29 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by ianpickeringwell why has only 20% put there names down, answer the supposed asylem seekers are like the manchester man who is under expultion saying he will be killed when going back to his wife and family over there and his british girlfriend supports him, (no prizes for guessing who is going to kill him). and the 80% are happy to turn uk into a islamic state
29 Jan 05
Originally posted by stoker😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴😴
well why has only 20% put there names down, answer the supposed asylem seekers are like the manchester man who is under expultion saying he will be killed when going back to his wife and family over there and his british girlfriend supports him, (no prizes for guessing who is going to kill him). and the 80% are happy to turn uk into a islamic state
29 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettI'm not sure.
Do you think the people are incapable of holding elections free from corporate control? Or are you just talking about capitalist elections?
I just look around Europe and the Americas and all I really see are governments doing what the corporations want.
It's a bad day when IKEA and United Fruits are forming foreign policy.
29 Jan 05
Originally posted by shavixmirAll elections in Europe and the Americas are now held in capitalist systems, and are therefore doomed to suffer from corporate influence. What I am trying to establish is whether you just find these types of elections to be a waste of time, or whether you find the concept of elections in any system to be a waste of time.
I'm not sure.
I just look around Europe and the Americas and all I really see are governments doing what the corporations want.
It's a bad day when IKEA and United Fruits are forming foreign policy.
29 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettThe problem with electing political parties is that you vote for a set of 'principles' and 'aims'.
All elections in Europe and the Americas are now held in capitalist systems, and are therefore doomed to suffer from corporate influence. What I am trying to establish is whether you just find these types of elections to be a waste of time, or whether you find the concept of elections in any system to be a waste of time.
You may not neccesairly support the whole party programme.
So, I reckon it would probably be more accurate to vote for various policies, which would lead you to a system of perpetual referendums.
I think the basic know-how is here to achieve this (internet) and I think you could be more specific about what you want and what you don't want.
However, looking at statistics (like 60% of under 24's in Britain not knowing which party Tony Blair belongs to or the majority of people in most European countries supporting the death penalty) I have grave fears about having people actually being allowed to get what they want.
29 Jan 05
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat about a hypothetical country which has a constitution that guarantees certain rights, or is dedicated to guaranteeing the greatest amount of freedom that is possible. All laws would be passed by direct vote of the people. But if they vote in a law which violates the basic premise of the constitution, there is a supreme court which could invalidate that law. In other words, the people would have direct control of the legistative process, but there would be safeguards in place to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" from taking hold. How would you view such a system?
The problem with electing political parties is that you vote for a set of 'principles' and 'aims'.
You may not neccesairly support the whole party programme.
So, I reckon it would probably be more accurate to vote for various policies, which would lead you to a system of perpetual referendums.
I think the basic know-how is here to achieve t ...[text shortened]... nalty) I have grave fears about having people actually being allowed to get what they want.
29 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettFrom behind two glasses of whisky, I tend to favour such a system. It sounds quite good.
What about a hypothetical country which has a constitution that guarantees certain rights, or is dedicated to guaranteeing the greatest amount of freedom that is possible. All laws would be passed by direct vote of the people. But if they vote in a law which violates the basic premise of the constitution, there is a supreme court which could invalidate that ...[text shortened]... e to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" from taking hold. How would you view such a system?
29 Jan 05
Originally posted by ianpickering
Is the Iraqi election worthwhile?
The situation it is being held in is obviously not ideal, but surely it is better to 'make a start' than to postpone it 'til goodness knows when.
The Iraqi elections are absolutely necessary in the context of attaining peace and stability in the Middle East.
29 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettThis system makes the basis of nearly all democracys but is itself flawed. The problem is that the representative must write the constitution or else the government is going to be ruled by the judges sitting in the court. With the government in control of the constitution then any powers the court hold can be overcome. In the UK under Tony Blair a recent worrying debate occured about this when the government decided to take steps to reform the House of Lords which is itself the highest court in the land. The worry was that if its independence was compromised that would destroy any safeguards imposed upon the government.
What about a hypothetical country which has a constitution that guarantees certain rights, or is dedicated to guaranteeing the greatest amount of freedom that is possible. All laws would be passed by direct vote of the people. But if they vote in a law which violates the basic premise of the constitution, there is a supreme court which could invalidate that ...[text shortened]... e to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" from taking hold. How would you view such a system?
In the end to only way to ensure that a democratic representative acts as it should is when the people take action when it does not. In your example laws would be passed by those same people making any attempt at safeguards worthless as the only people capable of enforcing them would be the only ones who would consider breaking them in the first place.