What actually is a democracy?

[imamartian]

In my estimation, i would like to see a cabinet of skilled managers who ask us to vote on policies we majoritively want to take place. I.e. a referendum on every important or even notso important issue.

Instead we have a cabinet - which in theory uses democratic principles to get in power (or at least into a coalition)... but then dictates to us what's now going to happen for the next 5 years! It's like an elected dictatorship. I say this mainly because of the false promises made by most politicians in manefestos...

 

[joe-90]

Have you ever seen the movie the Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer?

 

[Lincsbodger]

In my estimation, i would like to see a cabinet of skilled managers who ask us to vote on policies we majoritively want to take place. I.e. a referendum on every important or even notso important issue.

Instead we have a cabinet - which in theory uses democratic principles to get in power (or at least into a coalition)... but then dictates to us what's now going to happen for the next 5 years! It's like an elected dictatorship. I say this mainly because of the false promises made by most politicians in manefestos...

so what do you want, a general election every week?

You have to leave people in power for enough time to do the job, before you reassess how they did.

 

[imamartian]

so what do you want, a general election every week?

errr... not every week, but why not quarterly referendums? we have the net...

You have to leave people in power for enough time to do the job, before you reassess how they did.

I disagree... that's a bit like saying you'll employ a hairdresser... and let them do what they want for a year before you assess their performance.

My main point is that these people make promises to get into power and either ignore or enforce those principles.... but what about the remaining 4 years... we are the customer... we should dictate how OUR country is run, literally minute by minute !

 

[Lincsbodger]

so what do you want, a general election every week?

errr... not every week, but why not quarterly referendums? we have the net...

You have to leave people in power for enough time to do the job, before you reassess how they did.

I disagree... that's a bit like saying you'll employ a hairdresser... and let them do what they want for a year before you assess their performance.

My main point is that these people make promises to get into power and either ignore or enforce those principles.... but what about the remaining 4 years... we are the customer... we should dictate how OUR country is run, literally minute by minute !

its impractical. You cannot run a government with someone breathing over your shoulder, micromanaging you, anymore than you can any job with the boss watching over your shoulder all the time.

The implication is you vote for them because you trust them to do the job, and you give them five years to do the job in. You cant have stable government by micromanagement

 

[imamartian]

its impractical. You cannot run a government with someone breathing over your shoulder, micromanaging you, anymore than you can any job with the boss watching over your shoulder all the time.

i disagree... my boss is like that and i suspect many many bosses are like that. But you should look at the electorate as a fussy customer... not a meddling boss..

The implication is you vote for them because you trust them to do the job, and you give them five years to do the job in. You cant have stable government by micromanagement

This would be ok if we had far more choice... not just two old fashioned class based money v skint politics which no longer fits with the modern britain. it's no longer about protecting land ownership... and hereditry titles versus miners' unions .... many many people vote for (what i believe is) the wrong reason. It need ramping up to the politics of modern Britain

 

[joinerjohn]

Biggest flaw with what your saying Martian is. How much would a quarterly referendum on issues cost? Even if it were to be conducted over the internet, there are those who don't have the internet or are IT illiterate. Would you choose to ignore any section of the community just because they couldn't afford to pay BT. Virgin Media, Tiscali , Talk Talk etc, £20 odd a month?. How long would people with internet access have to cast their votes? You couldn't just pick one arbitrary day and expect the internet to cope with that amount of traffic. How could we be certain that any internet vote hadn't been hacked?
Just ask yourself,,, How much did the General Election actually cost in terms of wages for council staff etc to man the polling stations, count the votes etc?. Could the country afford this same amount every 3 months?

We have to trust politicians to use their judgement I'm afraid.

 

[joe-90]

They can take a poll sample of 2000 voters. Mathematically that will reflect the populous as a whole.

 

[Lincsbodger]

They can take a poll sample of 2000 voters. Mathematically that will reflect the populous as a whole.

well it barely be with 2 standard deviations result wise...... a sample of 2000 from 40,000,000 is pretty insignificant statistically, and it depends where and how you took it.

If you want a statistically significant sample, you need to be asking 10,000 people in 300 towns, then your approaching statistical significance.

 

[joinerjohn]

Statistics can be manipulated too.
For instance., Smokers statistically, die earlier than non smokers, but, does this prove beyond reasonable doubt that it's purely the smoking that causes earlier death? It could also be lifestyle, diet, genetic traits etc.
With statistics I could reasonably prove that there is a correlation between people dying of heart attacks and the amount of Sky dishes being installed.
Nonsense I know, but I bet there's a vague correlation there that a mathematician could show.
Statistically, drinkers are at increased risk of mouth and throat cancer. But is it purely the drinking that causes this?
Statisticians will always use their results to prove what they want them to prove. Not necessarily the truth.

 

[Lincsbodger]

Statistics can be manipulated too.
For instance., Smokers statistically, die earlier than non smokers, but, does this prove beyond reasonable doubt that it's purely the smoking that causes earlier death? It could also be lifestyle, diet, genetic traits etc.
With statistics I could reasonably prove that there is a correlation between people dying of heart attacks and the amount of Sky dishes being installed.
Nonsense I know, but I bet there's a vague correlation there that a mathematician could show.
Statistically, drinkers are at increased risk of mouth and throat cancer. But is it purely the drinking that causes this?
Statisticians will always use their results to prove what they want them to prove. Not necessarily the truth.

absolutely true. Thats why polls should not be conducted by amateurs with no training in applied statistics. You need to understand HOW to take a significant sample that wont produce garbage.

 

[joinerjohn]

Latest one on the TV this morning is . Children who don't brush their teeth twice a day are at increased risk of heart disease later on in life.
The statistics were gathered in Scotland, where the population is at an increased risk anyway.
Kind of mucks up the results then I'd have thought.

 

[wreckedit]

I would of thought that voting on any policy would be very easy through computer connections on the high street.

I already have a vote number.

Voting could be carried out over a 2 week period. The 1 day period in this day and age is silly and very,very expensive.

I believe the labour party didn't get in because they didn't listen to the public and some of their appointed experts.

Perhaps our politicians at times do not want to hear the truth about what we think.

 

[joinerjohn]

I would of thought that voting on any policy would be very easy through computer connections on the high street.

I already have a vote number.

Voting could be carried out over a 2 week period. The 1 day period in this day and age is silly and very,very expensive.

I believe the labour party didn't get in because they didn't listen to the public and some of their appointed experts.

Perhaps our politicians at times do not want to hear the truth about what we think.

Exactly, Wreckedit. Labour tried to stifle any public debate about immigration, which was quite a big issue for voters. Gordon's gaffe with the woman from Rochdale proved this.

 

[transam]

think the swiss are constantly having poll;s !! trouble is with poll's if the government do not like the answer they get from a poll that start another one & change the wording , same thing happened in some country's over some of the E.U issue's !! eventually they get the answer they want !!