Democracy - Overrated

[Uncle Sam]

Yes, the guy who said that killing everyone that's not useful is wrong is now saying democracy is overrated. What a turn of events.

In today's society democracy means good. If something is democratic, that means it's awesome. I have no idea why. Personally, I feel democracy is important, but better at performing some functions than others.

Democracy is immensely important in keeping government power in check and in stopping ********s going power mad; I'm sure you can think of dozens of examples of that, although Hitler was democratically elected. Take away government's accountability and bad things can happen.

However, I recently defended the First Past The Post system, which is used in the UK to elect parliament, from which the executive, the opposition and everything else is drawn. It's used in the US to elect the House of Representatives, I believe. This system is not proportional, at least not when used in parliament. The percentage of the vote does not reflect the number of seats allocated to each party, not by a long shot. Labour forms a government with just over a third of the vote.

If you introduce a more proportional system though, likelihood is we get a coalition government. At the very least, you'd have to have a government that panders to opposition parties. It would lose direction and all it's policies would become watered down. In short, it'd be shit. And this coming from someone who's in a Conservative area no matter what (and hates it). I could move, I suppose. So I say, democracy should not come at the cost of efficiency.

What say you?

 

[Tastycles]

I remember the front page of the Independent about a week aftert the last election showed what we voted for, and then what we got in terms of party, and it was completely different. To be honest though, I think in this instance, it is a lesser of two evils to have the first past the post system, because you don't end up with a useless coalition government.

The problem with the first past the post system is that only about 20% of the seats in Britain ever change hands. If you live in Surrey, you are going to have a Tory MP, if you live in Toxteth, you're going to have a Labour one. Personally, I think the London system is better, where you have first past the post for about 15 of 25 seats, and then Proportional Representation for the other 10. That way everyone's vote matters, but you will also end up with a council that has a direction of some sort.

Personally, that is what I'd change the country wide system to. I have to agrree that democracy has to come second to practicality - I'd take 10 year switches between Labour and Tory governments over 70 years of hung parliaments any day. Perhaps if I could remember the 1980s, I'd say otherwise.

On a side note, I remember a Kenyan schoolfriend of mine honestly believed that most African countries were better with dictators because the populace were to uneduated to make the right choice. Personally, I would disagree, but it is an interesting question to ask - are there some people who are too stupid to vote?

 

[Uncle Sam]

I remember the front page of the Independent about a week aftert the last election showed what we voted for, and then what we got in terms of party, and it was completely different. To be honest though, I think in this instance, it is a lesser of two evils to have the first past the post system, because you don't end up with a useless coalition government.

Precisely my point. I believe that Labour have 36% of the vote, but around 60% of the seats in parliament. The Conservatives have 33% of the vote and considerably less seats. And the Lib Dems get 22% of the vote and just about 40 of the 660-odd seats. And you know what? I like it that way. Coalition governments are useless. Well, not useless, but certainly comparatively ineffective.

I should point out that I'm not entirely sure on those statistics, it's been a while since I brushed up. It's something close though.

The problem with the first past the post system is that only about 20% of the seats in Britain ever change hands. If you live in Surrey, you are going to have a Tory MP, if you live in Toxteth, you're going to have a Labour one. Personally, I think the London system is better, where you have first past the post for about 15 of 25 seats, and then Proportional Representation for the other 10. That way everyone's vote matters, but you will also end up with a council that has a direction of some sort.

I think that's called the Additional Member System. It works pretty well, I guess. I think it could still likely result in a coalition government though. I think they might use that it Scotland too.

On a side note, I remember a Kenyan schoolfriend of mine honestly believed that most African countries were better with dictators because the populace were to uneduated to make the right choice.

It's why I'm not a big fan of referenda... not that the government would use one unless they were quite sure they'd get the result they wanted.

Personally, I would disagree, but it is an interesting question to ask - are there some people who are too stupid to vote?

Yes, definitely. Law prohibits "idiots" from voting in the general election, actually. Unfortunately, I don't think that part of the law is actively enforced.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

If by efficiency, you mean being able to pass legislation through with the least amount of resistance, I don't think that is a very desirable governmental quality, especially for a country with socialized health care (didn't Thatcher wreak havoc on the NHS during her 10+ years as your PM?).

In parliamentary systems of government (i.e., systems of government with an executive that is derived from the legislature), I think proportional representation is a good thing precisely because it can lead to coalition governments, and thus decrease the chances of a government making precipitate decisions.

 

[Azrael Cain]

Democracy is not necessarily over-rated, as much as it is hyped to its maximum potential and then not taken part in. Realistically, regardless of the type of democracy (and the mere fact that we have more than one just proves its ability to be hyped up) it is impossible on the mass scale. One: people are unwilling to partake in it, even if for their own benefit. Two: Democracy can be easily misrepresented and manipulated, so that even if the masses partake, their votes are corrupted.

Even with the idea of voting, the votes are being cast for and counted by those deemed fit and worthy enough of the task. The rift is already there between the voter and the voted for. Democracy proceeds to grant the illusion of a choice of "someone like me," while in reality it is the actual giving away of your power.

Democracy works because people fear personal responsibility and their own potential, and we have been conditioned in specifically that way so that we have no problem handing over our power to someone else, someone who has our best interests on the surface while serving himself first and foremost. Democracy falls victim to greed and the fear of being ostracized and being labeled an outcast, having one's power stripped away. Would I much rather appoint someone to do something for me than go out and do it myself? You bet your ass.

I look at it like this: what we've got is pretty flawed, but look at the creators of what we've got. It's us, and we're pretty flawed ourselves. So what we've got merely reflects us and serves as a tool and an excuse. Democracy takes away from the individual responsibility and makes casting blame easier. "I didn't do it, the President did." "Yeah, but didn't you vote for him?!" "I didn't vote for him to do what he did, I voted for him." See the dilemma? Democracy exploits one and most important issue to death -- money, money and money -- while distracting from all others. Politics themselves is a ruse and a guise. That's why people take so damn long in studying them. Politicians are the greatest actors....

...but again: we, the people, created this system. It serves its purpose for the time being. At one point we made due with Kings and Monarchies. When that fucked us bad enough, we rebelled. So I figure eventually if the democracies of the world fuck us (the people) badly enough, we too will rebel again and appoint something else that satisfies us for that time all over again.