Democracy is the worst form of government...

[BPPLEE]

We are agreed, then. We cannot make predictions about how criminals think because they are not all alike.

Let me put it this way. I have suggested that voting is a civic duty laid on us as citizens. I think we should all engage in the processes of democracy which for most of us is just voting.

Why is it that the law excuses criminals from their civic duty? Nobody has even tried to give an answer beyond a sort of shuddering distaste - 'the very idea!'

Felon Voting Rights

It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice.

www.ncsl.org

 

[Whyayeman]

Felon Voting Rights

It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice.

www.ncsl.org

That is interesting. As far as I know paroled convicts in the UK can vote because they can register an address - and attend a polling station.

I see that some states are changing the law. Your article does not refer to any reasons for doing so.

 

[o_mlly]

There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made.

Perhaps one reason this thread meanders with multiple calls to stay on topic is that the OP does not specify any problem(s) in need of fixing. The result is the proposing of solutions in search of a problem.

 

[Whyayeman]

Perhaps one reason this thread meanders with multiple calls to stay on topic is that the OP does not specify any problem(s) in need of fixing. The result is the proposing of solutions in search of a problem.

Maybe that is a good thing. We all enjoy a bit of a meander.

I dare say it makes a nice change not to be too entrenched. I have certainly had pause for thought.

 

[Pommer]

Does everyone include non citizens?

Only for presidential Elections, they have to live under the President’s “rule”, they should ought get a say in who it might be.
So, that’d be a “yes”, universal suffrage, and 16 (not 18).

 

[Pommer]

double post sorry

I’m pretty sure there’s a “delete” tab at the bottom left of your post.

 

[Pommer]

Likewise, voting is not a universal right but a legal privilege. And that privilege is amendable.

It is the way that it is.
But “why”?
Why don’t we open elections so that anybody can vote, what “bad things” might “happen”?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I’m pretty sure there’s a “delete” tab at the bottom left of your post.

Whadya know ... it's there and works!

TIL

 

[Bradskii]

Yes and what I am explaining with how each side has a polarized position...

Irrelevant. We're not discussing 'sides'. Stick to the topic.

 

[Bradskii]

I didn’t raise the brexit issue - bradskii did.

As an example of one style of government. You seem to be a fan as it represents the majority view. But if that were the case then you'd support the majority view as it stands. Hey, let's have another one! And this time we'll know how it turned out so we'll have some hard evidence on which to base our decisions.

I think you like referendums when you like the result.

 

[Bradskii]

If there is no evdience then why have some of these ideas been banned based on lack of evidence.

I have no idea about what ideas you are on about. We are talking about making laws based on secular reasoning as opposed to religious belief. But if something has been rejected because there is a lack of evidence then that is exactly what I am talking about. If there is good evidence then it may be accepted. If there is bad evidence or no evidence at all then it won't be.

Simples.

 

[Bradskii]

No they don't and thats the contenious issue in the first place, that people keep saying there is evidence but there isn't.

One more time...just because you don't accept evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not going to ask for any examples because you head off topic at the drop of hat and I'm not really interested.

 

[Bradskii]

The result is the proposing of solutions in search of a problem.

I thought it was clear. Is the system we have at the moment the best one possible? If not, and you see one or more problems, then tell us what you think they are and how you think they can be solved.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is that it?

I would say so...

Consider legislation to legalize marijuana at the federal level and dismiss all persons who are being held for perhaps sole possession of a currently illegal narcotic or sale thereof...

Is that a decision prisoners should make or the rest of us?

We might agree on the merits or problems with such a law....but I would argue, that only rational people would restrict the vote of any such measures in law and order to those currently not serving a punishment for breaking those laws.

To allow the guilty to judge themselves innocent is a ridiculous proposition.

 

[Mountainmike]

As an example of one style of government. You seem to be a fan as it represents the majority view. But if that were the case then you'd support the majority view as it stands. Hey, let's have another one! And this time we'll know how it turned out so we'll have some hard evidence on which to base our decisions.

I think you like referendums when you like the result.

Wrong.

Brexiteers were happy to respect the result , which ever way it went
. Remainers were not. Every organ of state tried to sabotage it. Still are.

So we had the worst outcome - a brexit vote in which all the negotiation cards were trashed by remainers.
Like a vote to enter a war in which half the troops fight for the enemy.

Bercow , benn, cooper and starmer should be on sedition / traitor charges.

Indeed that is the problem of democracy generally now.
It relies on losers consent, but it was withdrawn.

I have no skin in the game - but it was noted the same in the USA that when trump won.
Democrats nationwide declared a foul, and protested m and all organs of state tried to undermine him ( and indeed succeeed in undermining him ) -
democrats sowed the seeds of the anti Biden demonstrations, with their bad behaviour years before.

Brexit was an interesting test of democracy on an issue of massive national significance.
EU was becoming an antidemocratic superstate.

What was needed was a vote to enter, not to leave, before the knots became hard to untie.
Democracy is indeed failing Because of lack of losers consent.
The dishonest non judicial show trial of Boris was about Brexit,

Also the divide in our society is not the one commonly assumed. Certainly in the U.K.
It ls public sector vs the rest. The entire public sector are inflation proofed and do not suffer at the hands of economic cycles, so for them more COVID lockdown was fine. Longer holidays on full pay and work from home.
For the rest it was a nightmare which has yet to end.


It was indeed the public sector that destroyed brexit, ( and in the US clearly were working against trump - still are)

On first pastthe post it becomes possible for the people to elect on a radical agenda. Eg brexit.
Proportional representation makes radical impossible, since no party can say “ if we have the largest vote , we do zxYZ)
in the extreme the destruction of democracy leads to the EU. Leaders are decided without process.
Agendas set behind closed doors. Eurocrats know which side their bread is buttered so act in the intersts of EU not nation States.

 

[stevevw]

Who thought that the state was neutral? We have agreed that government is about exercising power according to a set of values. That's not a neutral position.

Well that is the mantra of secularism. That its a neutral position by seperating State and church. In fact secularism is given an almost supernatural status in that it is assumed to be a truth about how we should order society. But I agree that its impossible for a secular State to be neutral because even without religion we cannot govern without some worldview behind those who govern.

If we are unhappy with how we are governed in a democracy we can do something about it. The downside is that the majority gets its way. The minorities have to work to persuade the majority to change their minds. That is usually a hard slog and there is no guarantee of success.

It works! Numerous social changes have been made by majorities over the years.

It works but it could work better. The issue is - how can it be improved?

I am beginning to think it doesn't work and when it did it was not really secular or without religious belief. Though from the beginning the US Constitution claims seperation of church and State it actually did not do this in practice. In fact the far majority of signaturies were Christian. Even Locke said that there should only be one religion of Christianity and that allowing other beliefs like Catholic, Islam and atheism were a threat to the order of society.

It seems for most of the US history and for most Western nations society was around 90% Christian up until recently. This had to have influenced governments beliefs and values about how to order society. This is evdienced by laws against divorce, homosexuality, and abortion and social norms that uphelp Christian values.

Its only been recently that as we have removed God and Christianity from society that it has become more secular. But in doing so society has created new beliefs and ideologies about how to order society which have replaced Christianity.

So it seems we never have truely been neutral and that some form of ideological belief has been at the basis for governance. It just so happens that its a secular belief today but it operates similar to how religious belief does.

 

[stevevw]

I’m pretty sure there’s a “delete” tab at the bottom left of your post.

There is. I wish I knew that.

 

[stevevw]

Irrelevant. We're not discussing 'sides'. Stick to the topic.

Isn't democracy about different sides (political positions) within a society trying to get their ideas into power. You know lobbying, promoting policies to attract voters hopefully jagging a few from the opposition (other side) to win the election. Or how smaller groups try to compete for recognition to promote their ideas.

Its like a couple of big parties and many smaller ones and independents all competing to win people, hopefully the majority to win. Allowing all sides to voice their ideas and policies and then voting for the best party and candidates. Isn't that how democracy works more or less. Different sides of the political spectrum competing with each other to get elected.

 

[o_mlly]

Maybe that is a good thing. We all enjoy a bit of a meander.

I dare say it makes a nice change not to be too entrenched. I have certainly had pause for thought.

Meandering is like walking around blindly. Unless a post begins with the headline "blind squirrel finds nut", there's not much to cheer about. So, as we're approaching 750 posts in this thread, let's ask the OP to sum it up. What possible improvements to our systems of governance has this thread disclosed?

 

[stevevw]

I have no idea about what ideas you are on about.

I did mentioned a couple of examples with climate change and vacines. We seen examples in the past with smoking, pollution, health claims where the State or its agents pushed false evidence to help support their agendas. By doing so people are wrongly informed and therefore are fooled into supporting particular agendas that they did not agree with.

This is especially true in todays saturated media, social media which can influence the narrative and trick people into believing falsehoods. If this is the case then this is undermining representative government.

We are talking about making laws based on secular reasoning as opposed to religious belief. But if something has been rejected because there is a lack of evidence then that is exactly what I am talking about. If there is good evidence then it may be accepted. If there is bad evidence or no evidence at all then it won't be.

Simples.

So do you think in an age of fake news, manipulation of information, cancelling certain narratives and even outright corruption that this blurs the line of what is classed as evidence. It seems there have been a lot of policies and regulations that have no basis and yet have been enforced on society. Facts and evidence is useless if the people presenting the facts have undermined the system of determining facts.

It seems what is regarded as evidence today is something different to how we use to understand evidence. It seems now its a case of running social media campaigns to undermine the evidence or facts which can influence people as well. Repeat a falsehood enough and people begin to believe.