When do we get to vote for or against war ?

[dosxuk]

Democracy does not mean you get to decide on every detail of the way the country is run. If it did, we would spend more time running referendums than actually doing anything, and half the time the referendum wouldn't be voted on based on whether people agree with the proposal, but on which option punishes the political-hate-figure of the day the most.

[Cyclone]

What primary school did you attend? Rather simplistic

 

But basically correct.

[Cyclone]

No; you are quite obviously not reading my post correctly, it's not about 'cherry picking' to me it's about common sense; I totally support armed conflict, if it's to protect our territories, or our citizens, I do not support the intervening in other countries disputes, nor do I wish tax payers money being spent in countries which export terror, or countries whose citizens live in poverty whilst their governments live in luxury, build expensive & quite large armies as well as investing in military arsenals & nuclear weapons. Why should British men & women lose their lives or be maimed in internal conflicts of other countries such as, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, the list goes on, if they want to annihilate each other then so be it, not my concern. Our army, navy & air force should be solely for the protection of our interests, not to assist the new favourable dictator of the month to maintain or gain power.

 

So you think we shouldn't need to vote in the case where you support it, but we should have a vote for the cases where you don't agree? Is that about right?

[antifascist]

Democracy does not mean you get to decide on every detail of the way the country is run. If it did, we would spend more time running referendums than actually doing anything, and half the time the referendum wouldn't be voted on based on whether people agree with the proposal, but on which option punishes the political-hate-figure of the day the most.

 

Actually Democracy means rule by the people , so the people rule and what the people say goes. So yes, in a democracy we get to scrutinize and have a say on every single decision. The fact that it isn't like that in our society only means our society isn't all that democratic.

 

Do you have any facts to back up your claims "we would spend more time running referendums than actually doing anything" What society or study is this based on? I can think of lots of ways we can implement more OVERSIGHT and ACCOUNTABILITY and disseminate decision making power downwards.

 

There are also many factors that influence people's votes. If you feel certain sections of the media have too much influence then in a democracy you can pass laws to limit that influence.

[antifascist]

Alot of people in this country arnt intelligent enough to be able to decide if going to war or not is the correct thing to do. We have a government to do that for us.

 

Be careful with this line of thought. That's how dictators talk.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

So you think we shouldn't need to vote in the case where you support it, but we should have a vote for the cases where you don't agree? Is that about right?

No. No-one needs to vote re whether there should or should not be a war.

[dosxuk]

Do you have any facts to back up your claims "we would spend more time running referendums than actually doing anything" What society or study is this based on?

 

It's based on the very simple application of mathematics. A referendum in this country requires a minimum of a day to run (not including publicity and time to allow information to be diseminated to the public so they can make an informed decision, which could take weeks). A normal day in Parliament may have hundreds of individual decisions made. If all of these were put to referendum, we would all spend all day, every day, dealing with the referendums.

 

There are only two options to reduce this - 1) reduce the number of decisions made, or 2) allow our decisions to be made by a group of people chosen to represent our views, who can then spend all day listening to the arguments and voting.

[speedbirdone]

No; you are quite obviously not reading my post correctly, it's not about 'cherry picking' to me it's about common sense; I totally support armed conflict, if it's to protect our territories, or our citizens, I do not support the intervening in other countries disputes, nor do I wish tax payers money being spent in countries which export terror, or countries whose citizens live in poverty whilst their governments live in luxury, build expensive & quite large armies as well as investing in military arsenals & nuclear weapons. Why should British men & women lose their lives or be maimed in internal conflicts of other countries such as, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, the list goes on, if they want to annihilate each other then so be it, not my concern. Our army, navy & air force should be solely for the protection of our interests, not to assist the new favourable dictator of the month to maintain or gain power.

 

Im going to have to agree with what cyclone posted.

 

To me your post comes very much across as. I support this war, no vote is needed. I don't support this war, we need the vote.

[antifascist]

It's based on the very simple application of mathematics. A referendum in this country requires a minimum of a day to run (not including publicity and time to allow information to be diseminated to the public so they can make an informed decision, which could take weeks). A normal day in Parliament may have hundreds of individual decisions made. If all of these were put to referendum, we would all spend all day, every day, dealing with the referendums.

 

Yes if we held referendums like the ones we do today then the system would obviously be unworkable. You're just not thinking outside the box. You can disseminate information to the public over the internet at the click of a button. The public can have their say just as quickly. Just because these structures and voting methods don't exist today doesn't mean they can't exist. Indeed our current political elite are quite happy with KEEPING their POWER so their is no incentive to implement such systems.

 

There are only two options to reduce this - 1) reduce the number of decisions made, or 2) allow our decisions to be made by a group of people chosen to represent our views, who can then spend all day listening to the arguments and voting.

 

In our current system teams of technicians who have expertise in a certain area (say, economic planning or military planning) run models and simulations. They then present their findings to decision makers who make the call. The decision makers are not experts rather they call in experts and advisory panels all the time. There is no reason why this advice or any other documentation can't be made public.

 

Most people are quite capable of deciding whats in their own best interest. If your interested in an issue you should be given a forum to state your thoughts and a chance to vote before a decision is made. You should also have on hand access to as much expert advice as is available on the subject.

 

I think your opinion about the time it takes to hold referendum and the difficulty in disseminating information is based on obsolete technology and the highly disseminated opinions of the people who do not want to change the system.

 

We should certainly be aiming towards a more informed public with more and more say in what goes on.

[Longcol]

Yes if we held referendums like the ones we do today then the system would obviously be unworkable. You're just not thinking outside the box. You can disseminate information to the public over the internet at the click of a button. The public can have their say just as quickly.

 

Apart from the 27% of households with no internet access - and the 40% that don't access the internet daily.

 

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=8