[H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Mark Kent spake thusly:
>
>> I must protest :-) Taking an active part in any democratic process
>> is never a waste of time. Even spoiling a ballot paper is better
>> than not turning up.
>
> It's a tough choice, but the reality is that anyone who really believes
> in the political process is kidding themselves.
I'm not sure political process is something you can choose to believe in
or not, I think it's just there, like it or not. The real problem is
that Machiavelli was right, people are inherently corrupt, it's just the
way they are; there is no "fairness", people will promote their own
agenda, or will attach themselves to an agenda they believe will help
them, personally, even if it be, or perhaps preferably if it is, against
the interests of others.
>
> If you don't vote, then you're throwing away your rights, disrespecting
> those who persevered to earn you those rights, and sending a clear
> message to the government that "I will not challenge your authority".
That is my problem with people not voting, although I'm often guilty
too, but I do try to remember to turn up and spoil my paper or vote for
probably some minority party.
>
> OTOH, surely it is obvious by now that voting makes little difference in
> a society where the will of the people is blatantly ignored.
Voting makes little difference in first-past-the-post voting systems.
PR is demonstrably more effective in getting balanced representation,
but the two main parties in the UK benefit inordinately from this
system, and will not change it to something which is against their own
interests (see my point above, and Machiavelli generally).
>
> I still remember Cheesy Blair's excuse for not holding a referendum on
> Europe, which was (paraphrased) "We won't have a referendum until the
> public is ready to vote my way". Or IOW, Blair only wants your vote if
> it's a vote he likes.
Personally, I don't agree with referenda, as they are far too easy to
fix through clever wording of questions and through marketing and
general manipulation of public opinion. Even the wording of the "should
we go into the common market?" referendum was dubious, at best.
>
> Then theirs Dubya over in the U.S., with his declaration to reserve the
> right to "break any law [he] thinks is unconstitutional".
That is an appalling state of affairs, but says more about the flaws in
the yank system than anything else. Presidential systems are prone to
all kinds of problems which parliamentary systems are not. Whilst I'm
not a monarchist, I'd rather have a powerless monarch than a president
who represents oil interests and has the power to wage war with
virtually no controls.
>
> Does anyone seriously believe that Democracy still exists anywhere?
>
> Did it ever?
>
It rather depends on your expectations of it, I think. The fundamental
issue is people, not systems. As per my point above, people are
inherently selfish, in my view, so any ruling system is bound to have
internal corruption of some kind or other. If you could take the people
out of the system, you might solve some problems, but I can't see any way
of doing it. I certainly wouldn't be all that keen to trust a machine!
So, I'd say vote for PR in the UK, and should we ever get that, vote to
ensure that we don't get a presidential system, and I think you'll get a
reasonable representation of the people, better than the UK has ever
had. The German system and Irish system both warrant inspection, I
should say.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
