American democracy, the best money can buy.
Belarus
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Originally, it meant "government by the people, provided those people are adults, not women, not slaves, and are citizens of the city."
UK democracy has always been different.
For example, most of the millions of men who went off to fight and die in WWI were not considered worthy of a vote, nor were the women who worked on the Home Front.
But the rulers of the country persuaded many of the people that UK was a democracy.
Even today, people can be made Members of Parliament or Ministers by the Prime Minister because they are his buddies, or went to school with him, or are his brother, without having been elected.
So the word has meaning convenient to the person who uses it.
UK democracy has always been different.
For example, most of the millions of men who went off to fight and die in WWI were not considered worthy of a vote, nor were the women who worked on the Home Front.
But the rulers of the country persuaded many of the people that UK was a democracy.
Even today, people can be made Members of Parliament or Ministers by the Prime Minister because they are his buddies, or went to school with him, or are his brother, without having been elected.
So the word has meaning convenient to the person who uses it.
Well personally I'd say one person one vote, and everyone over an accepted age allowed a vote...
And the result of those votes would have to produce a proportional representation in a governing body...
Something that has of course never happened in the UK!
PR generally results in coalition governments where decisions are made to please all the governing minor parties.............or no decision at all.
First passed the post may not be 'democratic' but it tends to give the government the mandate to make decisions.......however unpopular.
Indeed...
The majority never get heard under the antiquated FPTP system...
It also perpetuates the habit of large swings (to left or right) in policies and means that all public institutions are treated as political footballs...
New 'rules' are introduced with every new government, and there is no stability...
But then that is why the two major parties hate the idea of PR - because it would break their traditional seesaw hold on power!
E
EddieM
Depends on how / if you geographically separate the vote, for instance if the PR vote was national, then the SNP would never have got over 50 seats in Westminster with less than 5% of the UK national vote. That said I'm not really in favour of FPTP, but PR doesn't necessarily solve all the issues.
I have always thought that if a candidate doesn't get over 50% of the votes, the top two should go to a second ballot.
But then it wasn't fair that (however objectionable their policies), UKIP only got a single MP in 2015 despite getting over double the number of votes of the SNP...
And it's probably the main reason why the UK is now in a mess that it won't get out of for decades!
E
EddieM
I don't follow that. So you're saying under PR UKIP (pro leave) should have had 2x the number of seats the SNP got (pro remain)?
Nope...
It has nothing to do with leave/remain...
In a fair voting system the SNP would have got less seats and UKIP more...
All based on the percentage of votes cast...
In simple terms, if you get 10% of the vote you get 10% of MP's in parliament!
Of course if UKIP got said representation they probably wouldn't be able to garner the numbers to force any sort of vote or influence camoron beforehand!
Be careful what you wish for, under PR UKIP could end up with 80 seats.
https://fullfact.org/news/how-many-seats-could-ukip-have-under-different-voting-system/
They could hold the balance of power.
You are a bit behind the times. For UKIP............read Brexit Party.
