one way or the other. Given that Farage himself conceded defeat around midnight I think it's fair to say that 90%+ of those 13 million that didn't vote were expecting Remain to win, and by not voting to change the status quo you are - by default - accepting the status quo.

None of those 13 million felt compelled by the Brexit argument to go out and cast a vote in favour of leaving and yet we have a situation where we leave because 37% of the electorate voted for us to leave and 63% didn't.

This is pure speculation on my part by I suspect of the 13 million if push came to shove they'd probably be 2:1 in favour of remaining. For every non-voter who favoured Brexit but thought LEAVE had no chance I suspect there were 2 voters that lent towards REMAIN but thought Remain would win so didn't bother to vote.

 

[binky]

Those 13 million people that didn't vote in the EU referendum had many different reasons for choosing not to vote, e.g. complete indifference, laziness, engaged but unable to decide one way or the other. Given that Farage himself conceded defeat around midnight I think it's fair to say that 90%+ of those 13 million that didn't vote were expecting Remain to win, and by not voting to change the status quo you are - by default - accepting the status quo.

None of those 13 million felt compelled by the Brexit argument to go out and cast a vote in favour of leaving and yet we have a situation where we leave because 37% of the electorate voted for us to leave and 63% didn't.

This is pure speculation on my part by I suspect of the 13 million if push came to shove they'd probably be 2:1 in favour of remaining. For every non-voter who favoured Brexit but thought LEAVE had no chance I suspect there were 2 voters that lent towards REMAIN but thought Remain would win so didn't bother to vote.

You are right.
It is pure speculation, with no basis in fact.
Nobody can know what was in the minds of those who chose not to exercise their vote, and their reasons for making that choice.
There are many reasons not to vote, but you can only count the votes that are cast.

All of the electorate have one vote.
Rich or poor.
Dumb or genius.
Black or white.
Religious or atheist
It has taken many centuries and much blood to get to this point, so the right to vote is not one which should be taken lightly.
Nor should the outcomes resulting.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Bollocks we did, we voted to leave a disgraceful corrupt capitalist club. Anyway thanks for proving my point.

No, come on, don't be disingenuous, this is a perfectly reasonable debate going on so far. You voted that way, sure, many voted just like I said.

As for me, I voted to stay in primarily for environmental reasons, but many probably voted for the reasons McTavish says below. Which was also bollocks put forward to win votes, as opposed to votes being earnt through honest debate and honest analysis of the impact of each result.

It could just as easily be argued that people voted to stay in the EU to (i) avoid an immediate emergency budget and/or (ii) to prevent third world war.

And surely the almost complete destruction of the Parliamentary party of the Lib Dems is a perfect example of democracy in action.

Its an example of revenge in action, not really a praise of democracy