Is Democracy Dying?

[eyeball]

Is the term elites being used to describe filthy rich lefties by poor right trash?

Edited June 29, 2016 by eyeball

[Icebound]

All the parties committed to following the voice of the people in the referendum. No politician with an ounce of integrity could now suddenly say "Well, I changed my mind because I don't like the result".

If this vote is seen in its proper context, as the anger of a huge chunk of the electorate over feeling that they are being ignored, that their economic misfortunes are not cared about, that their desires are not important to the elites, one can only imagine the rage which would result if, after finally winning a vote on something the elites then say "Well, I'm going to ignore it." That is the kind of thing which results in a huge surge in support for more extreme political parties. Witness France. Witness Austria. Witness the Netherlands.

That's all well and good.... but the purpose of government is to do WHAT IS BEST for the people of the country.... and not necessarily what the people THINK is best.

That's why most viable democracies operate as REPRESENTATIVE democracies. I don't have the TIME or knowledge to research every single issue before the country... and especially so for complex and IMPORTANT issues.....

... so I vote for and elect the smartest people in my community to represent me.... and they have access to the research and professionals who assist them in making those decisions, while I go do my shift-work assembling widgets for Acme Corp. While my representative votes on the issues based of his own research and convictions base on reason and understanding.... and not on some leader's say-so,

BUT...

....Democracies have been corrupted away from that model, and partly by the voters themselves.

Instead of electing the smartest, we elect the loudest, richest, and most "generous". Furthermore, we don't really give a sh!t about our representative, We only vote on the charisma and supposed talent of the leader. Our representative doesn't really have a vote anyway, because he is being forced to toe the party line, although that is not supposed to be the intent.

We don't give a sh!t whether the "generosity" being showered on us hurts the rest of the country or not.... it was promised to US and we want it.

In this atmosphere, referendums are toxic and never to be used. Referendum are a tyranny by the majority, which democracies are supposed to avoid.

Never say never, but pretty much never. . And seasoned politicians know it.... which is why Kenny and Clement want one on the electoral reforms.

Maybe as some sort of clearly-stated non-binding information-gathering survey only, but that's about it.

Even a simple question such as: "Do you think that number of seats in parliament for each party should reflect the percentage of votes that each party receives in an election?" .... is apt to be misunderstood by half the electorate....... However, if a question like that were posed, the results might... might.... help politicians decide the mood of the country for electoral reform, although I certainly would not accept it as a mandate for simple proportional representation..

I would expect my representatives to do a lot more research than that.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Icebound

[SpankyMcFarland]

It's dying in the West as well, sliding towards oligarchy and mass surveillance. People have a lot less hope for real change through politics any more.

[Moonlight Graham]

Is democracy dying? I dunno. Maybe in developing countries you need a strong autocrat to most effectively push back against western/US dominance trying to eff with you all the time. Worked for Cuba.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is democracy dying? I dunno. Maybe in developing countries you need a strong autocrat to most effectively push back against western/US dominance trying to eff with you all the time. Worked for Cuba.

Didn't work for Haiti....with all that western/Canada dominance stuff all the time.

[Rue]

I wonder how many folks from the UK are currently working in Germany, France, and other countries. Will they be receiving pink slips?

One number being tossed about is 3 million working in all of Europe outside the UK. How much of that is just in France or Germany I do not know.

[Rue]

Is democracy dying? I dunno. Maybe in developing countries you need a strong autocrat to most effectively push back against western/US dominance trying to eff with you all the time. Worked for Cuba.

Very naive statement considering the only example you could use was Cuba. There's a reason for that. Think about why it was only Cuba you could refer to,

Your comments make zero sense. Canada did not need a totalitraian military junta or autocracy as you sanitize it to push back against US dominance. We had one war with them in 1812 and that was really a British American war as we did not exist yet.

Show me one 'autocracy" that brought prosperity to its country other than Cuba pretending Cuba is a developed country which its not

Hmmm? Oh do share. Get real. This blaming the US for totalitarian regimes in developing nations is a convenient way to apologize for the failure of any of these nations to lead themselves. This blame it on America crap is spent.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Rue

[bjre]

Very naive statement considering the only example you could use was Cuba. There's a reason for that. Think about why it was only Cuba you could refer to,

Your comments make zero sense. Canada did not need a totalitraian military junta or autocracy as you sanitize it to push back against US dominance. We had one war with them in 1812 and that was really a British American war as we did not exist yet.

Show me one 'autocracy" that brought prosperity to its country other than Cuba pretending Cuba is a developed country which its not

Hmmm? Oh do share. Get real. This blaming the US for totalitarian regimes in developing nations is a convenient way to apologize for the failure of any of these nations to lead themselves. This blame it on America crap is spent.

The poor condition of Cuba is mainly due to the long time sanction by the “democracy” United Status, rather than its own system.

The method you try to use is comparing two systems to find which one is worse, what you did is similar with compare Hilary and Trump, and try to select one according to which one is worse, the result is obvious, you won’t be able to find a good one between an sanctioned autocracy system and a democracy system .

The problem of democracy now is the voters were fooled and unable to think and vote for themselves. The main stream media has been controlling by several super rich people, this makes most people fools.

Lots of results are just meaningless random numbers, like the result of toss coins.

For the election of important government people like president, the most important part has been done by rich people before voting. The candidates will not able to let others know himself without big money, he has to use his own money (like Trump) or get support from rich people (like Hillary) . Even when he has money, if he cannot make rich people feel he will do good for rich people, the media will still give negative information to controls the behavior of the voters. Rich people won’t support a candidate that unable to give them interest. That is why voting is meaningless. That is why democracy is just a decoration. The function of It is just make lots of people think that they have some right when they actually none.

[Rue]

Is the term elites being used to describe filthy rich lefties by poor right trash?

How does responding with negative stereotypes have anything to do with what is being debated or what the person said you claim to respond to?

[Rue]

The poor condition of Cuba is mainly due to the long time sanction by the “democracy” United Status, rather than its own system.

The method you try to use is comparing two systems to find which one is worse, what you did is similar with compare Hilary and Trump, and try to select one according to which one is worse, the result is obvious, you won’t be able to find a good one between an sanctioned autocracy system and a democracy system .

The problem of democracy now is the voters were fooled and unable to think and vote for themselves. The main stream media has been controlling by several super rich people, this makes most people fools.

Lots of results are just meaningless random numbers, like the result of toss coins.

For the election of important government people like president, the most important part has been done by rich people before voting. The candidates will not able to let others know himself without big money, he has to use his own money (like Trump) or get support from rich people (like Hillary) . Even when he has money, if he cannot make rich people feel he will do good for rich people, the media will still give negative information to controls the behavior of the voters. Rich people won’t support a candidate that unable to give them interest. That is why voting is meaningless. That is why democracy is just a decoration. The function of It is just make lots of people think that they have some right when they actually none.

Disagree with some parts but excellent. Very very well stated. Very well written. Kudos.

[bjre]

Disagree with some parts but excellent. Very very well stated. Very well written. Kudos.

Excellent and very smart answer, you make me understand that you agree things except those you don't agree.

[TimG]

That is why voting is meaningless. That is why democracy is just a decoration. The function of It is just make lots of people think that they have some right when they actually none.

Democracy's main virtue is it is better than all other systems. More importantly, Trump and Brexit prove that people do have the power to reject the prescriptions that the elite would prefer so your claim that voting is meaningless because the outcomes are fixed has been proven false.

The irony is many pro-remain young voters got schooled in why their vote DOES count because they stayed home and the leave side won.

Edited July 3, 2016 by TimG

[kactus]

Democracy's main virtue is it is better than all other systems. More importantly, Trump and Brexit prove that people do have the power to reject the prescriptions that the elite would prefer so your claim that voting is meaningless because the outcomes are fixed has been proven false.The irony is many pro-remain young voters got schooled in why their vote DOES count because they stayed home and the leave side won.

I think brje has a valid point to a certain extent...The premise of Brexit most markedly was based on lies and deceit. That's why some of their voters regretted their decision after the vote results became known and felt they were lied to. You are right in saying that people had the power to reject the prescriptions but it certainly was not when some of the slogans for the campaign were based on propaganda.

Iinterestingly, 13 years ago when Tony Blair sided with Bush to take the country into war with saddam under the allegations of "45 minutes deployment of nuclear weapons" dossier (which we know it was a lie) people went on demonstrations in masses against the attack based on made up claims. It didn't stop the politicians to attack Iraq under the false premise of "nuclear arms" and against their people's wishes....

[TimG]

he premise of Brexit most markedly was based on lies and deceit.

Spare us your false narratives. Both sides relied on gross exaggeration to make their case. Singling out one side and claiming it was 'based on lies and deceit' is dishonest. The claim being made is voters don't really have power and in the Brexit case they proved that they do have power because vcters went with a choice that elites did not want them to make.

It didn't stop the politicians to attack Iraq under the false premise of "nuclear arms" and against their people's wishes....

Again, no matter what your opinion of the war the people pushed it believed there was a threat (even if they were fooling themselves). If they really knew there was nothing to be found they would have done a better job of planting evidence to cover themselves. More importantly, a large percentage of the population supported the effort at the time even if there were more skeptical than their leadership. Edited July 3, 2016 by TimG

[kactus]

Spare us your false narratives. Both sides relied on gross exaggeration to make their case. Singling out one side and claiming it was 'based on lies and deceit' is dishonest. The claim being made is voters don't really have power and in the Brexit case they proved that they do have power because vcters went with a choice that elites did not want them to make.

Again, no matter what your opinion of the war the people pushed it believed there was a threat (even if they were fooling themselves). If they really knew there was nothing to be found they would have done a better job of planting evidence to cover themselves. More importantly, a large percentage of the population supported the effort at the time even if there were more skeptical than their leadership.

I never took a one sided opinion on this as I said "markedly" leaning towards both camps but more towards the Brexit. The point still stands people did not make an informed decision based on facts and rational thinking but it was an emotional vote based on anger, frustration and deceit by the politicians. Anyway....the point was about merits of democracy and the argument put forth by previous whom I agree with.

As for the Iraq war the Hutton enquiry revealed that it was an illegitimate war based on the evidence before the death of the inspector. The reality is we went into a war based on a dossier and false intelligence that had little credibility and just a green light for the powers that be to go to war....

Edited July 3, 2016 by kactus

[TimG]

the point was about merits of democracy

IOW - you don't like democracy because it does not always produce outcomes you agree with. Spoken like a true arrogant authoritarian. What mystifies me is why people like you think that the authoritarian put in charge if we did't have democracy would make decisions more to your liking?

[kactus]

IOW - you don't like democracy because it does not always produce outcomes you agree with. Spoken like a true arrogant authoritarian. What mystifies me is why people like you think that the authoritarian put in charge if we did't have democracy would make decisions more to your liking?

Errm no....I merely stated a point with facts regarding Hurtton enquiry and you turned this into personal attack on me by calling my views as an "arrogant authoritarian"...

Hutton enquiry and the fabricated 45 minutes deployment of nuclear weapons by Saddam are facts that are well documented! If one wishes to read about them there are tons of sources about these on internet....

I have no problem to have a civil discussion here. However, I refuse to get into rants with individuals who use this place to "nit pick" posts into quote and turn an otherwise valid discussion into personal attack...

On that subject, I do have an issue with a democracy that is "packaged" and indoctrinated to us in a way to suit a purpose like rge war in Iraq.

What I do find ironic is people like yourself who preach about values of democracy but as soon as they hear a different viewpoint they turn the point of discussion on the person rather than the subject area!

You don't know me to judge me and categorise me as someone that makes it so easier in your mind to label as arrogant!

Edited July 3, 2016 by kactus

[Argus]

I think brje has a valid point to a certain extent...The premise of Brexit most markedly was based on lies and deceit.

Those who campaigned to leave were no more dishonest than those who campaigned to stay. Both sides wildly exaggerated everything. The main reasons people voted to leave were not about money amounts but sovereignty being slowly sucked away by eucocrats, and uncontrolled immigration.

[Argus]

Anyway....the point was about merits of democracy and the argument put forth by previous whom I agree with.

The merits of democracy vs what? The person you agreed with is a noted supporter of the corrupt and autocratic dictatorship of China. Is that the sort of government you believe would be better for Canada?

[TimG]

On that subject, I do have an issue with a democracy that is "packaged" and indoctrinated to us in a way to suit a purpose like rge war in Iraq.

You have an issue because and only because you disagree with the objectives of the people engaging in such tactics. If you want to make a point you need to provide examples of lies used to promote objectives that you a agree with. Otherwise you come across as a partisan that is unhappy that the voters don't always agree with you.

You don't know me to judge me and categorise me as someone that makes it so easier in your mind to label as arrogant!

I used the label arrogant because you appear to be unable to understand that many brexit voters understood that that advocates were exaggerating and voted that way because that is what they thought was best for Britain. Every time you claim that only the leave side ran a dishonest campaign you imply that 17 million British voters are easy to dupe. That is a text book definition of 'arrogant'.

I used the word authoritarian because without democracy that is all that is left if you want to run a mass society. This is also a factual statement given the fact that you are arguing that democracy is useless.

That said, the words were also an uncalled for personal attack and I apologize.

Edited July 3, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

Speaking for myself, I would only be undemocratic and authoritarian until such time as all the right wing conservatives are rounded up and dealt with.

[bjre]

The merits of democracy vs what? The person you agreed with is a noted supporter of the corrupt and autocratic dictatorship of China. Is that the sort of government you believe would be better for Canada?

This is not a valid argument. What you try to do is label China as an autocratic dictatorship, in this way you try to avoid talking about any proof that is needed to prove a proposition. And you try to label me as a “supporter of the corrupt and autocratic dictatorship of China”, so that you try to escape anything that you unable to proof wrong of my view and completely ignoring there are too many corrupt in Canada too. Then what you can label yourself. How pity you are. Do you use iPhone or a Samsung cell phone, not only it is made in China, do you ever think how many patents inside it are also from China. How many things you use are made in China? Why so few things are made in Canada? The railway from Pacific to Atlantic was built with many Chinese people more than 100 years ago, now, without Chinese people, Toronto cannot build a meter subway in ten years, while even in many 2nd rate cites in China, there are several subway lines. How you can prove it has no relation with the system? You are not able to, it seems that what you only can do is labeling to escaping. And try to prevent others from thinking. I don’t know why you keep repeat doing this, are you simply have no ability to thinking or have some evil purpose that cannot others know?

[bjre]

Democracy's main virtue is it is better than all other systems. More importantly,

You cannot prove it

Trump and Brexit prove that people do have the power to reject the prescriptions that the elite would prefer so your claim that voting is meaningless because the outcomes are fixed has been proven false.

The irony is many pro-remain young voters got schooled in why their vote DOES count because they stayed home and the leave side won.

No, I don’t think so. Trump has money, no one that has not so much money and did not get support from big financial group supporters can be win.

And you cannot prove Brexit is not the result by the media that controlled by wall street bankers who can earn a lot from money market. In this case, the young voters are just some guns used by those bankers. That is not something that pro-remain young voters can change.

[TimG]

You cannot prove it

One cannot prove it anymore than one can prove that cigarettes cause lung cancer. What one can do is present a statistical argument that shows that the probability of maintaining a society that looks after the needs of most of its people is much larger with a democracy than with any other type of government that exists in the real world.

No, I dont think so. Trump has money, no one that has not so much money and did not get support from big financial group supporters can be win.

Trump got the nomination by using very little money compared to others. More importantly, all of the big money was behind other candidates like Rubio or Jeb Bush. Trump beat them all which demonstrates unequivocally that the 'big money elites' cannot always get their way in a democracy.

And you cannot prove Brexit is not the result by the media that controlled by wall street bankers who can earn a lot from money market.

WTF? The 'elites' and business wanted remain to win. No one seriously questions that point. It is a tautology to claim that whatever happens the elite wanted therefore democracy makes no difference. Edited July 4, 2016 by TimG

[bjre]

One cannot prove it anymore than one can prove that cigarettes cause lung cancer. What one can do is present a statistical argument that shows that the probability of maintaining a society that looks after the needs of most of its people is much larger with a democracy than with any other type of government that exists in the real world.

In statistics, Canada never develop faster than China in the 21 century.

Trump got the nomination by using very little money compared to others. More importantly, all of the big money was behind other candidates like Rubio or Jeb Bush. Trump beat them all which demonstrates unequivocally that the 'big money elites' cannot always get their way in a democracy.

How many people have the "very little money" that Trump have? you have it?

WTF? The 'elites' and business wanted remain to win. No one seriously questions that point. It is a tautology to claim that whatever happens the elite wanted therefore democracy makes no difference.

Britain’s vote to leave the European Union battered the British pound by more than 11% Thursday night and into Friday morning, pushed down stocks in Asia and pointed to a day of steep falls across the world’s financial markets. It was a brutal drubbing for investors who had stacked up bets that the U.K. would choose to stay.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-pound-jumps-after-brexit-polls-close-1466718460

There are people lose money there are people win money. Who win on that, those people are who get the benefit from brexit. All media seems hide that fact and silent on that, that means it most like the boss of the media, otherwise, the blaming culture of the democracy world will make the media singing for weeks on that.