Are we really a democracy?

[Mike D]

The PM has always been in our democracy the first amongst equals, he is not in effect the leader of the country but the first minister in the cabinet that answers to the head of state

I thought brexit was the correct course of action because i am a democrat, i believe in the democratic process. However, is democracy really served when there are unelected advisor's helping to make policy on our behalf. We have outside interests influencing political direction, from big business to special interest groups, none of of who have democratic mandates. The media has undue influence and whilst i support a free press, i do not support an unduly partisan press that uses its influence to set the political agenda. I did not vote for a media baron to run the country.


As a Communist i believe in democracy, democracy in every facet of life, we should have the ability to decide not only on a national level, but on a level of how my little close of 25 houses decides whats best for us as a community to how the nation is run on our behalf.


Our country has been run by Governments with minority of votes for generations, how can that be right. If a country is run by the 34% who voted for , the 66% who voted differently are disenfranchised.

Has our voting system produced a tyranny of the minority or is it fair that the minority have the greater say and the majority just have to suck it up.


Basically the question is this.

Is our democracy fit for purpose?

No we have been flogging this dead horse first past the post system for years. We are living the dark ages where a party that achieves 40% of the populations vote winds by a landslide. It makes no sense and makes it easy to game in your favour by appealing to a section of society.

Proportional voting is one way of sorting this out but there are plenty of others. If we are a true democracy then the UK needs to move with the times.

The way we vote is so antiquated and favour certain sector of society who like to turn out at polling stations or use the post. Its hypocritical that a government that won the last election largely on tech social media in particular won't entertain the prospect of using tech to vote? It just beggars belief that we are still voting this way and let be honest its disenfranchising younger people not to vote?

Finally the voting age is another deep flaw in the system if you can a 16/17 get a job buy/rent a flat/house but can't decide who best governs your country? I don't understand why this group of people aren't allowed to vote when many have or are contemplating big decisions in life.

 

[BigOscar]

Finally the voting age is another deep flaw in the system if you can a 16/17 get a job buy/rent a flat/house but can't decide who best governs your country? I don't understand why this group of people aren't allowed to vote when many have or are contemplating big decisions in life.

That part is pretty obvious. If they thought 17 year old might vote tory then they'd probably have lowered the voting age years ago.

Ours and the US versions of democracy are all about gaming the system, no one has much interest in fairness or actual democracy

 

[BobKowalski]

Well if democracy is about holding power to account, it seems the Culture Sec., is having none of it.

‘Nadine Dorries has privately expressed her fury at the BBC’s Nick Robinson after he told the prime minister to “stop talking” during a tense interview. The culture secretary has told allies: “Nick Robinson has cost the BBC a lot of money.” @SundayTimes

 

[Mike D]

That part is pretty obvious. If they thought 17 year old might vote tory then they'd probably have lowered the voting age years ago.

Ours and the US versions of democracy are all about gaming the system, no one has much interest in fairness or actual democracy

I don't blame the tories for this Blair and Bown had 12 years to adopt this policy, The tories are just hypocrits (no surprise) when they can give the 16-18 year old the indpendence vote but not the GE or Brexit?

 

[Mike D]

Well if democracy is about holding power to account, it seems the Culture Sec., is having none of it.

‘Nadine Dorries has privately expressed her fury at the BBC’s Nick Robinson after he told the prime minister to “stop talking” during a tense interview. The culture secretary has told allies: “Nick Robinson has cost the BBC a lot of money.” @SundayTimes

Proof if you ever needed the Tories and Republican singing from the same hymn sheets in bringing back fascism and ditching democracy for autocracy.

 

[Vincent van Rough]

We didn't have a PR referendum. AV is not considered a proportional voting method.

Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation This would be a better voting system. NZ changed to this a few years back, seems to work.

 

[shemnel]

The AV referendum was in 2011, which seems like an absolute lifetime ago given the pace of change in modern society, and the real change that has actually occurred in just a decade.

I am fairly sure there would be more engagement (i.e. > 42% turnout) if another ref was held on it, but i am not so sure the discourse would be any better. Sadly i think it would be worse. The first past the post hugely favours the incumbent rulers, until the momentum shift is so big that you end up with weird seismic changes.

In the UK there has always been a prevailing opinion that this avoids hung parliaments, in which 'nothing gets done', but I am pretty sure many countries in the EU have happily functioned under many hung parliaments.

FPTP was not fit for purpose in 2011, and probably not post WW2 to be honest, and is even less relevant today. To begin to restore some faith in politics, it would be the most logical and healing step to replace it and help our flailing democratic process.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The AV referendum was in 2011, which seems like an absolute lifetime ago given the pace of change in modern society, and the real change that has actually occurred in just a decade.

I am fairly sure there would be more engagement (i.e. > 42% turnout) if another ref was held on it, but i am not so sure the discourse would be any better. Sadly i think it would be worse. The first past the post hugely favours the incumbent rulers, until the momentum shift is so big that you end up with weird seismic changes.

In the UK there has always been a prevailing opinion that this avoids hung parliaments, in which 'nothing gets done', but I am pretty sure many countries in the EU have happily functioned under many hung parliaments.

FPTP was not fit for purpose in 2011, and probably not post WW2 to be honest, and is even less relevant today. To begin to restore some faith in politics, it would be the most logical and healing step to replace it and help our flailing democratic process.

I think that's true. The Conservatives definitely don't want PR, and I think even at the end of Blair/Brown, the Labour party were against it too.

Coalitions are standard in Europe and work pretty well by forcing cooperation and elimination of the more wild ideas in manifestos. The last 10 years has seen moves away from consensus politics, and the sanity a coalition requires would be a calming measure right now.

Of course, at the moment the coalition options would be all but known beforehand.

 

[Rascal]

I think this is accurate

Since 1979 and the election of Thatcher, 43 years ago, only 4 other Prime Ministers have been elected on a fully democratic mandate at a General Election, yet we have had 8 Prime Ministers. since 1979 there has been 8 US presidents, 6 French Presidents, 5 German Prime Ministers and over 20 Italian Prime Ministers.

Does that say anything about how our democracy works?

 

[remember arthur mann]

No such thing as democracy Rasc, it's all a load of bollocks.