Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Olympia5776]

Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. 

There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely  foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .

The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.

That may be so but the results of the 2019 General Election shows were ultimate democracy lies  . And quite rightly so .

The result of EVERY UK election shows where democracy lies - in Parliament. Only Parliament decides when a vote will be. Only Parliament decides who can vote. Under 18's can't and nor can prisoners. It wasn't long ago that under 21's couldn't vote, and before that Women couldn't, and before that only the landed gentry could vote. In the UK Parliament decides the rules, not the people.

No , you describe who makes the rules not the outcome.
The voting public ,beit whom, where or what they are, is where democracy lies.

[Sir Tigger KC]

When your favourite candidate loses the Presidential election and you storm stroll into the Capitol building. That isnt being democratic.

Judging by some of the videos that I've seen this is more accurate.  Police opened gates and doors and stood by while the crowd wandered in. 

Insurrection? Domestic terrorists? 

[Nick W]

Its not pointless at all. The basic principle of the various forms of Democracy is, that the majority win.

That is not a principle of democracies. It rarely happens when proportional representation is used to elect the council. Nor is it guaranteed in our first-past-the-post system.


The principle of a democracy is that the population(UK 63million) elects a small (UK 650MPs) group - we call ours Parliament - to govern it. The hope is that that members of Parliament, by having varied backgrounds, will do a satisfactory job for most of the population. Frequent, regularly spaced elections provide a feedback loop for both groups.


Exactly how they're elected is different for each country, but most have similarities: two houses that are selected differently, with the head of state and head of government as two separate positions.


Anyone who expects their elected representative, whether that's individually or collectively, to do exactly what they want is a fantasist. Unfortunately, the world has a lot of those.

[LC0112G]

David Camerons resignation for a start.

That's one. Only 649 more MP's to find that "categorically stated they would abide by the result of a Referendum (as all our Parliamentarians did)"

[LC0112G]

Sounds to me that it's you that don't understand Democracy. 

There is no single correct interpretation of "Democracy", and conflating the systems between any two countries is at best unwise, and at worst extremely  foolish. The dictionary definition is "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" .

The UK has a Parliamentary democracy under which Parliament is sovereign, not the People. The Democratic Republic of Korea has something a bit different, and the USA is different again.

That may be so but the results of the 2019 General Election shows were ultimate democracy lies  . And quite rightly so .

The result of EVERY UK election shows where democracy lies - in Parliament. Only Parliament decides when a vote will be. Only Parliament decides who can vote. Under 18's can't and nor can prisoners. It wasn't long ago that under 21's couldn't vote, and before that Women couldn't, and before that only the landed gentry could vote. In the UK Parliament decides the rules, not the people.

No , you describe who makes the rules not the outcome.
The voting public ,beit whom, where or what they are, is where democracy lies.

I don't like the word democracy when it's used like that because it means nothing, or perhaps means different things to different people. There is no precise definition of what democracy means, which is why so many countries have such differing views of what democracy means, and how to implement it.

I accept your view of 'where democracy lies' is a valid opinion, but it's just not the only opinion, and in the context of the UK is incorrect.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Apologies. I should have said almost all / overhwelming majority or something similar, rather than all.
The Illiberal Undemocrats (all 9 of them) and a few Labour MP,s (David Lammy springs to mind) said the result should be ignored.
Otherwise the Labour and the Tory parties said they would implement the result, even though many of them didnt mean it and intended to do the complete opposite.
You really are dancing on the head of a pin though, trying to prove something or other.
The basis of Democracy should be the majority (or at least largest group) wins.
Anything which strays far from that isnt Democratic, even if it has Democrat in its title, like the ludicrous Libdems do.

[LC0112G]

Apologies. I should have said almost all / overhwelming majority or something similar, rather than all.
The Illiberal Undemocrats (all 9 of them) and a few Labour MP,s (David Lammy springs to mind) said the result should be ignored.
Otherwise the Labour and the Tory parties said they would implement the result, even though many of them didnt mean it and intended to do the complete opposite.
You really are dancing on the head of a pin though, trying to prove something or other.
The basis of Democracy should be the majority (or at least largest group) wins.
Anything which strays far from that isnt Democratic, even if it has Democrat in its title, like the ludicrous Libdems do.

The largest group of what though? People, People who are eligible to vote, or MP's.

In the UK it's MP's. You get a say in precicely one MP (assuming Parliament has included you in the group of people who are allowed to vote), at an interval decided by Parliament (currently 5 years, but can be changed by Parliament).

And in 1974 Harold Wilson was elected with 37.2% of the vote, but 301 seats against Heath's 37.9% of the vote but only 297 seats. So even in the UK it's possible, though unusual, to lose an election even though you garnered more public votes than the next largest party.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Apologies. I should have said almost all / overhwelming majority or something similar, rather than all.
The Illiberal Undemocrats (all 9 of them) and a few Labour MP,s (David Lammy springs to mind) said the result should be ignored.
Otherwise the Labour and the Tory parties said they would implement the result, even though many of them didnt mean it and intended to do the complete opposite.
You really are dancing on the head of a pin though, trying to prove something or other.
The basis of Democracy should be the majority (or at least largest group) wins.
Anything which strays far from that isnt Democratic, even if it has Democrat in its title, like the ludicrous Libdems do.

The largest group of what though? People, People who are eligible to vote, or MP's.

In the UK it's MP's. You get a say in precicely one MP (assuming Parliament has included you in the group of people who are allowed to vote), at an interval decided by Parliament (currently 5 years, but can be changed by Parliament).

And in 1974 Harold Wilson was elected with 37.2% of the vote, but 301 seats against Heath's 37.9% of the vote but only 297 seats. So even in the UK it's possible, though unusual, to lose an election even though you garnered more public votes than the next largest party.

Voters who voted for a particular option.

[Nick W]

The basis of Democracy should be the majority (or at least largest group) wins.

The only way that could even come close to working is if the final council/parliament/senate/whatever only contained members of the winning group. Which is completely contrary to representative politics - just look at the Brexit Referendum results, where the winning 52% majority was actually 37% of the electorate.


No party capable of winning an election is a consistent, homogenous group. Look at the the current Conservative party, which is led by a man whose record makes him better suited to being a Libdem.

[Nick W]

Voters who voted for a particular option.

But in reality you're voting for a political party, which is more of a direction than an option. That is important because nobody knows what they might have to decide over their five year term.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Your over complicating the issue. The majority, or the largest group, vote for a particular option, whether its voting for a party to govern the country or a choice of two options in a referendum, or President of a country.
Of course this doesnt produce pure unadulterated Democracy. Nothings perfect. The examples I was giving in my earlier post were examples of people either perverting the system for their own ends, and trashing Democracy in the process, or in the case of the last Parliament, just ignoring the result of the referendum altogether, and again trashing the most basic principles of democracy altogether.
In the case of the referendum Parliament voted to have it, on the understanding that the result would be implemented, and then many of them tried everything they could think of to stop that from happening, while pretending they were doing nothing of the sort.
By any reasonable measure, that isnt Democracy, any more than Trump supporters trying to convince everyone that the Presidential election should be rerun because they dont like the result.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Voters who voted for a particular option.

But in reality you're voting for a political party, which is more of a direction than an option. That is important because nobody knows what they might have to decide over their five year term.

Not always, I sometime vote for an independent individual, but for the majority your right. People tend to vote for a party which agrees more with their preferred direction of travel than the others. Its an imperfect system, but no-one sems to have come up with a better workable alternative yet.
Not really connected to the original point I was making though. That was about the hypocrisy of the media and Politicians who got hysterical about what happened in Washington, while ignoring various other events which have been anti democratic, in principle.

[LC0112G]

Your over complicating the issue. The majority, or the largest group, vote for a particular option, whether its voting for a party to govern the country or a choice of two options in a referendum, or President of a country.
Of course this doesnt produce pure unadulterated Democracy. Nothings perfect. The examples I was giving in my earlier post were examples of people either perverting the system for their own ends, and trashing Democracy in the process, or in the case of the last Parliament, just ignoring the result of the referendum altogether, and again trashing the most basic principles of democracy altogether.
In the case of the referendum Parliament voted to have it, on the understanding that the result would be implemented, and then many of them tried everything they could think of to stop that from happening, while pretending they were doing nothing of the sort.
By any reasonable measure, that isnt Democracy, any more than Trump supporters trying to convince everyone that the Presidential election should be rerun because they dont like the result.

Do you not see the irony in you/anyone trying to define what democracy is/should be, and then trying to impose that view on the rest of us, many of whom may not agree with your view?

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Im not imposing anything on anyone. Im merely taking part in a discussion. 

[LC0112G]

Im not imposing anything on anyone. Im merely taking part in a discussion. 

Ok, I will re-phrase.

Do you not see the irony in you/anyone trying to define what democracy is/should be, and then judging others as undemocratic based on those views, when many of others may not agree with those views?