At what point do we decide what is democratic and not?

Kind of reminds me of an old Swedish joke: "What is the difference between USA and China? In the US, the population are presented with TWO line of ideas from the same political spectrum.



In Sweden we currently have 8 political partys votes in to parliament. The average citizen could quite likely name 3 or so more. Vänsterpartiet is the most left winged one, Moderaterna the most right wing one.

Last time I did one of those internet tests, I found that no party agrees with me in more than 50% of the issues, and that the two closest partys to my political view were... Vänsterpartiet and Moderaterna... Great, I am either extreme left or extreme right, but whatever I do the party would vote against my beliefs in more than 50% of the questions raised.

So, what is how marginalized as a voter I feel here in Sweden, where we have 8 sitting political partys.

I just shiver when I consider living in USA, where you have the option of right wing party A or B. How come that this can come off a democracy? I am pretty damn confident that if the average US voter would get to the depths of the questions raised, he wouldn't vote for A or B. But maybe perhaps C.

But from what I have seen, no C exists. And even the people who desperately wish there would be a C, fight hard for A or B because if they wouldn't, B or A could win instead, which would be worse.

But should politics really be about the lesser of two evils? How can you make a democracy work?

Extreme left and extreme right?

Nationalsocialism for you, then. Sverigedemokraterna it is ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Extreme left and extreme right?

Nationalsocialism for you, then. Sverigedemokraterna it is ~;)

---

Unfortunately those flowers are the closest option... My point however, is that if I can't find a party that supports my view in a system with 8 partys, what are the odds of me doing it in a country with one or two partys?

I shiver about the thought of living in Sweden

Couldn't deal with all the smug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I shiver about the thought of living in Sweden

Couldn't deal with all the smug

---

I just love when you stumble into topics like a drunk from a western saloon scene... Is this where I should begin taking notes of your wisdom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I just love when you stumble into topics like a drunk from a western saloon scene... Is this where I should begin taking notes of your wisdom?

---

I can't help those who have already made up their mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I found that no party agrees with me in more than 50% of the issues, and that the two closest partys to my political view were... Vänsterpartiet and Moderaterna... Great, I am either extreme left or extreme right, but whatever I do the party would vote against my beliefs in more than 50% of the questions raised.

---

I'd bet you money that "you" now won't agree with "you" 20 years from now on more than 50% of issues by that standard. People have different opinions and they are constantly changing. In the U.S. the term "big tent" is an important one. Each tent (of the 2) houses different acts, different groups and ideas. The idea that a plurality needs to form under one or the other using compromise is not fundamentally different from the mainland European coalition system, but it fosters more party integration and stability. We have enough non-aligned voters at this point that a 3rd party may become viable over the next few years, but our track record and system suggests that it would just replace one or the other and cause the net loser to find a new tent.

If there are 8 parties and you can't find yourself voting for any of them, the problem isn't the system, it's your lack of a coherent belief system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

I can't help those who have already made up their mind.

---

Aren't you guilty of the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACIN

If there are 8 parties and you can't find yourself voting for any of them, the problem isn't the system, it's your lack of a coherent belief system.

---

Perhaps he truly is too radical for any of them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Perhaps he truly is too radical for any of them...

---

Going that far in the spectrum....can you even still be considered coherent?

Don't insult our dear correspondent Kadagar.

It stops being a democracy when it becomes a republic?

Quote:

---

It stops being a democracy when it becomes a republic?

---

Republics are inherently democratic to some extent.

Not to the extent of having someone who has almost exactly your views representing you. Only you can do that.

That's a very personal statement...

What I take from it is that you'd like to represent yourself in a direct democracy, heh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Kind of reminds me of an old Swedish joke: "What is the difference between USA and China? In the US, the population are presented with TWO line of ideas from the same political spectrum.



In Sweden we currently have 8 political partys votes in to parliament. The average citizen could quite likely name 3 or so more. Vänsterpartiet is the most left winged one, Moderaterna the most right wing one.

Last time I did one of those internet tests, I found that no party agrees with me in more than 50% of the issues, and that the two closest partys to my political view were... Vänsterpartiet and Moderaterna... Great, I am either extreme left or extreme right, but whatever I do the party would vote against my beliefs in more than 50% of the questions raised.

So, what is how marginalized as a voter I feel here in Sweden, where we have 8 sitting political partys.

I just shiver when I consider living in USA, where you have the option of right wing party A or B. How come that this can come off a democracy? I am pretty damn confident that if the average US voter would get to the depths of the questions raised, he wouldn't vote for A or B. But maybe perhaps C.

But from what I have seen, no C exists. And even the people who desperately wish there would be a C, fight hard for A or B because if they wouldn't, B or A could win instead, which would be worse.

But should politics really be about the lesser of two evils? How can you make a democracy work?

---

American political parties like all parties mirror the peoples sentiments roughly. If the american people want "two right wing parties" then that's what they get. Likely it will be different 30 years from now as peoples feelings change. And you will likely still speak from your mountain of superiority....

I shiver to think of being Swedish where all of the parties are either too marginalized or too left wing for me to have any voice in government. Look everybody can make condescending shallow remarks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I shiver about the thought of living in Sweden

Couldn't deal with all the smug

---

Pot calling the kettle black, Texan.

Questions about what democracy must be are irrelevant as everything is decided in Brussels by the international-socialism.

I think we can safely say that when people stop showing up for the show, democracy no longer exists.

Theorists can maintain that complete lack of attention to the system and issues is in fact an endorsement of the status-quo; the position requires a bit of circular logic though.

One easy for democracy is: Can you, outside very unexpected events or very high popularity, predict who will win the election after the next?

Compare say Putin to predicting Obama in 2003.

For curiousity, any idea of why you ended up with that result Kadagar? Anti-EU and wanting lower taxes or?

To be fair to the US, they do have more people who are actively writing to thier congressman and such stuff.

I days of yore (prior to computers) ballots had to be very simple to avoid mistakes.

These days things could be improved:

Local elections, voting for a person is more important than a party. National party is probably more important than the candidate themselves.
Voting options for one of the parties. If you feel that dumbly following one through thick and thin is a good idea.
If you tick other, then you get to weigh preference on a list of issues from 1 to 10 from a list of questions that is independantly created. The values from all other voters are then amalgamated and votes warded to parties based upon this.

Downside would be surprising outcomes.

~:smoking:

Sasaki has the right of it, no meaningful party (greater than 1 member) could ever truly represent the full opinions of it's members. Personal life experiences color everyone just a little differently, and I wouldn't want to live in the hive mind where this wasn't the case.

As for the US, we just have corporate fascism with a tasty democratic shell. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Questions about what democracy must be are irrelevant as everything is decided in Brussels by the international-socialism.

---

In the EU, everything is decided in the back of Merkels car with Hollande, it is not even in Brussels. Could try to create a fully democratic institution, but nationalist interest rejects it, preferring cronyism of major European powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Local elections, voting for a person is more important than a party. National party is probably more important than the candidate themselves.
Voting options for one of the parties. If you feel that dumbly following one through thick and thin is a good idea.
If you tick other, then you get to weigh preference on a list of issues from 1 to 10 from a list of questions that is independantly created. The values from all other voters are then amalgamated and votes warded to parties based upon this.

---

The people who chose to pick a candidate themselves are dumb? As opposed to the people who fill in a political quiz and trust the makers with the responsibility of aggregating these into an unpredictable winner, who are smart?

Right, that should solve all our problems. Count me among the dumb people if you must.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The people who chose to pick a candidate themselves are dumb? As opposed to the people who fill in a political quiz and trust the makers with the responsibility of aggregating these into an unpredictable winner, who are smart?

Right, that should solve all our problems. Count me among the dumb people if you must.

---

Way ahead of you.

Solve all our problems? Don't remember saying that. Offering increased epidimeological approach to voting - yes it would.

We currently have systems to aggregate votes. No change there

~:smoking:

Your idea would theoretically yield "better" results if, say:
Party A has a very small majority over the other. Its voters agree on average with 60% of its ideas, for the rest they agree with B

Party B has about 49% of the votes, but the people who did vote for B agreed with 90% of its ideas.

The system does not take account of:
- how reliable the promises of the parties are
- no possibility to punish the incumbent party for bad performance, as you vote on policies, not the people who are supposed to execute them
- the vast amount of questions you'd have to include for the results to have any meaning (in the order of thousends), or:
- how you make a selection of the more pertinent questions
- assuming the questions are multiple choice, how do you evaluate wich party has the position closest to A or B
- it will provide even more incentive for parties to adopt positions which are popular, but too expensive/unsustainable/otherwise unworkable

At present the staff who counts the votes etc. only really needs to do just that and observe some formalities. For your proposal to work, and adress the issues I mentioned, you would need an agency with greatly expanded powers, with an unrealistic burden of integrity for the entire process to be fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Sent from my V8000_USA_Cricket using Tapatalk 2

---

At first, I thought you wrote that on purpose. :beam:

I think everyone has things the wrong way round. People are not apathetic because they feel removed from the political process. The political process has become so removed from the people because they are apathetic.

A few decades ago, whether we had a Labour or Conservative government could have a real impact on your life depending on whether you were working or middle-class. People were partisan. People voted. People cared.

But then the heavy industries disappeared, and the working-class was largely absorbed into the middle-classes, with a small remnant being left behind to become a sort of underclass. Labour lost its support base and morphed into New Labour, in effect a new Conservative party.

Most people have no need for ideology any more. The channels of political involvement have gone, whether it be the unions or whatever. All anybody wanted was to get their own holiday to the Costa, a college education for their kids, a nice little garden out front, and you're own margerita maker. In other words, the indicators of a successful life. We're all living in a middle-class wonderland (unless you're unlucky enough to be in the benefit-dependent underclass, but that's too small to matter), a material and consumerist world, and the policies of the political parties are reflected in that.

Although tbh, I don't see this as unhealthy for democracy. I think it's unhealthy on 1,000 different levels, but not when it comes to the democratic aspect. Probably 80% of the population lives in a big bubble where all they want from the government is basic public services and to be left alone and not taxed too heavily - ideology is irrelevant. And of course, this means all these people can have their views easily represented by a couple of near-identical parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

But then the heavy industries disappeared, and the working-class was largely absorbed into the middle-classes, with a small remnant being left behind to become a sort of underclass.

---

Personally, I dont think the majority became middle class, people just started calling mid to upper working class: middle class.

You may own a house but you're still reliant on an employer.