Originally posted by googlefudgeI think this is a great idea but everyone I speak to about it says yeah but ....
I think it would help if we could vote on different areas of policy independently, by having different
elected bodies deal with different policy areas [and/or different regional areas].
That way you don't have to pick between voting for the party you agree with on foreign policy/defence or
the party you agree with on national/economic policy [for example].
there would undoubtedly be many, many problems and such a radical change
could probably only be implemented by a party with a big majority. And then
why should they?
Originally posted by wolfgang59That's because it's really a dreadful idea. Government needs to be holistic. A voter has to make compromises when choosing a party to vote for, it's one of those things and voting systems can't change that. A government that does not take account of the minor wishes of its governed does so at its own peril. When people choose a party it is first on economics and secondly on overall style. If the overall style is as high handed as any government I'd lead would be they won't win any elections. A fragmented government would be far worse, as the military compete with the police and health service for funding and each have their own democratic mandate. The result would be a mess and no one's wishes satisfied.
I think this is a great idea but everyone I speak to about it says yeah but ....
there would undoubtedly be many, many problems and such a radical change
could probably only be implemented by a party with a big majority. And then
why should they?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDemocracy, in its many forms, really amounts to forming gangs to enforce the wishes of the gang leaders who are selected by the people.
There are many ways to implement proportional representation, and it does not necessarily involve "lords," voting for a Prime Minister or political parties.
Is any of this really superior to a monarch selected by heredity? It appears that in most cases, a very high percentage of the people end up dissatisfied with the result.
Originally posted by normbenignIn Britain we have this notion of "rule by consent". So if one of the Great Ones wants a change they have to get it through parliament. This, however, is not democracy. Democracy would entail the people having direct voting rights over every issue, as it was in Athens in their heyday. Your country is also not a democracy but a Republic. That we vote for our representatives does not, necessarily, give us control over them, but does act as a moderator. And, well, if they do step too far out of line then they can find themselves with a revolutionary movement to be displaced by. So in general they don't.
Democracy, in its many forms, really amounts to forming gangs to enforce the wishes of the gang leaders who are selected by the people.
Is any of this really superior to a monarch selected by heredity? It appears that in most cases, a very high percentage of the people end up dissatisfied with the result.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignYes, the People having a say in who are in positions of delegated power is superior to hereditary monarchy.
Democracy, in its many forms, really amounts to forming gangs to enforce the wishes of the gang leaders who are selected by the people.
Is any of this really superior to a monarch selected by heredity? It appears that in most cases, a very high percentage of the people end up dissatisfied with the result.
Tom Paine can help: http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/c2-03.htm
Originally posted by no1marauderIn most cases, people vote for some kind of security, police and military, or social welfare. They generally vote for other people to support what they desire, but might not want so badly if they had to provide it.
Yes, the People having a say in who are in positions of delegated power is superior to hereditary monarchy.
That is why the police, military, and social spending all tend to increase no matter who is elected.
Both systems lead to gangs forming to enforce various desires of discrete groups, only the monarch was often more responsive to the wishes of all the people, than are corrupted politicians in democracies.
Originally posted by normbenignYou and Herr Hoppe may believe such nonsense, but there isn't a shred of historical evidence to support such a ridiculous conclusion. Spending on any or all of those items have been decreased many times in many different representative republics.
In most cases, people vote for some kind of security, police and military, or social welfare. They generally vote for other people to support what they desire, but might not want so badly if they had to provide it.
That is why the police, military, and social spending all tend to increase no matter who is elected.
Both systems lead to gangs forming ...[text shortened]... more responsive to the wishes of all the people, than are corrupted politicians in democracies.
See Tom Paine for further exposition.
-Removed-Predicting a US election is much easier than predicting a UK election. Silver's meta-analysis is based on a collection of other polls. If those polls don't manage to estimate their (in)accuracy well enough, then the meta-analysis is also going to be flawed. The main reason why it is more difficult to predict a UK election is that in the US there are more than 10 times fewer electoral districts (for a presidential election).
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59That's why the Lib Dems had a historic opportunity in 2010 they squandered by settling for the electoral reform referendum rather than demanding it outright. They had a strong negotiating position, too, with the alternative to form a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. That would have been a minority government, but pretty close to a majority.
I think this is a great idea but everyone I speak to about it says yeah but ....
there would undoubtedly be many, many problems and such a radical change
could probably only be implemented by a party with a big majority. And then
why should they?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Well, there's a finite amount of resources.
Why?
That argument could be used against the Bank of England having control
over monetary policy but devolving that power from government was
one of the best things Gordon Brown did.
Say you've got 10 to spend.
If you decide to put 8 on healthcare, you only have 2 left to share out.
Hence an elected body has to be holistic in its approach. Otherwise they could give 10 to health, 10 to warfare, etc.
Now, you can wish to increase the amount to spend, but that means raising taxes.
Nobody wants higher taxes, yet nobody wants a leaky infra-structure.
Hence the holistic approach.
The problem however are the lies and hypocrisy.
Things like immigration (non issue... There's always been immigration and there has never been a singular set culture), privitisation or austerity to save money (privitisation is about making a handful of people rich), parental choice of schools is good for children (actually avoids the real issue and helps a small proportion of schools do well for the better off) and the health service must be protected (all 3 major UK parties have been slicing away at the concept since the 70's).
The fact of the matter is that if you want good quality roads and sewers, you're gonna have to pay for them.
If you want to feel safe you have to remove the need for people to steal.
If you want all children well educated, you have to increase all standards, not choice.
If you don't want people immigrating here, you have to make sure people's kids are just as safe and happy somewhere else.
None of the parties addresses these issues. Instead they force-feed you fear, lies and non-solutions.
The mere fact that the English have re-voted the tories by punishing the lib-dems (when the majority of false promises and bogus policies came from the tories themselves) is proof that the system works.
Why change a winning number?
Originally posted by shavixmirWell lets say the Chancellor has control of fiscal policy.
Well, there's a finite amount of resources.
Say you've got 10 to spend.
If you decide to put 8 on healthcare, you only have 2 left to share out.
Hence an elected body has to be holistic in its approach. Otherwise they could give 10 to health, 10 to warfare, etc.
Now, you can wish to increase the amount to spend, but that means raising taxes.
Nobo ...[text shortened]... ame from the tories themselves) is proof that the system works.
Why change a winning number?
A.N.Other position has control of allocation of money to departments and ministeries.
Both of those positions could be voted for by the electorate.
Then Ministers and Heads of Depts decide how the money is spent (again each is voted for by electorate)
Difficult yes; impossible no.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat would be Dr. Hoppe to you. You are always complaining about the militarization of police, and the American military spreading influence all over the globe. Those two things and the welfare state aren't exactly receding. That is historically undeniable, and the advent of national banks and fractional reserve banking make it so democratic rulers don't have to risk the nation's gold to pursue their imperialism. They keep most of us guessing with their shell game of finance.
You and Herr Hoppe may believe such nonsense, but there isn't a shred of historical evidence to support such a ridiculous conclusion. Spending on any or all of those items have been decreased many times in many different representative republics.
See Tom Paine for further exposition.
For those of us of a certain age, references to February 1974 as the last hung parliament prior to 2010 are wide of the mark, and particularly topical given Cameron's tiny majority: the Major government, which had nine more seats than Cameron has, lost its majority completely in December 1996 when Labour re-captured Barnsley East, thus officially ceasing to be a majority government and hanging the parliament to a bunch of crazed Ulster and Democratic Unionists. The conditions are largely all there again. As Walpole once said, "They are ringing the bells now, before long they will be wringing their hands."