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

**Strike For The South** · 10-12-2012, 02:52

I shiver about the thought of living in Sweden

Couldn't deal with all the smug

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-12-2012, 03:01

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?

**Strike For The South** · 10-12-2012, 03:04

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.

**Papewaio** · 10-12-2012, 05:36

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.

**Fragony** · 10-12-2012, 07:52

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

**HopAlongBunny** · 10-12-2012, 08:17

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.

**Ironside** · 10-12-2012, 08:22

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.

**rory_20_uk** · 10-12-2012, 09:14

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.

**drone** · 10-12-2012, 15:01

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.

**Kralizec** · 10-12-2012, 15:22

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.

**rory_20_uk** · 10-12-2012, 15:38

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

**Beskar** · 10-12-2012, 15:20

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.