Democracy in crisis?

[Sheepy]

Makes sense. The Greeks reckoned that a city should never have more than thirty thousand voters because that was the largest number that would fit into the agora. But other than that a lot of them functioned a direct democracies. Now we have this electric internet, there is no reason why the entire electorate should not vote on everything.

Before they were invaded and that put a stop to any of that nonsense. I was going to answer Good Old but you did it for me.

[Borchester]

Brought this over from the other thread.

How about government by online vote for all major issues? We live in an online world, virtually everyone has Internet and phones, we don't need an expensive polling booth, just use your digital ID to vote maybe twice a year. Your local MP can be voted upon every year!

Makes sense. The Greeks reckoned that a city should never have more than thirty thousand voters because that was the largest number that would fit into the agora. But other than that a lot of them functioned a direct democracies. Now we have this electric internet, there is no reason why the entire electorate should not vote on everything.

[Good old]

As someone was telling me yesterday, they feel that in the US they have decided that freedom is good but not for plebs, freedom belongs with only the rich and powerful. they might well be onto something there.

Was that not always the case? Most revolutions are sold as freedom for the people. And what do they throw up? Another ruler in league with the rich and powerful. The American people gained freedom from a monarchy, not freedom from being ruled, by the rich and powerful.  the French, the same, the Russians ,the same..go back as far as you like it always has been thus.

[johnofgwent]

I suspect that tinkering with the electoral system will achieve absolutely nothing. The rot is deep, ingrained and institutionalised.
It rest ultimately with those that actually run things and make the big decisions and not the here today, gone tomorrow, political managers paid to implement them.

While all but 50-100 of the 650 constituencies are rigged so that 35% of the electorate get what they want while the other 65% waste their time voting, this will continue. 

The only answer to this rigging of constituency electoral allegiances is civil war to cull the numbers succeeding in getting their MP elected.

[Sheepy]

I suspect that tinkering with the electoral system will achieve absolutely nothing. The rot is deep, ingrained and institutionalised.
It rest ultimately with those that actually run things and make the big decisions and not the here today, gone tomorrow, political managers paid to implement them.

As someone was telling me yesterday, they feel that in the US they have decided that freedom is good but not for plebs, freedom belongs with only the rich and powerful. they might well be onto something there.

[Sampanviking]

I suspect that tinkering with the electoral system will achieve absolutely nothing. The rot is deep, ingrained and institutionalised.
It rest ultimately with those that actually run things and make the big decisions and not the here today, gone tomorrow, political managers paid to implement them.

[Good old]

It's very disappointing for people who want to see more people power in action. It does not have to be in any way anarchic, in fact it would add to cohesion between the ordinary person and government. The fudged options for Proportional Representation resulted in failure to change the system, which also gave people the excuse not to raise it again within 20 years.
I think the electorate have been beaten down to think that nothing they do will make a difference.

Not sure that Labour, are that keen to change first by the post, for whatever reason. But one things for sure first by the post used in the way it is used, is right up the Tory street. No matter how narrowly, they always remain in poll position for outright winner. You only have to look at the results of most GEs to know the numbers actually don't support that even if they might still narrowly have the highest number of votes. If the recorded votes ,was used to warrant a government member not just an opposition member it's obvious a much wider selection of opinion would be in play. It would need caveats, as always. As some political movements can lead straight to conflict once let in the door.

[Barry]

Tried to give the people that in 2005 with Peter Kellner's  "Your Party". Spectacular disinterest on the part of the people.

It's very disappointing for people who want to see more people power in action. It does not have to be in any way anarchic, in fact it would add to cohesion between the ordinary person and government. The fudged options for Proportional Representation resulted in failure to change the system, which also gave people the excuse not to raise it again within 20 years.
I think the electorate have been beaten down to think that nothing they do will make a difference.

[johnofgwent]

Brought this over from the other thread.

How about government by online vote for all major issues? We live in an online world, virtually everyone has Internet and phones, we don't need an expensive polling booth, just use your digital ID to vote maybe twice a year. Your local MP can be voted upon every year!

Tried to give the people that in 2005 with Peter Kellner's  "Your Party". Spectacular disinterest on the part of the people.

[Sheepy]

. Having a social conscience is expensive and would be best served in not  giving people stuff but  giving them the opportunity to buy it .

I would broadly agree with  that. Except to say if only. Because distribution of wealth is the problem, all the time there is resistance to that then creating the opportunity to buy for large parts of the worlds population, including the US is not going to be possible. Leading to many going without what in a modern world should be considered essentials ,and are by those with the means. The  answer , particularly in the US and here since Thatcher ,up to now is the Big John, thing live on credit, owe your soul. Even that goes tits up when you can't access a salary.

Well, I am sure they are pleased by your advice, yet they have had every chance to pull it back and decided they had a better plan, so there you go they know what is best.

[Good old]

. Having a social conscience is expensive and would be best served in not  giving people stuff but  giving them the opportunity to buy it .

I would broadly agree with  that. Except to say if only. Because distribution of wealth is the problem, all the time there is resistance to that then creating the opportunity to buy for large parts of the worlds population, including the US is not going to be possible. Leading to many going without what in a modern world should be considered essentials ,and are by those with the means. The  answer , particularly in the US and here since Thatcher ,up to now is the Big John, thing live on credit, owe your soul. Even that goes tits up when you can't access a salary.

[Streetwalker]

I don't know that I have answered mine or anybody else's confusion. Democracy can only reflect the will of some of the people fully whilst some  of the people are subjugated by the majority.  Opposition being allowed in a parliamentary setting being the only safety valve. In the case of the US you can call what they call democracy into question , but they do have choice, at least they do have a say in the man or woman that will not give all he or she said they would. The scales have been tipped time and time again in all of history, in all of the world. And what do we go back to? Hopefully a form of democracy, but always disappointment that men are never perfect in their intentions . . A revolution, and a civil war ,already in their history,  based more on the advancement of capitalism than any other demand for freedoms to express the will of the people made at those times,  those calls were just to appease the people . It strikes me the biggest hold back for US politics is it failure to realise social conscience is attainable without those  striving most for it being considered communists.

. Having a social conscience is expensive and would be best served in not  giving people stuff but  giving them the opportunity to buy it .

[Good old]

You have answered your own confusion Old . The greater percentage ,the will of the people , democracy .

When you look at America ,the only country in the worlds top 20 or so richest that does not have universal health care  yet regularly poll 65% saying they want it . Biden who got elected while promising a $15 an hour  minimum wage has done nothing to suggest he is going to implement that while he is sucking on the tit of American  billionaires

In a country with more guns than people the will of the people will eventually tip the scales , it may not be pretty ,it may even be violent but tip them they will

I don't know that I have answered mine or anybody else's confusion. Democracy can only reflect the will of some of the people fully whilst some  of the people are subjugated by the majority.  Opposition being allowed in a parliamentary setting being the only safety valve. In the case of the US you can call what they call democracy into question , but they do have choice, at least they do have a say in the man or woman that will not give all he or she said they would. The scales have been tipped time and time again in all of history, in all of the world. And what do we go back to? Hopefully a form of democracy, but always disappointment that men are never perfect in their intentions . . A revolution, and a civil war ,already in their history,  based more on the advancement of capitalism than any other demand for freedoms to express the will of the people made at those times,  those calls were just to appease the people . It strikes me the biggest hold back for US politics is it failure to realise social conscience is attainable without those  striving most for it being considered communists.

[Streetwalker]

Whatever the will of the people means. Are the people ever going to be totally in line with each other's will?
If democracy reflects division it's only because there is no such thing as the will of the people only the the greater percentage of an electorate.

You have answered your own confusion Old . The greater percentage ,the will of the people , democracy .

When you look at America ,the only country in the worlds top 20 or so richest that does not have universal health care  yet regularly poll 65% saying they want it . Biden who got elected while promising a $15 an hour  minimum wage has done nothing to suggest he is going to implement that while he is sucking on the tit of American  billionaires 

In a country with more guns than people the will of the people will eventually tip the scales , it may not be pretty ,it may even be violent but tip them they will 

[Sheepy]

Brought this over from the other thread.

How about government by online vote for all major issues? We live in an online world, virtually everyone has Internet and phones, we don't need an expensive polling booth, just use your digital ID to vote maybe twice a year. Your local MP can be voted upon every year!

The Americans have truly fecked up, which they have been told for years to step away from the path they have taken, even previous Presidents have warned about it for decades.