Democracy?

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Apr 07, 2002 5:37 pm

In June of last year, Ireland held a referendum on the Treaty of Nice. Essentially the treaty would involve losing our EU commisioner, and also there was some talk of loss of neutrality (European Army etc. )
In the end, it was rejected 54 / 46. The Government, who supported the treaty, are now saying they want to try again. The idea is that we could get an "opt out" clause from the military aspects.

Although

1) This is basically saying " You can vote however you like, but if you vote the wrong way, we'll try again, and again, and again ...."

2) Democracy is supposed to be based on what the people decide, not what the government decides the people should decide. So

Other points:

Ireland is the only country to decide by referendum. Ergo, it is possible that more countries would reject the treaty, given the chance.

Denmark originally rejected the Treaty of Amsterdaam, but ratified after getting several opt-outs and clarifications.

The treaty cannot be passed without every country.

So - is this whole mess democratic, specifically and in general. I think not. Your opinions?

P.S.

Second post

. Hello everyone. *waves*

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Apr 07, 2002 6:01 pm

2) Democracy is supposed to be based on what the people decide, not what the government decides the people should decide.

There is no nation which exists without a government to make decisions. Even if those decisions are popular, they are not made by "the people." But this does get into the issue of whether officials should simply query their constituencies on a regular basis as to how they should vote, or whether they should vote to the best of their ability on issues that they ostensibly konw more about than those who elect them.

The matter is further confused because of the presence in many nations (particularly the US) of big money in the form of political lobbies, who buy time with officials to present their views. While this doesn't necessarily mean a given elected or appointed official is going to be swayed by a junket to Paris or even a single luncheon, it does open up the can of worms entitled "bias by exposure."

PS: Incidentally, welcome to the forum--and nice job on that autobiography of yours! I've long admired it, especially the way you kick Grendel's butt.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Apr 07, 2002 11:16 pm

Welcome to the forum, Beowulf.
What sort of electoral system does Ireland use? Does it have compulsory voting?

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 2:46 am

Yes, Beowulf is a great strory.

"Democracy" has been described as "the tyranny of the majority". Despite/bercause of its Greek origin in "Demos" - the people. But in Athens, only citizens could vote.

I don't think Ireland is unique in this respect. Take Quebec - after many referenda voting "no" on becoming independent, the Party Quebecois still insist on voting over the matter (and will continue to do so till they get their way).

Similarly, Tony Blair continues to push forward European integration without holding a referndum on the issue, afraid that the UK public will prove him wrong.

"Oak tree" Demcoracy just doesn't exist.

CM · Post by CM » Mon Apr 08, 2002 2:55 am

Welcome and errr....as Churchil said and I paraphrase, democracy sucks but we got nothing better!

Baldursgate Fan · Post by **Baldursgate Fan** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 4:30 am

Welcome to the Board!

Welcome and errr....as Churchil said and I paraphrase, democracy sucks but we got nothing better!

I second that.

I empathise with your situation, Beowulf; while I don't understand fully how the system works in Ireland, my guess is that it can't be worse than Communism - everything boils down to Hobson's choice.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 2:08 pm

@Fable: Oops, I meant that in the case of a refendum it doesn't matter how much more the government knows than the people, they still have to accept their decision.
Much as they'd like to, they can't ratify without a referendum, since in this case it entails a change in the constitution.

PS: Incidentally, welcome to the forum--and nice job on that autobiography of yours! I've long admired it, especially the way you kick Grendel's butt.

Why thank you.

@Ode: Voting is not compulsory, no, so turnout was pathetic
(40 - 50%)

@Gruntboy: I wouldn't mind so much if they just gave us no choice, but instead they say we can choose when in fact we can't

.
Like Tony Blair holding a ref, being proven wrong, and carrying on regardless.

As Churchil said and I paraphrase, democracy sucks but we got nothing better!

Onwards the meritocracy!!

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 5:04 pm

One of the many reasons I support anarchism....

But Democracy is so far the only political system to have worked through the 20th century without repressive gov't regimes. I use that term relative to dictators.

The problem thats currently around, is that the majority in the polls may not be the majority of the people in the cntry!!. A turn out of 40-50% just isnt enough for a unanimous decision. Especially when the future of a country depends on it. Too bad theres not a way to get everyone eligible to vote.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 5:14 pm

Originally posted by Obsidian
Too bad theres not a way to get everyone eligible to vote.

I believe Australia has a 90% turn out..(Maybe they fine the one's who don't vote)

Plus I believe there is no "true" Democratic Country.

The US would fall under..Democratic Republic.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 5:17 pm

Originally posted by Obsidian
Too bad theres not a way to get everyone eligible to vote.

It's not a matter of getting people eligible to vote; it's getting those who can vote to give enough of a damn to show up at the polls and actually cast their vote.

I see apathy as the principle adversary of democracy. I believe that many people think that their vote doesn't matter, or that one candidate is just the lesser of two evils. Consequently, a lot of folks just don't care because believe their circumstances won't change.

Well, I hate to break it to people, but individuals and their single votes do matter. Adolph Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany; he didn't mount a coup or seize control of the country (he tried that once and landed in jail), an electorate brought him to power.

Without an informed and active public, democracy is doomed to failure. There's nothing I hate more than listening to people *****ing and moaning about how our leaders are corrupt, the economy is failing and that the government is wasting our money. The first thing I ask those people is if they voted in the last election. If they say no, I not only jump on them for not exercising the power of the vote, but I immediately disqualify their opinion.

Voting is a statement. I don't care who you vote for and I don't care if you vote a straight party ticket. What I do care about is whether or not people make their voices heard. Maybe you go to the poll and turn in a blank ballot, or you write in Bill n'Opus on the Meadow Party ticket for president. That is a statement. Not registering to vote and not showing up is irresponsible.

People who don't vote shouldn't *****. Without participation, democracy is impotent.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 5:19 pm

Originally posted by Obsidian
One of the many reasons I support anarchism....

An Anarchistic democratic society is no self contradiction.

Tamerlane · Post by **Tamerlane** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 9:23 pm

Originally posted by Weasel
I believe Australia has a 90% turn out..(Maybe they fine the one's who don't vote)

Near 100 actually because you'd get fined if you didn't vote.

I fail to understand why someone wouldn't vote in the first place.

BTW- Hi Beowulf.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Tue Apr 09, 2002 12:55 am

In Australia you get an (Aus)$50 fine if you don't show up to the polling booth. That said, the number of invalid votes/'donkey' votes last election was around 15% of total votes, and that's with compulsory voting. If we had optional voting I doubt there'd be a huge voter turnout at elections. I for one wouldn't have voted because I disagree with the two-party preferred system as a means of choosing government. It isn't truly representative, as no matter who you cast your vote for you will end up supporting one of the two major parties anyway. They're both so similar that voters are provided with no real alternative for policies they want to see implemented by the government.

Robnark · Post by **Robnark** » Tue Apr 09, 2002 3:39 am

the similarity between two parties and the lack of any real policies on either side has contributed to a ridiculously poor turnout in the last UK elections. all the bloody politicians acted all surprised that no-one voted after they spent so much time campaigning about the issues that people (supposedly) care about. the problem was both the main parties concerntrated on those issues in a cynical attempt to grab votes, and everyone was so sick of the continued bandwagon-jumping and arguing, while both parties had no real differences or values that weren't inspired by the latest story to get on the front cover of the papers.