Democracy - Good Or Bad?

[butlers]

 

[Axe]

4 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Looking at the turnout a significant number choose not to have any say on policies.

This could be because they have absolutely no interest or live in a constituency where they believe that their vote cannot have any bearing on the result.

Proportional representation would be more democratic but is not to the liking of the 2 major parties.

Proportional representation would be less democratic because it would give a small party too much power that would be used to block the implementation of policies from the largest party in Parliament who have gained the largest support of the UK people.  Our system works well because the individual who gains the most votes in a constituency represents that constituency in Parliament.  In theory there could be 650 independent MPs  sitting in Parliament whose main priority is the interests of their own particular area. However most people when voting look at the bigger picture and choose a member of a political party that has the most policies they support.  Proportional representation would move away from the fair system of one person receiving the most votes in one constituency  representing the people from that constituency in Parliament. 

 

The truth is those wanting to change the current voting system the most are the most undemocratic people in our country because their motive is to prevent the party receiving the most public support from governing.  In other words these people wanting a change in the voting system are anti Tory and are effectively throwing their toys out of the pram.

[butlers]

The last few years are the exemplar of how our democratic system is failing ,its embarrassing .

We have become Italy of the North

Edited April 12 by butlers

[Axe]

20 minutes ago, butlers said:

The Cameron government was the least representative of any elected government. Can' remember the exact number but it was something like 26 percent of the electorate

 

More like 36% of the electorate voted Tory.  The  Cameron coalition government got over 50% of the electoral vote.  The coalition government actually worked well but the Lib Dems  suffered in the 2015 general election because the Lib Dems were punished for supporting Tory policies and the fact they were the minor party was ignored by immature former Lib Dem  voters.  What ever government is in power represents 100% of the people of our country just like whoever is elected an MP for a constituency represents 100% of the people in the constituency they serve.

[Axe]

7 minutes ago, butlers said:

The last few years are the exemplar of how our democratic system is failing ,its embarrassing .

We have become Italy of the North

Nothing like Italy because our voting system delivers stable governments that normally last 4 or 5 years until another general election.

[butlers]

4 Prime Minsters within 4 years.

 

[Axe]

9 minutes ago, butlers said:

4 Prime Minsters within 4 years.

 

The number of prime ministers is not the same as the number of ruling parties in the same period of time.   There has been a much larger number of prime ministers in recent years mainly due to the Brexit situation which has noting to do with our democratic voting system. 

[butlers]

So not only do a tiny " majority" elect a wildly unrepresentative Government, they then get no say in who is the Prime Minister 

Stuff of a banana republic.

It fuels huge  cynisism in the public life and its destructive to a healthy society 

[PRESLEY]

3 minutes ago, Axe said:

The number of prime ministers is not the same as the number of ruling parties in the same period of time.   There has been a much larger number of prime ministers in recent years mainly due to the Brexit situation which has noting to do with our democratic voting system. 

Four Prime Ministers, complete chaos. 

[butlers]

The laughable idea that the Truss Government is the shining light of a stable one is so comic you would have to wonder for the mental health of anyone who can convince themselves of it