La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 What he's advocating though seems to be a sort of anarchist plebiscitary democracy. The problem with referendums though is that the public are not always best informed to make important decisions, and their opinions can be swayed by propaganda or a persuasive character. Hitler made use of them to give his decisions some kind of legitimacy. If the public are not educated to a good degree on political issues and have been kept away from many political matters by the elite, e.g. such as foreign policy, then you can hardly expect wise and fair decisions to be made on all matters. But that doesn't mean that parliamentary democracy is the right way to go. It's like a bad trip on mushrooms, with a deranged jumble of weird gifs and psychadelic lettering. Wow, that sounds like a fun 'shroom trip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 If the public are not educated to a good degree on political issues and have been kept away from many political matters by the elite, e.g. such as foreign policy, then you can hardly expect wise and fair decisions to be made on all matters. But that doesn't mean that parliamentary democracy is the right way to go. It's not that people don't have access to information on political matters - they do- it's just the sad fact that most people simply don't give a shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 If the public are not educated to a good degree on political issues and have been kept away from many political matters by the elite, e.g. such as foreign policy, then you can hardly expect wise and fair decisions to be made on all matters. But that doesn't mean that parliamentary democracy is the right way to go. It's not that people don't have access to information on political matters - they do- it's just the sad fact that most people simply don't give a shit. They don't have access to all aspects of matters, say matters relating to foreign policy. And I get the impression that the State discourages involvement in foreign policy, there don't want meddling. The fact that people don't give a shit is understandable. If you can't get involved in political decisions then why take an interest unless it seriously changes your life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 The fact that people don't give a shit is understandable. If you can't get involved in political decisions then why take an interest unless it seriously changes your life? But even if people had a greater say in how the country is governed, most still wouldn't take an interest. There are various ways people can involve themselves in politics now and change their lives, but few bother. Most just accept the status quo unless they have a specific greivance, and they seldom question the way things work. It is a great ideal that everyone should have their say in the way the country is run, but sadly most would rather watch the television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 The fact that people don't give a shit is understandable. If you can't get involved in political decisions then why take an interest unless it seriously changes your life? But even if people had a greater say in how the country is governed, most still wouldn't take an interest. There are various ways people can involve themselves in politics now and change their lives, but few bother. Most just accept the status quo unless they have a specific greivance, and they seldom question the way things work. It is a great ideal that everyone should have their say in the way the country is run, but sadly most would rather watch the television. LDV I have to agree with Vulgarian, people will not get involved in politics on the Island unless they have strong motivation (for whatever reason). When the Local Authority Elections took place last year, the percentage of seats that where actually contested was low, far too low. Why..? Because people can't be arsed to stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 LDV I have to agree with Vulgarian, people will not get involved in politics on the Island unless they have strong motivation (for whatever reason). When the Local Authority Elections took place last year, the percentage of seats that where actually contested was low, far too low. Why..? Because people can't be arsed to stand. I agree with Vulgarian too. Though I thought he was talking about the electorate, not the electors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 When the Local Authority Elections took place last year, the percentage of seats that where actually contested was low, far too low. Nonesense the reason so few were contested is because there are far, far too many of these posts. 9 in Port Erin, 9 in Port St. Mary, 4 for the bits in between another 5 in Arbory. We've already got three mhks covering this area. Every busybody in the South has a seat if he wants it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 If you can't get involved in political decisions then why take an interest unless it seriously changes your life? Won't carry on in detail about it again - but the current political 'representative' system was designed in and for the age of the horse whereas we live in an era of mass telecommunication. Politicians and public servants will not change the system. It means that as a sub-class within the population they can maintain a level of control and influence that more modern decision making would diminish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 We've already got three mhks covering this area. Every busybody in the South has a seat if he wants it. Nicely put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 If you can't get involved in political decisions then why take an interest unless it seriously changes your life? Won't carry on in detail about it again - but the current political 'representative' system was designed in and for the age of the horse whereas we live in an era of mass telecommunication. Politicians and public servants will not change the system. It means that as a sub-class within the population they can maintain a level of control and influence that more modern decision making would diminish. That's true. But there are problems too with direct democracy where everything is done by plebiscite. I mentioned a couple, 1) On complex issues the public would not be sufficiently knowledgeable to make an informed decision. 2) Their opinion could be swayed by media, advertising, propaganda, peer influence, or a strong personality. I certainly wouldn't want the general populus making major world-changing decisions. We need some sort of representative who would be well enough informed on complex issues to make rational, balanced decisions. Currently our representative are not necessarily that well informed themselves - any idiot can become an MHK or MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 If you can't get involved in political decisions then why take an interest unless it seriously changes your life? Won't carry on in detail about it again - but the current political 'representative' system was designed in and for the age of the horse whereas we live in an era of mass telecommunication. Politicians and public servants will not change the system. It means that as a sub-class within the population they can maintain a level of control and influence that more modern decision making would diminish. I think you have mentioned this before. Do you have any details of where you come to this idea, unless it is your idea? Wouldn't mind having a read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 When the Local Authority Elections took place last year, the percentage of seats that where actually contested was low, far too low. Nonesense the reason so few were contested is because there are far, far too many of these posts. 9 in Port Erin, 9 in Port St. Mary, 4 for the bits in between another 5 in Arbory. We've already got three mhks covering this area. Every busybody in the South has a seat if he wants it. I disagree declan, there was not enough people standing. But I do see where you are coming from. The amalgamation of Douglas & Onchan would open the competition a lot, as would say Marown & Bradden etc I still would like to see more actual elections rather than walk in such as my own. I realise the benefits of having to do a campaign both to the campaigner and general public. Has not politics itself not become lower down people's list of important things than say 30 years ago. Would be interesting to compare the percentage of voters/non voters between then and now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 When the Local Authority Elections took place last year, the percentage of seats that where actually contested was low, far too low. Nonesense the reason so few were contested is because there are far, far too many of these posts. 9 in Port Erin, 9 in Port St. Mary, 4 for the bits in between another 5 in Arbory. We've already got three mhks covering this area. Every busybody in the South has a seat if he wants it. I disagree declan, there was not enough people standing. But I do see where you are coming from. The amalgamation of Douglas & Onchan would open the competition a lot, as would say Marown & Bradden etc I still would like to see more actual elections rather than walk in such as my own. I realise the benefits of having to do a campaign both to the campaigner and general public. Has not politics itself not become lower down people's list of important things than say 30 years ago. Would be interesting to compare the percentage of voters/non voters between then and now. There were, obviously, enough people standing as all the seats were filled. As to the calibre of those, I leave that to others to comment. Douglas and Onchan should remain separate. 'Walk ins' are ok when there is an incumbant as it is a sign of content by absence of disapproval. In the case of a new and unknown candidate it is abhorant and they get what they deserve. Politics has been debased in the last 30 yrs , almost entirely by the tories and their fellow travellers, the rise of the redtops has helped this decline in serious political thought by their prostituting of ideals and principals by means of 'chequebook journalism' and the use of gossip and information leaks. Records are available for voting trends and numbers on the government website. If not, there is a perfectly good library in the Tynwald building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 That's true. But there are problems too with direct democracy where everything is done by plebiscite. I mentioned a couple, 1) On complex issues the public would not be sufficiently knowledgeable to make an informed decision. 2) Their opinion could be swayed by media, advertising, propaganda, peer influence, or a strong personality. I certainly wouldn't want the general populus making major world-changing decisions. We need some sort of representative who would be well enough informed on complex issues to make rational, balanced decisions. Currently our representative are not necessarily that well informed themselves - any idiot can become an MHK or MP. One needs to balance this against a system in which people who are supposed in theory to represent the interests and views of their electorate in fact follow party lines and party Whips (not theoretically a problem here of course). A counter to your point 1) could be for example the way that such ill-informed approval was given by a few people to the Iraq invasion - a world changing event, and to your point 2) one would be naive to imagine that the 'representatives' were not already being heavily influenced by the media, peer pressure and opinion polls! Fundamentally I see the problem as being the gulf between an increasingly well informed electorate and the fact that they have virtually no input into the way their 'representatives' vote on issues or which issues are brought up for debate. The once every 5 years election is hardly a satisfying democratic process for thinking people. Maybe in future an intermediate step could be for 'representatives' to be better informed about the opinions of their electorate on key issues and then to actually represent that view. I think you have mentioned this before. Do you have any details of where you come to this idea, unless it is your idea? Wouldn't mind having a read. You are correct that I have raised it before so I don't want to get too repetitive. No doubt others have had this idea but the thoughts I wrote about came from my own feelings and observations. I can't help feeling that our system of democracy is one of the most old-fashioned system around and designed for a very different era when people lived isolated lives, were basically uninformed on national and global issues and were unable to communicate their views anyway as there was no mass communication system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.