fairness is a subjective term
So you are now retracting your claim that
quote:
I'm talking about fairness in the very simple sense that decisions taken on majority vote are inherently fairer than decisions taken on minority vote.
I assume? (Source:
Message 128)
Whether something's fair or not is largely dictated by how many people find it fair.
No, it depends entirely on the definition of fairness in question. Slavery is unfair under certain definitions of fair - but under your definition: 'Fair is what benefits the interests of the majority' it isn't necessarily unfair at all.
I haven't given my consent to have speed cameras installed outside my house. Yet they're there.
So? Do you own the road upon which the speed cameras are placed? Unless you do, I fail to see how it is meant to slightly compare to the property rights I was talking about.
If that wasn't the case then I should have the right to stop obeying every law that either I or my MP didn't vote for.
You do have that right, feel free to exercise it.
What you seem to be worrying about is that in a democracy this principle will inexplicably be rendered invalid or suddenly fail and express minority consent will have to be given for every decision that appears unfair to it. I really can't understand why you seem to think so, other than perhaps a misunderstanding of what true democracy is.
I don't think any of that at all so don't worry. I was just saying that all things being equal a person that is nonconsensually evicted from a property has the same grounds for complaint as a person that is nonconsensually evicted from a property and it doesn't matter if it was a minority or a majority that was responsible.
Currently, the people have someone else to blame: the politicians, even if they voted for them the people can't be held accountable for the politicians' mistakes.
And if they commit a criminal offence they can be prosecuted, and a civil offense they can be sued. In principle.
Now - about The United Democratic Union of People of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
If we vote to practice torture...nobody that voted for it will ever have to face negative consequences only the minority that are getting tortured face those consequences.
Democracy isn't ochlocracy and it isn't mob rule.
No, but ochlocracy is democracy. From wiki:
quote:
Ochlocracy ("rule of the general populace") is democracy ("rule of the people") spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the rule of passion over reason
So the question is: how do you propose to limit the powers of the majority? On the one had you are saying that in your mind a 'corner stone' of democracy is 'the minority submits to the will of the majority' and on the other you are trying to say that you are not suggesting 'ochlocracy'.
So - what's to stop your system turning into an Ochlocracy?
Democracy is quite literally government by the people, it's about governing to principles but cutting out the middle men.
Cutting out the middlemen is not what democracy is about. That is direct democracy. A representative democracy has middlemen built in to the system and it is still a democratic system.
Doesn't having any arbitrary voting restriction, such as age or education? Shouldn't four year olds be able to vote?
If the people decide so then that's what it is. Just
The question is, who should get to vote on deciding who gets to vote? Surely, anything other than 'EVERYONE regardless of age, criminality, sex, race possibly even nationality if they have a shared interest in the fate of the country (and pay taxes here etc)' would be unfair?
Which is why I said that I'd support voting at the end of formal education, presuming that by then the above skills would be at a satisfactory level.
Do you think someone that took two GCSEs, Maths and English and failed them both would be at a satisfactory level?
I would vote instead for free/subsidised education available to all, ensuring that the majority of the population achieve a satisfactory level of education.
And those that don't want it?
They can still vote. Though their lack of skills will mean that they will be unable to participate in the debate preceding voting and so they should be unable to influence votes other than their own.
Of course they cannot vote. By definition the people that receive this subsidised education have not yet completed the subsidised education and so cannot vote.
The question is - would people that refuse to be educated still have the vote in your view when they reach an arbitrary age? The answer I infer from your answer is 'yes'.
The uneducated are perfectly capable of being involved in the debate. How is the ability to understand what a person meant with the words they used essential in expressing your own views?
On a different note, we shouldn't be thinking of what restrictions to impose on voting but on how to ensure that everyone is allowed to participate in the voting process as this is the only way democarcy can work.
That's easy. Simply lift all restrictions. Allow anybody who happens to be in the country at the time, who has the ability to click the appropriate button or whatever system you have in mind, do so regardless of age, nationality, religion etc.
Personally, I think that's a bit crazy. Might work as a global system, but I fail to see how it makes any sense in a nation-state world.
If the party that won the most votes was excluded from government it would make a complete mockery of an already maligned system.
The Conservatives are the minority. They must submit to the majority, whoever that turns out to be (might be themselves of course) surely?
Why should a party that only managed to aqcuire 1/3 of the democratic votes get executive power to avoid making a mockery of a poor system?
To correct a misgiving - the Conservative Party is definitely not being excluded from Government. Indeed - despite accruing only a little over a third of the vote they are a little under 50% of the government...regardless of what happens.
The government isn't just the party whose leader is considered the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury.
The party whose leader is considered the Prime Minister is the party that can convince 50%+1 of the house that it is capable of leading 650 people in a unified direction.
The fears of a hung parliament are that nobody can get anything done because a majority can potentially be mobilised against any idea. Adding five orders of magnitidue of people involved and you don't have a country with a clear leader and a clear direction. You have divisiveness, indecision, bad decisions, contradictory ideas and no coherent plan.
™ Version 4.2