Thread: Are we a democracy?

Originally Posted by Millennium3

However the purpose of E-Democracy would be for referenda and also opinion polls. Democracy is essentially the will of the people - this system could be used [in a decades time?] to establish what that was and for the government to act accordingly - at least on major issues.

But does the government actually want to act on what the people want, which I guess comes back to you original question, "are we a democracy?". Can you imagine any government being forced to act on the people's wishes if it went against what they were wanting to do? They would trot the usual arguments out (and one that they use on Europe) saying that the populous would not be fully informed on all arguments and therefore would not be able to make an informed decision. Does that matter? I have found that it is a dangerous thing to always under estimate people's intelligence. It is too easy to think that most of the time their opinions are malleable and therefore predictable and that they do not understand the situation at hand.

Originally Posted by Zundap Bella

There is only one way out my friend, vote BNP. And if you dont, you've only got your self to blame.

I happen to agree with this.

I have mentioned before that people get the government they deserve. If you vote for the establishment parties, or for parties that will make no difference (hi EUKIP!), then you only have yourself to blame for the cr@p we're in and you have no right to complain.

The only party that has any hope of creating change - either directly or by scaring the **** out of the establishment, is the BNP. It amazes me that supposedly intelligent and supposedly anti-establishment people cannot see this.

Oh well, as I said, you've got the government you deserve ...

Originally Posted by angelman

But does the government actually want to act on what the people want, which I guess comes back to you original question, "are we a democracy?". Can you imagine any government being forced to act on the people's wishes if it went against what they were wanting to do? They would trot the usual arguments out (and one that they use on Europe) saying that the populous would not be fully informed on all arguments and therefore would not be able to make an informed decision. Does that matter? I have found that it is a dangerous thing to always under estimate people's intelligence. It is too easy to think that most of the time their opinions are malleable and therefore predictable and that they do not understand the situation at hand.

The idea would be for a eurosceptic party [if we ever get one that really tries to get MPs to the HofC] to include it in its manifesto to increase its attractiveness to the voters.

M3, do you think that the population of this country would readily sign up to a government e-voting system? I think that those who can't be bothered to vote now won't sign up, but I suppose that is no great loss.

But what about those that will not sign up to it because they do not believe that their details will be safe? And could HMG guarantee a hacker-proof system or a system where the human operators do not take back-ups and lose them? I presume that in order to have a system in place so that vote is not abused, unique personal data would have to be held so that you could verify who you were. Could HMG get a system in place that would work?

Judging by past efforts of HMG to computerise systems, they are overly expensive and they don't work. I do realise that this is with particular reference to the NHS and that there are examples such as DVLA, PNC and ANPR that do seem to work. Although I think that it would be a good idea, I am not sure whether it would ever come about, not least because of the cost to the number of issues we would be voting on. As I mentioned previously, HMG seems to usually have made up its mind so does not want to have to contend with the potentially tricky view of the people. Therefore the number of meaningful votes that we would be asked to make would be small and on relatively unimportant subjects, so I cannot see it being good value for money.

Originally Posted by angelman

M3, do you think that the population of this country would readily sign up to a government e-voting system? I think that those who can't be bothered to vote now won't sign up, but I suppose that is no great loss.

But what about those that will not sign up to it because they do not believe that their details will be safe? And could HMG guarantee a hacker-proof system or a system where the human operators do not take back-ups and lose them? I presume that in order to have a system in place so that vote is not abused, unique personal data would have to be held so that you could verify who you were. Could HMG get a system in place that would work?

Judging by past efforts of HMG to computerise systems, they are overly expensive and they don't work. I do realise that this is with particular reference to the NHS and that there are examples such as DVLA, PNC and ANPR that do seem to work. Although I think that it would be a good idea, I am not sure whether it would ever come about, not least because of the cost to the number of issues we would be voting on. As I mentioned previously, HMG seems to usually have made up its mind so does not want to have to contend with the potentially tricky view of the people. Therefore the number of meaningful votes that we would be asked to make would be small and on relatively unimportant subjects, so I cannot see it being good value for money.

I think the main reason that so many have given up voting is that the main parties are not offering policies that are appealing to the many. Prior to New Labour becoming the government post war GE turnouts were around 75% - a healthy proportion. In the last two GEs turnout was around 60%. If one of the main parties would offer policies that the voters wanted - I am sure that the T/O would rise again.

You are right about concerns over the nation becoming a police state. Clearly if e-democracy were introduced the purpose would be for much greater democracy which would, without doubt, start remove these insidious developments, if the party introducing it did so for the right reasons.

voter apathy. why not introduce compulsory voting like they do in Australia? Wiki says that they have a turn out of 95% which seems a little high even for compulsory voting.

Originally Posted by angelman

voter apathy. why not introduce compulsory voting like they do in Australia? Wiki says that they have a turn out of 95% which seems a little high even for compulsory voting.

Personally, I would not like to introduce compulsory voting. If someone has taken the trouble to vote, when they don't have to, it is likely that the individual has taken some interest in politics and their vote therefore has value. If, based on current T/O, 40% were obliged to vote who perhaps had taken no interest in politics - they might vote, for instance, for the first name on the ballot paper - which would make matters worse.

I would prefer to see the parties having to offer popular policies as a route to increasing T/O.

In answer to the question ‘do we live in a democracy’, in my opinion, yes we do.

However, there are many variations on Democracy around the world and we live in one of those variations.

So, the question that should have been asked, (& I’m sure that was implicit in M3’s original post), is:-
Is the form of democracy in the UK now ‘fit-for-purpose’?

In other words, does our present system of parliamentary democracy allow the majority view on a whole range of issues to be translated into laws that are respected by the specific majority view? (but I will also add a personal caveat that I don’t think any ‘majority-view’ derived legislation should unnecessarily penalize the minority view).

I think not.

Before anyone can suggest an improvement to our system, I think you have to have a totally clear understanding of our present system.
I certainly don’t claim any extensive knowledge in this respect but my impression is that the office of Prime Minister is, in effect, a substitute ‘Monarch’ and whose decisions are only tempered by the higher orders of the Civil Service – (I call this the ‘Sir Humphrey’ effect).

Of course, the Prime Minister must first be elected as the leader of the largest representative party in the House of Commons. However, once elected, that leader then ‘loads’ the respective party committees with people of sympathetic views to themselves and it is these committees that generate ‘party’ political policies.
This means that policies are ultimately sourced from political ‘beliefs’ of a very small minority, rather than from a ‘national’ majority & inclusive desire.

Obviously, some of you know my political views in much more detail and that I favour Direct Democracy, or at least a variation of DD. However, I’m not going to bore you with a persuasion of merits on that here .
I just want to say that a major reason I was attracted to this forum years ago, when it was clearly UKIP oriented was that at that time a form of DD was clearly an objective for UKIP and on their website. (I have to say that I haven’t visited the UKIP website for so long that I don’t know whether it is still there).

I still firmly believe that NO changes to our relationship with Europe, or to typical citizens’ higher concerns about Crime & Punishment, Education, Health and so on will come from our existing parliamentary set up.
Only the election of MPs with greater DD credentials e.g. allowing publicly-sponsored referenda on certain political areas, has any chance of making significant changes to those subjects above.

How to elect those DD favourable MPs is the crunch issue.

On the subject of compulsory voting, I think, (but I’m not absolutely certain), some countries ‘fine’ non-voters. Australia ?

With the danger that has actually evolved – the country run by ‘extremists’ at either end of the political spectrum – I favour some sort of ‘light’ penalty for non-voters.

When you see the turn-outs in those recently democratically-liberated countries, it makes me ashamed of our turn outs.

I think a problem in this country is the general ‘dumbing-down’ of all areas of education, and specifically of our country’s political evolution.

I think it should be compulsory subject, to say, ‘O’-level/GCSE, that political systems should be studied – to make people value what we do have, even tho’ it is flawed.