When did Britain become a Democracy?

[999tigger]

Dudes learn some history and understand the definition of democracy. the question is then pretty straightforward to understand. OP it is clear you do not.

 

1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

 

That would put us at about 1688 and the Glorious Revolution where it was confirmed and accepted that parliament had supremacy over the crown.

[Stoatwobbler]

Dudes learn some history and understand the definition of democracy. the question is then pretty straightforward to understand. OP it is clear you do not.

 

1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

 

That would put us at about 1688 and the Glorious Revolution where it was confirmed and accepted that parliament had supremacy over the crown.

 

It took a very long time after that before the whole population was eligible to vote regardless of how much property you owned, your religion and so forth so I would say some point well after that. The Great Reform Act of 1832 at the earliest.

[999tigger]

It took a very long time after that before the whole population was eligible to vote regardless of how much property you owned, your religion and so forth so I would say some point well after that. The Great Reform Act of 1832 at the earliest.

 

At least you understand that its been a gradual process and that in picking a date you have to consider what we mean by a democracy. That is something a lot of posters including the OP fail to consider yet it is the core of the question being asked.

[Manlinose]

Manlinose.

 

who said we lived in a dictatorship?

 

 

post #12 refers

 

we'll obviously disagree on the meaning of the word "democracy", but i don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument

 

---------- Post added 13-12-2013 at 11:04 ----------

 

There you are then, you have no chance of getting into Parliament unless you can buy enough votes.

 

Anyway, you're de-railing the thread.

 

 

how much more democratic can it be that anyone who can raise £500 and 10 supporters can stand for parliament?

[mjw47]

post #12 refers

 

we'll obviously disagree on the meaning of the word "democracy", but i don't disagree with the general thrust of your argument

 

Fair enough, I assume the poster was deliberately being somewhat supercilious as it's clear we don't live in a Dictatorship.

 

An Oligarchy is definitely nearer the mark in my view. The lack of influence on the make up of Government by votes cast is inconsistent with a claim to be a Democracy.

 

When Tony Blair could form a Government which had a majority in the House, with 35% of all votes cast it's hard to make a case for this being a Democracy.

 

It's not the fact that people are allowed to vote that counts, it's what influence those votes have on who gets elected that matters.

 

As it stands, precious little is the answer.

[truman]

Fair enough, I assume the poster was deliberately being somewhat supercilious as it's clear we don't live in a Dictatorship.

 

An Oligarchy is definitely nearer the mark in my view. The lack of influence on the make up of Government by votes cast is inconsistent with a claim to be a Democracy.

 

When Tony Blair could form a Government which had a majority in the House, with 35% of all votes cast it's hard to make a case for this being a Democracy.

 

It's not the fact that people are allowed to vote that counts, it's what influence those votes have on who gets elected that matters.

 

As it stands, precious little is the answer.

 

Would you be looking for a party to have >50% of all votes cast before they can be in power for it to be a democracy?

[Stoatwobbler]

At least you understand that its been a gradual process and that in picking a date you have to consider what we mean by a democracy. That is something a lot of posters including the OP fail to consider yet it is the core of the question being asked.

 

So we are now discussing whether or not the "Rotten Borough's" system we had before 1832 counts as democracy! Given how horribly deficent that system was I would have to say that it didn't make the democratic grade.

 

And as bad as today's politicans are, I don't think they are as bad as pre Great Reform Bill politicians such as Lord North, Henry Addington and The Duke of Wellington (our greatest military leader but one of our worst prime ministers).

[Manlinose]

Would you be looking for a party to have >50% of all votes cast before they can be in power for it to be a democracy?

 

to me it is more a case of it being wrong that a party can have more than 50% of the seats in the house of commons when they get less than 50% of the vote

 

i've always been in favour of PR - my personal preference would be similar to the system they have in germany which is a mix of single transferable vote and party list

 

you may never get a majority government, but at least you get one which is more reflective of the views of the electorate

[truman]

to me it is more a case of it being wrong that a party can have more than 50% of the seats in the house of commons when they get less than 50% of the vote

 

i've always been in favour of PR - my personal preference would be similar to the system they have in germany which is a mix of single transferable vote and party list

 

you may never get a majority government, but at least you get one which is more reflective of the views of the electorate

 

Democracy means different things to different people I suppose..

[mjw47]

Would you be looking for a party to have >50% of all votes cast before they can be in power for it to be a democracy?

 

Not necessarily, obviously in a two party State yes.

 

Once you get three or more parties contesting seats then the situation alters.

In my view, to really qualify as a democracy, seats gained should be in direct proportion to the votes cast.

 

If a party should gain 10% of all votes cast then they should have 10% of the seats available, even though their votes were scattered throughout the country & under the present system they wouldn't get a single seat.

 

I fully appreciate what could possibly happen under that system. Minority extremist parties could take their place in parliament. I'm afraid that's precisely what democracy entails.

 

But if there is that level of support in the country then they have every right to be heard.

Being a numpty should not disenfranchise you from representation by your numpty of choice.

 

Also we would see the spotlight turned on these people, I doubt they could come up with policies & arguments which would sway the electorate to vote more of them in.