jacee Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) Huh? The People is not politically unitary; no government can never have the confidence of The People; only a plurality as represented by their elected representatives in the legislature. These representatives are every four years held responsible to the electorate for any laws that were passed. That's all an elected government is ever going to do other than try to attract more support to the governing party. That's democracy. [ed.: sp, c/e, +] That's a distortion a particular form of an attempt to design a democracy: Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom[ 50][ 51] for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and[ 52][ 53][ 54] destroy the democracy.[ 52][ 53][ 54] Representative Democracy, Consensus Democracy, and Deliberative Democracy attempts at a form of government that is both practical and responsive to the needs and desires of citizens. ... Under a parliamentary democracy government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review checks and balances by the legislative parliament[ 56][ 57][ 58][ 59][ 60] elected by the people. Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister at any point in time that they fee he or she is not doing their job to the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the Prime Minister from office by a majority support for his or her dismissal. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#section_3 If it's determined that a Prime Minister endorsed fraudulent election tactics, for example, he would lose the confidence of the people. If a significant number of constituency elections were deemed fraudulent, for example, he would lose his fake 'majority', lose a confidence vote and lose his position as Prime Minister. Democracy is not an event ... it's a process. Edited May 17, 2012 by jacee Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 That's a distortion a particular form of an attempt to design a democracy:If a significant number of constituency elections were deemed fraudulent, for example, he would lose his fake 'majority', lose a confidence vote and lose his position as Prime Minister. Again: Huh? It's difficult to make sense of that gibberish. All democracies are designed; they're human-created systems. I presented no distortion of anything. But, since you think I did, why did you go on to partly explain how the system I outlined (Westminster parliamentary democracy) works? Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Yeah, Greece is doing really well and dealing effectively with serious problems by employing proportional representation. well that's a illogical statement, do you have issues with democracy? the Greek democratic system is working perfectly, it's financial issues are not a result of the electoral process... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 well that's a illogical statement, do you have issues with democracy? the Greek democratic system is working perfectly, it's financial issues are not a result of the electoral process... He means the fact Greece is currently without a stable government, obviously. Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 PR has been explored to death on this forum. As I have said in the past, it's a solution without a problem and a complete overhaul at that. ahhh, nearly every topic on the forum has been explored to death so are suggesting we stop discussion and shut down the forum? that sounds similar the CPC approach to democracy, shut down debate when it becomes uncomfortable or inconvenient and is headed somewhere you don't want to go......The same people who complain about lack of leftist voices in government would gladly take part in an overhaul that would allow centre-left coalitions to rule forever, until such a time as a far-right reaction would take root.lack of leftist voices? I'd be happy to have a voice at all...so you're fine with process that because of elctoral flaws allows a minority of a population to dominate the majority for decades? revolutions have started for less cause.....democracies are intended to allow people to govern themselves through consensus of the majority not by the dictates of a minority, democratic consensus unifies, FPTP post does not promote unity as it eliminates the need for consensus... There's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, then there's shooting the baby first, then throwing him out....this democratic baby was stillborn... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) this democratic baby was stillborn... Yeah, that must be why it's one of the longest lasting democracies on the planet. [ed.: c/e] Edited May 17, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
fellowtraveller Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 He means the fact Greece is currently without a stable government, obviously. No, I mean that one of the prime reasons that Greece is unable to egffectively deal with their economic woes is because they have a proprep govt instead of FPTP. The coalitions are weak , collapse constantly and can only seek weakass 'consensus', which actually means compromises that are inapproprite and worst of all inadequate for the problem. Peope here constantly bray about the advantages of this system while ignoring the very real and sometimes very dire consequences that result from inaction. Inaction/political paralysis can be as deadly as poor decisions. Instead of reaching hard decisions, Greece is headed for another pointless election while their economy crumbles in tandem with their credibility. Quote The government should do something.
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 He means the fact Greece is currently without a stable government, obviously. it's working as intended, consensus must be reached by a majority first... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 No, I mean that one of the prime reasons that Greece is unable to egffectively deal with their economic woes is because they have a proprep govt instead of FPTP. Oh. I apologise then. Still, their proportional representative electoral system has given them the situation wherein there are seven different political parties in the parliament, the two largest being political polar opposites, and, hence, no government more robust than the caretaker one currently in temporary place, all at at time when the country's on the verge of total economic collapse. Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 it's working as intended... If instability and delay is what's intended, yep, it sure is working. Quote
fellowtraveller Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 Yeah, that must be why it's one of the longest lasting democracies on the planet. [ed.: c/e] ??? The democracy of ancient Greece did not look much like modern democaracy as we know it. Greece has had some really turbelent times in the last 200 years, and only in the last 40 or so has it had anything resembling a modern democracy. If you'd like an example of the power of the people, look to the largest and most unlikely of democratic countries: India. It should never work , but somehow it does. FPTP, of course. Quote The government should do something.
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 No, I mean that one of the prime reasons that Greece is unable to egffectively deal with their economic woes is because they have a proprep govt instead of FPTP. The coalitions are weak , collapse constantly and can only seek weakass 'consensus', which actually means compromises that are inapproprite and worst of all inadequate for the problem. Peope here constantly bray about the advantages of this system while ignoring the very real and sometimes very dire consequences that result from inaction. Inaction/political paralysis can be as deadly as poor decisions. Instead of reaching hard decisions, Greece is headed for another pointless election while their economy crumbles in tandem with their credibility. that's bs, Germany and Netherlands both have PR systems and both have healthy functional democracies despite PR as well as healthy economies with lower unemployment than Canada...so using your logic if I were Dutch I could point to Canada as a being weaker economically than Netherlands because of our FPTP electoral system?...extending your logic we should do away with democracy all together as one party rule would be even more efficient than FPTP, who needs consensus when a minority rule is less messy.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 If you'd like an example of the power of the people, look to the largest and most unlikely of democratic countries: India. It should never work , but somehow it does. FPTP, of course. India uses a Single Transferable Vote system...semi-PR Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 If instability and delay is what's intended, yep, it sure is working. the problem here is you don't understand democracy means... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) the problem here is you don't understand democracy means... The problem now is that you're deflecting with straw men. The fact is, Greece has no sound government at one of the most precarious points in its recent history. That was made much more possible than here or in the UK or Australia because of Greece's PR electoral system, which sent to the parliament members of no less than seven political parties, including communists and neo-nazis. Not a ringing endorsement for proportional representation, let alone proof of your theory that anywhere that doesn't use is isn't a democracy. [ed.: c/e] Edited May 17, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
g_bambino Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 ...Greece... I was speaking about Canada, in response to wyly's claim Canadian democracy is a "stillborn". Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 The problem now is that you're deflecting with straw men. no you don't understand democracy that's apparent...The fact is, Greece has no sound government at one of the most precarious points in its recent history. That was made much more possible than here or in the UK or Australia because of the Greece's PR electoral system, which sent to the parliament members of no less than seven political parties, including communists and neo-nazis. Not a ringing endorsement for proportional representation, let alone proof of your theory that anywhere that doesn't use is isn't a democracy.governments fall because of a lack of consensus/confidence that's what they're supposed to happen in a democracy, just as governments do in FPTP systems when they don't have a majority and refuse to seek a consensus of the majority(or in our present situation a phoney majority)...a crisis in any democratic country should trigger the government to fall when there is a loss of consensus...Australia also uses STV in a Semi-PR system...Germany has stable government with 6 parties in a PR system, the Netherlands had 10 parties in the last sitting of government...Greece from my counting since 2000 has had fewer general elections than Canada 3 vs 4, sooo Canada's FPTP is hardly "a ringing endorsement" for stability... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) no you don't understand democracy that's apparent...You don't have a trademark on the meaning of the word democracy. All a democracy needs to be is a system that allows power to be handed over without fuss based on the votes cast by the electorate. The exact system depends on the country and the people doing the voting. All systems are democratic if they meet the requirement of one person one vote. The debate over the system only indicates that there are trade-offs and you happen to like chaos in government so you prefer proportional representation. I prefer stability and rather give a single party a free hand 4 years to run things the way they see fit - even if I don't like the party. In fact, there is a good chance I will have to suffer through 4 years of an NDP government in BC - a painful experience I would rather live with than have a system where the centrist parties were forced to pander to the wingnuts in order to form a stable government. Edited May 17, 2012 by TimG Quote
wyly Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 You don't have a trademark on the meaning of the word democracy. I do actually when my definition comes closer to the ultimate direct democracy than another person's...PR is closer to true (direct)democracy than FPTP...All a democracy needs to be is a system that allows power to be handed over without fuss based on the votes cast by the electorate. The exact system depends on the country and the people doing the voting. All systems are democratic if they meet the requirement of one person one vote. The debate over the system only indicates that there are trade-offs and you happen to like chaos in government so you prefer proportional representation. well hey lets have one party rule to avoid all that inconvenience of democracy, you'd still get your one man, one vote and no robocalls...I prefer stability and rather give a single party a free hand 4 years to run things the way they see fit - even if I don't like the party.you evidently missed the part where I posted Greece has had fewer elections since 2000 than Canada with our "stable" FPTP...and Canada is no more stable than PR Germany and Netherlands...I have issues with any party running things as they see fit, parties must run government how the electorate sees fit...In fact, there is a good chance I will have to suffer through 4 years of an NDP government in BC - something I would rather do than have a system where the majority parties were forced to pander to the wingnuts in order to form a stable government. oh how sad for you, you live in a province where you actually have a voice, occasionally even someone who represents you, where you actually have a change in government, eeew the horror ...appreciate your good fortune... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 I do actually when my definition comes closer to the ultimate direct democracy than another person's...PR is closer to true (direct)democracy than FPTP.There is no such thing a 'true' democracy for states. We have representative democracy in this country.well hey lets have one party rule to avoid all that inconvenience of democracyStrawman. To be a democracy governments must change from time to time.you evidently missed the part where I posted Greece has had fewer elections since 2000 than Canada with our "stable"So? Greece is trouble now because it has never had a government that can make unpopular decisions. The fact that Greek parties stayed in power by throwing borrowed cash at the masses is not evidence that the Greek system is better. oh how sad for you, you live in a province where you actually have a voice, occasionally even someone who represents you, where you actually have a change in governmentAnother strawmen. There is no province where the government does not change. Quote
Rick Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 There is no such thing a 'true' democracy for states. We have representative democracy in this country. Strawman. To be a democracy governments must change from time to time. In that case...Alberta's no longer a democracy. Another strawmen. There is no province where the government does not change. Alberta says...you're wrong. Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
fellowtraveller Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 The problem now is that you're deflecting with straw men. It is all he has.The hard truth is that Greece would be much better off right now if they had a majority govt or even a coalition with FPTP. At a time when they need leadership and decisions made, they are running pointless elections that will result in more of the same. On tyhe other hand, that is what they have chosen for themselves, I guess they are willing to suffer the consequences. Canadian reformers take note. Oh- except those reformers that have NDP governments. There is a sudden absence of interest in proprep once an NDP govt takes a majority. India uses a Single Transferable Vote system...semi-PR Wrong and wrong LOWER HOUSE The lower house (Lok Sabha) in India, the United Kingdom, and some United States elections, is simple plurality, first-past-the-post or winner-takes-all.UPPER HOUSEThe Rajya Sabha (Hindi: राज्य सभा) or Council of States is the upper house of the Parliament of India. Rajya means state[4] and Sabha means "assembly" in Sanskrit.[5] Membership is limited to 250 members, 12 of whom are chosen by the President of India for their expertise in specific fields of art, literature, science, and social services. These members are known as nominated members. The remainder of the body is elected by the state and territorial legislatures. Quote The government should do something.
dre Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 The real trick, and where Canadian and American democracy break down is they slot people into a very one dimensional spectrum. What if you want Canada to get new fighter planes, but you dont want to pay to throw minor drug offenders in prison? Theres nobody you can vote for... You basically have to pick one issue over the other. "Alright, these planes are important so I guess Im gonna have to vote to throw some potheads in jail". The public really isnt doing anything usefull at that point, and democracy really doesnt mean all that much. Maybe if we could vote in the actual ministers instead of voting for parties, then that would help. Then I could vote for a minister of defense who campaigned on buying the planes, but a minister of justice with a rational policy on drugs. I think these big powerfull political parties are actually a system designed to subvert democracy. Our choices are basically the same has cable TV packages. You cant get channel 2 without also getting channel 12, 36, and 49. If you want me to take my duty as a voter seriously then ASK SOMETHING OF ME. Picking between two or three partisan political cartels has no value. I just wont bother, and an increasing number of Canadias wont waste their time with this either. People who just show up and voter party year after year dont add anything of value what so ever. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) In that case...Alberta's no longer a democracy.In the Alberta case the party in power shifted quite radically to the left and was supported by a different set of voters. So I think that democracy is alive and well in Alberta. Edited May 17, 2012 by TimG Quote
Rick Posted May 17, 2012 Report Posted May 17, 2012 In the Alberta case the party in power shifted quite radically to the left and was supported by a different set of voters. So I think that democracy is alive and well in Alberta. You're reaching with that answer... the party in power hasn't shifted radically at all. The right wing extremists just decided they wanted to push the province further to the right and formed the Wild Rose. Right wing governments have held power there since 1935... the Social Credit Party from 1935-1971 and the current Conservative part since then... that's not exactly democracy Quote “This is all about who you represent,” Mr. Dewar (NDP) said. “We’re (NDP) talking about representing the interests of working people and everyday Canadians and they [the Conservatives] are about representing the fund managers who come in and fleece our companies and our country. Voted Maple Leaf Web's 'Most Outstanding Poster' 2011
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.