Is democracy less good?

[JFKvsNixon]

The Conservatives increased their share of the vote by less than 1% in 2015 which was enough for them to secure an overall majority. A whole 1% swing can make a wow of a difference to an outcome of a close election.

 

I never thought there was any dispute that the Liberal Democrats benifited the most from the leaders debates in 2010 and guess if someone studies the opinion polls in 2010, they will show a boost of far more than 1% for the Liberal Democrats after the leaders debates.

 

So the swing to the Lib-Dems dropped in the 2010 General Election from the 2005 General Election, 3.7% to 1%, and you judge this drop as a success that was attained due the benefit of the novelty of the leadership debate.

 

I'm not disagreeing that Clegg had an excellent series of leadership debates, but unfortunately it did not lead to further gains for the Lib-Dems.

 

I remember that the 2010 election results were a big disappointment for the Lib-Dems, they expected to do much better after their successful 2005 campaign and what was perceived to be very good 2010 campaign. Unfortunately, it just didn't work out that way for them.

[Ms Macbeth]

Democracy is an illusion. But until something better comes along, it's all we've got.

 

And it's better than some alternatives! Unless people are dyed in the wool loyal party members, most struggle to find a party that meets all their aspirations, and vote based on the least worst option.

 

In reply to the OP, national politics and local ones are two very different animals IMO. I've voted for different ones in the past, but this year, my interest in local, national and police commissioner elections is almost at rock bottom. I'm not inspired by the status quo locally, I'd really like to see several parties/independents to be represented with N.O.C. and a non political police commissioner.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Ms Macbeth
Sp

[Gamston]

So the swing to the Lib-Dems dropped in the 2010 General Election from the 2005 General Election, 3.7% to 1%, and you judge this drop as a success that was attained due the benefit of the novelty of the leadership debate.

 

I'm not disagreeing that Clegg had an excellent series of leadership debates, but unfortunately it did not lead to further gains for the Lib-Dems.

 

I remember that the 2010 election results were a big disappointment for the Lib-Dems, they expected to do much better after their successful 2005 campaign and what was perceived to be very good 2010 campaign. Unfortunately, it just didn't work out that way for them.

 

We both agree Nick Clegg did well in the leaders debates which I believe had a big impact on the result of the 2010 election. I believe the Lib Dems share of the vote would have fallen in 2010, if it was not for the novelty of the UK's first leaders debates.

 

I agree the Lib Dems were disapointed not to have won more seats and have a bigger share of the vote in 2010, but their results were still good enough to deny the Conservatives an overall majority which brought about the coalition.

[JFKvsNixon]

We both agree Nick Clegg did well in the leaders debates which I believe had a big impact on the result of the 2010 election. I believe the Lib Dems share of the vote would have fallen in 2010, if it was not for the novelty of the UK's first leaders debates.

 

I agree the Lib Dems were disapointed not to have won more seats and have a bigger share of the vote in 2010, but their results were still good enough to deny the Conservatives an overall majority which brought about the coalition.

 

I believe that the 2010 election result sowed the seeds for the 2015 election disaster.

 

If the Lib-Dems had won more seats than they had in 2005 they'd have been in a much stronger position to assert their policies into the coalition government because they'd have had enough MPs to have been able to form a coalition with Labour or the the Conservatives.

 

So they would have been the kingmakers.

 

Their weak position in the coalition lead to the disenchantment with Clegg and their eventual disastrous 2015 election.

[ECCOnoob]

Democracy is an illusion. But until something better comes along, it's all we've got.

 

Like what Anna?

 

Dictatorship? Tribal Ruling?

 

In some countries people are killing themselves in wars to try to fight for their freedom to have a democratic vote as to who rules them.

 

We take it so much for granted that less than half of the registered voting population cant even be bothered to turn up. When the election does happen we then spend the entire political term acting like babies with tit for tat arguments about why our preferred party didn't win.

 

We vote for a PERSON not a party. We have an ample opportunity to read and listen to what a candidate says, what they PROPOSE to do and read their written pledges before they get in office.

 

Once they are in that office, we can arrange to meet with that selected representative, write to that selected representative, view their entire political and published activities, view their office accounting, view their expenses and if we don't like them, we can vote to get rid of them next election.

 

I concede - its not perfect. Corruption, bribary, manipulation applies. Unfortunately, NO system would stop that happening. However, lets open our eyes to what other countries have.

 

What exactly do you want?

Edited May 2, 2016 by ECCOnoob

[Gamston]

I believe that the 2010 election result sowed the seeds for the 2015 election disaster.

 

If the Lib-Dems had won more seats than they had in 2005 they'd have been in a much stronger position to assert their policies into the coalition government because they'd have had enough MPs to have been able to form a coalition with Labour or the the Conservatives.

 

So they would have been the kingmakers.

 

Their weak position in the coalition lead to the disenchantment with Clegg and their eventual disastrous 2015 election.

They are all fair comments.

 

During the last election the SNP, UKIP and Lib Dems all hoped to be the kingmakers. For a few hours after the first results were counted the DUP from Northern Ireland thought they might be the Kingmakers.

[El Cid]

I've voted for different ones in the past, but this year, my interest in local, national and police commissioner elections is almost at rock bottom.

 

Nationally, 2001 was rock bottom for voters, turnout has risen slightly since then, but its still rather poor.

2015 - turnout was 66%, to me that is a sign of danger. I guess its UKIP that have stirred the electorate in recent years.

I still favour PR, even for council elections. We have elections almost every year, elections under PR could be held every 4 years, elect the whole council and have 4 years of stability and accountability.

 

A 5% increase in voter turnout could have a massive effect on the result.

[Anna B]

Like what Anna?

 

Dictatorship? Tribal Ruling?

 

In some countries people are killing themselves in wars to try to fight for their freedom to have a democratic vote as to who rules them.

 

We take it so much for granted that less than half of the registered voting population cant even be bothered to turn up. When the election does happen we then spend the entire political term acting like babies with tit for tat arguments about why our preferred party didn't win.

 

We vote for a PERSON not a party. We have an ample opportunity to read and listen to what a candidate says, what they PROPOSE to do and read their written pledges before they get in office.

 

Once they are in that office, we can arrange to meet with that selected representative, write to that selected representative, view their entire political and published activities, view their office accounting, view their expenses and if we don't like them, we can vote to get rid of them next election.

 

I concede - its not perfect. Corruption, bribary, manipulation applies. Unfortunately, NO system would stop that happening. However, lets open our eyes to what other countries have.

 

What exactly do you want?

 

Personally, I'd like to see Proportional Representation.

I'd also like to see the party manifestos being legally binding (with caviats) rather than optional ideas.

 

Short lists for party candidates should be abolished and the field opened up to more people. That would mean we would need more information and transparency about candidates standing for both local and national elections, starting with a proper, verified CV. Local radio and TV interviews, local press reports etc.

 

Maybe hustings along American lines could work?

 

I would like the political parties to better mirror the people they represent in both thought and deed. I'd also like to see some modernisation as the old system is bound up with too many 'old boy traditions.' Let's keep the Palace of Westminster as a museum, and move Parliament into a modern, purpose built building that lends itself to 21st century government.

 

These are just rough ideas. I do appreciate there are probably as many flaws with this as with the system we have at the moment, but nothing that can't be sorted out. However I do think we have to find a way of harnessing some new, raw talent that hasn't all stepped straight out of Oxbridge, and improving the quality of the Leadership in this country (especially if we leave the EU,) which has been dire for the last 50 years.

[El Cid]

In the 2012 council elections the national average turnout was 31%. Two years later, when the vote coincided with the European Parliament elections, it was 36%.

 

And when the vote coincided with the General Election in 2015, average turnout rose to 65%. The lowest turnout in the country last year was Chalvey ward in Slough, where just under 43% voted.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35999707

[jfish1936]

A problem with democracy:

Imagine a 100% voter turnout; 55% vote for a "strong leader" party, which proposes to abolish future elections as threat to "national stability".

Should we accept the "democratically expressed will of the people", and put the strong leader in place, removing the risks of future political change, and allowing the leader to adopt the Fuhrerprinzip?