it works better here than in many countries,
that we manage to sustain a third party with actual seats in parliament is testament to something.
It's really the party system that frustrates me more than FPTP, I don't support PR because it explicitly recognises parties rather than representatives. I'm intrigued by the Isle of Man parliament where almost everybody stands as independents.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 18:05,
Share,
Reply)
I agree
MP's are completely faceless here. You vote for a party, not a person. Worse still, voting in the chamber is also counted by party, not individuals. We have a plethora of parties in the lower house (I think it's about 9 or 10) but I have no MP to write to.
Frankly, in this day and age, there is no need for representatives anymore. We have the technical means for a true democracy, debate and vote on-line for ourselves.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 18:15,
Share,
Reply)
Direct democracy is a bad idea for many reasons,
basically it's mob rule. 65% of the British public support the death penalty, goodness knows what else they'd vote in, but the BBCs Have Your Say usually makes for hilarious/depressing reading. What the people want is probably the last thing we would want.
Also if you want to see how a country that actually tried to institute direct democracy turned out, look at Libya. That was Gadaffi's democratic dream, sadly it turned out as brutal mob rule by his own personal fan club.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 18:22,
Share,
Reply)
But but but but
If a majority is in favour of a policy, it should be enforced.
Are you saying a minority should dictate policy?
Either you have a democracy (=majority or 'mob' rule) or you don't.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 18:31,
Share,
Reply)
I'm saying it would be a horrible place to live
if minorities did not have equal rights and equal representation. If all the decisions were made by white, straight, non-disabled people in their own interests, the consequences for society could be disastrous. Especially if all those people were anonymous as well.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 18:39,
Share,
Reply)
Even though I get the gist of what you're saying
You're implying that white, straight, non-disabled people (like myself) would automatically disregard the needs of others, which is a terrible slur on white, straight, non-disabled people like myself.
And, if everyone has a vote, equal representation would be a given.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 18:48,
Share,
Reply)
I'm sure you're quite the altruist,
but most people vote according to what they personally have to gain or lose. And if you don't even know any gay/black/disabled people, how can you represent them anyway? The advantage of having someone whose job it is to represent a diverse community is that he has to know the needs of everyone, at least in the form of statistics. Social progress is always driven by minorities punching above their weight. MPs don't just pull their policies out of their anecdotal asses, they form select committees and commission reports and all sorts of things Joe Blogs doesn't have to do when he votes.
There's also a great deal of psychology involved. Not least the myriad of cognitive biases.
I know, it seems "a bit off" to deny that "true" democracy is really desirable. But I'm certain the reality would be more like a nightmare than the dream.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 18:58,
Share,
Reply)
I'm no altruist, I'm a selfish git.
However, in a pool of some 17 million people, my single vote wouldn't account for much, unless it was supported by a lot of people, which, as I see it it, is the very definition of democracy.
However, you do make fair point. I'll need a think about how to make a democracy work.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 19:22,
Share,
Reply)
If you want to see how well direct democracy works in the UK
look at X-Factor.
Yeah. Works great doesn't it.
(
LP, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 20:53,
Share,
Reply)
^ this
you seem to be assuming that all human beings act only in (arguably short sighted) perceived self interest. have you been reading a lot of game theory of late by any chance? hasn't such thinking led us into our current state of economic affairs? i'm not entirely disputing such a proposition, just that i'd rather think better of my fellow man. dare to be naive. there is still some self awareness and empathy out there. *hopes*
*edit* i guess what i'm saying is - we are still evolving and it could go either way, really. but hey, ho, the sun goes pop in a few millennia so what's with all the fussin' and a fightin' anyway, eh?
(
artifus is doing it all wrong, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 18:58,
Share,
Reply)
Not "only" in self-interest,
but significantly. And when not, typically by anecdotal evidence and "the availability heuristic".
People do have prejudices. Majority rule enables majority prejudices. Good, fair government requires compromises based on objective analysis of the facts. Absolute majorities don't need to compromise. And majorities can be so horribly, horribly wrong.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 19:09,
Share,
Reply)
I enjoy the fact that on every single long thread like this you create on /links you are desperate to have the last comment.
It makes you look REALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE on a wide variety of subjects, and not like an eight-year old whispering 'I know you are, but what am I?', hoping that everyone else has lost interest.
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Tue 12 Feb 2013, 19:15,
Share,
Reply)
