http://m.reference.com/d/search.html?q=Government

Generally, the election process of a government is quite simple. They join a party, they advertise their values and guarantees, we vote a party candidate, and majority rules. There are different spins on this concept of electing, but it usually works out to be, majority wins.

Now, my questions are as follows: Is this method accurate, or is it just practical?; Are these governments reflecting the countries wants, or simply reflecting their own? And...

You are a strange little man.

Governments in American democracy are not made up of one party or one movement. They're made up, typically, of members of multiple parties - for example, I believe the democrats controlled Congress during Bush's second fouryear (I don't really care, though, and could be wrong).

You might really want to rephrase your question... You're asking if democracy is good or not?

finally, can this be changed.

My standpoint on this is that; yes, it is a more practical method than accurate; no, they do not reflect the countries needs or wants, but that of their own; lastly, I'm uncertain it will ever change.

I say this because, when voting for who we would like, we do not vote who we dislike. It's possible that, 40% say yes for X, 30% yes for Y and 30% yes for Z. 6O% say no to X, 30% say no to Y and 10% no to Z. This means X wins, despite a majority opposition. If this is wrong,

please, by all means, correct me.

Secondly, the UK has a rising racial tension. The world, EU, and Government would like us to be multicultural. However, with the economy on its hands and knees, British citizens want their born rights, unfortunatly; housing, benefits, healthcare, jobs and more are being forked out to immigrants who come here demanding we host their beliefs, values and languages. It's recently been suggested, that knowing polish is a definite advantage when applying for a job. The people

want to halt immigration, but the government fear being branded racist, due to prioratizing aid.

Finally, I think change is needed, but most definately not in clear sight. Sorry for multiposting, I'm sure Vrael will combine in the morning, <3 Vrael.

That didn't need to be in three posts, and you still didn't clarify what you were requesting the audience post their opinion on.

To the contrary, it did. I suffer from a character limit, unlike you.

I was not clarafying, merely finishing my first post.

What I would like to discuss, is if the 'majority wins' system is an adequate representation of a countries wants; whether we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, or we indeed select a party that speaks for us, but also listens to us. And if not, then is change required? Is it possible?

A country has no wants. The people have wants, and if the people voted mostly for a certain party, then yes, that party probably represents the wants (discounting rednecks who vote for the first person to say war and all those retards).

Depends on how lucky you get with party choices.

VIVE LA REVOLUTION!

Why do you have a character limit?

PSP limitations.

Refer to my concept on how a 49% or less supported party, could also have up to 51% opposed, but still win if the rest is divided amongst parties.

I really wish we had a revolution. Too many things need changing at the core, in order to combat corruption and fix this, 'content will suffice' lifestyle, that all to many people live.

So you implement a system where people could have three votes. If their first vote recipient loses, the second one gets the vote. If that one fails, the third gets it. Fix'd.

Couldn't that potentially lead to a 100% vote on a party only that almost a third of the country actually wanted? A much easier solution, would be to vote for, and against one party. The winning party has the best ratio, with most for, and least against. It's not perfect, but far more accurate. Is it easy to form a party?

The problem with your suggestion is twofold. Firstly, adding the voting against option may sound like a good idea, but the fact remains that whoever wins in a multi party system will rarely have a majority. Thankfully, that brings me to the next obvious point. Democracy makes the fallacy of assuming 51% or less of the population knows the right way of doing things, which is obviously not true in all cases. Democracy in itself has no inherent value other than ascribing some sense of rightness to everyone, regardless of any responsibilities associated with this right. How about we vote to make a particular minority group our slaves? It's democratic, by all respects.

Just food for thought munchings.

Unlike Canada, the United States has no "Majority". Its just one party over the other, not Neo Conservative vs New Democrat vs Liberal vs Green.

This. The majority isn't always right. The majority is stupid and can be influenced by the media or by tough words. This is why I don't put complete trust in democracy. Hell, I think it's bad in some cases for the welfare of countries.

Some things for the extended welfare of a country are unpopular because of immediate hardship. For example, if a country is paying subsidized prices for energy from another country, and that country wants to stop subsidizing the energy. Sooner or later, you'll have to adjust and streamline your economy so it can run on more expensive energy. This won't, however, be popular, and if the energy prices are going to increase right after election, I easily see the leader holding out for the last second so he gets reelected before restructuring the economy instead of doing it prematurely to give themselves breathing space. Hey, what're the people going to do, impeach him?

And then there's the government being weak before a new government steps in - that needs to go. American Democracy isn't a perfect system even for America itself (which really has it ezmode, with no powerful countries on the same landmass, access to Pacific and Atlantic, a favorable river system, large amount of resources, and distance from any major wars since... ever).

Now that I brought this thread out of the dumpster, back into SD!

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Mar 24 2009, 1:36 am by Centreri.

Ideally I would like no government, everyone is nice, noone breaks the laws, and the sun is always shining. Sadly, that's not possible, because it rains a lot here !

Is it possible that a government could be elected with a generally democratic approach, but instead of saying, 'we will do this, we will do that;' instead, they say, 'You can tell us what you want, and we'll organize a public vote.' So for example, 'should we legalize marijuana, yes or no?' However, not bias the question in their favour.??

Supposedly the idea of representative democracy was that the elected representatives would make and pass laws according to what the people he governed wanted. I get the feeling this doesn't happen very much anymore.

So the government are dictating our lives, we simply let them take turns to see who can be more corrupt? Yay democracy? Yay freedom?