Diane Abbott suspended as Labour MP.

[Pickman's model]

What would you suggest in their place?

Elections are not democracy. Trundling to the ballot box once every few years to choose from members of political parties is not democracy. To assert it is, as you implicitly do, is to miss the point of what the rule of the people means. Your question suggests you'd see Russia as a democracy, which it clearly isn't. The periodic selection of members of Parliament or the duma or a president is not democracy, altho it might be a feature of a democracy. No one can really say the Labour party or tory party or reform are democratic. What say have constituency Labour parties, for example, in the selection of their candidates? When the opportunities for political participation are limited to periodic votes like the one on 4 July we don't live in a democracy. And obvs we don't or we wouldn't a) have a king, who can get laws amended to suit his family's interests and b) a parliamentary system in which the upper chamber is formed of people there because their ancestors were thugs of the right sort, superannuated political hacks, and selected bishops of one variety of christianity

 

[kropotkin]

Excellent post Pickman's

 

[ouirdeaux]

Elections are not democracy. Trundling to the ballot box once every few years to choose from members of political parties is not democracy. To assert it is, as you implicitly do, is to miss the point of what the rule of the people means. Your question suggests you'd see Russia as a democracy, which it clearly isn't. The periodic selection of members of Parliament or the duma or a president is not democracy, altho it might be a feature of a democracy. No one can really say the Labour party or tory party or reform are democratic. What say have constituency Labour parties, for example, in the selection of their candidates? When the opportunities for political participation are limited to periodic votes like the one on 4 July we don't live in a democracy. And obvs we don't or we wouldn't a) have a king, who can get laws amended to suit his family's interests and b) a parliamentary system in which the upper chamber is formed of people there because their ancestors were thugs of the right sort, superannuated political hacks, and selected bishops of one variety of christianity

I didn't assert anything.

I asked you a question.

Which you haven't answered.

 

[kropotkin]

Lol ok. That's not what she said but you live by whatever head canon you need...

Inside baseball

Head canon

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Elections are not democracy. Trundling to the ballot box once every few years to choose from members of political parties is not democracy. To assert it is, as you implicitly do, is to miss the point of what the rule of the people means. Your question suggests you'd see Russia as a democracy, which it clearly isn't. The periodic selection of members of Parliament or the duma or a president is not democracy, altho it might be a feature of a democracy. No one can really say the Labour party or tory party or reform are democratic. What say have constituency Labour parties, for example, in the selection of their candidates? When the opportunities for political participation are limited to periodic votes like the one on 4 July we don't live in a democracy. And obvs we don't or we wouldn't a) have a king, who can get laws amended to suit his family's interests and b) a parliamentary system in which the upper chamber is formed of people there because their ancestors were thugs of the right sort, superannuated political hacks, and selected bishops of one variety of christianity

Your points are not untrue, but it's still a pointless nitpick. Democracy is something that comes in degrees. We have more of it than some countries, less than others, but we're certainly further along the spectrum of more than less on a worldwide survey. For example, candidates do not have to be vetted by religious authorities here, as they do in Iran. People are allowed to stand in the street and say down with the governement here (this right has been eroded around the edges, but try doing that in Cuba and see where it gets you).

So, extremely imperfect as our system is (and by fuck, there is a lot wrong with it), next month's elections are a meaningful exercise in democracy. Elections here can and do lead to a change in government. They are a limited exercise in democracy but that doesn't mean they lack meaning as elections in, say, Russia do.

 

[Chz]

I would add that I know a few Swiss people, and Switzerland is much further along the road towards being truly democratic than we are. It's a shitshow. Having referendums for every single thing that gets more than xx thousand signatures is a bonkers way to run a country. And despite this (because of it? it gave the rural cantons a lot of power), Switzerland only gave women the vote in 1971.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I would add that I know a few Swiss people, and Switzerland is much further along the road towards being truly democratic than we are. It's a shitshow. Having referendums for every single thing that gets more than xx thousand signatures is a bonkers way to run a country. And despite this (because of it? it gave the rural cantons a lot of power), Switzerland only gave women the vote in 1971.

Switzerland is an interesting experiment in direct democracy. One of the features of its referendums is the low turnouts - often well under 50% - despite them making it really easy to vote - you can do it online.

I don't think any country is even close to a good system, tbh, although federated, devolved systems are better. My answer would combine elected representatives with a body that is selected at least partially through sortition. But any system relies on people getting on board and participating to avoid systems being hijacked by relatively small but highly motivated groups. That seems to be one of the most difficult bits. Applies to all levels of democracy, from state elections to small associations.

 

[tim]

.

Switzerland is an interesting experiment in direct democracy. One of the features of its referendums is the low turnouts - often well under 50% - despite them making it really easy to vote - you can do it online.

I don't think any country is even close to a good system, tbh, although federated, devolved systems are better. My answer would combine elected representatives with a body that is selected at least partially through sortition. But any system relies on people getting on board and participating to avoid systems being hijacked by relatively small but highly motivated groups. That seems to be one of the most difficult bits. Applies to all levels of democracy, from state elections to small associations.

annual parliamentary elections, as the Chartists wanted, might be a start.

 

[brogdale]

.

annual parliamentary elections, as the Chartists wanted, might be a start.

The one Chartist demand that was never realised?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

.

annual parliamentary elections, as the Chartists wanted, might be a start.

Maybe. I'm a bit sceptical. The Chartists lived in quite a different world where large-scale campaigning wasn't really a thing. In the US, the House of Reps is every two years and they're campaigning a lot. Every year and it would be constant campaigning, no?

New Zealand has national elections every three years. Can't think of anywhere that is on a shorter cycle than that.

 

[brogdale]

Maybe. I'm a bit sceptical. The Chartists lived in quite a different world where large-scale campaigning wasn't really a thing. In the US, the House of Reps is every two years and they're campaigning a lot. Every year and it would be constant campaigning, no?

New Zealand has national elections every three years. Can't think of anywhere that is on a shorter cycle than that.

If it threatened the viability of large-scale campaigning, that would be a further advantage

 

[two sheds]

Not so much the frequency for me as the money pumped into parties by rich companies and individuals getting a huge return for their money.

 

[kabbes]

.

annual parliamentary elections, as the Chartists wanted, might be a start.

Go the other way. People elected for life. That makes each election high stakes!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If it threatened the viability of large-scale campaigning, that would be a further advantage

Yeah, I guess it could do that.

A House of Sortition could be changed on a yearly basis, no problem. Every six months even.

But in my thinking that wouldn't work as the executive. It would be the overseer. There is merit to the idea of representatives who are delegated to make decisions on behalf of their electors and are then held to account for those decisions at elections.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Go the other way. People elected for life. That makes each election high stakes!

This is a joke, I know. But it kind of exemplifies part of the problem here. We need decision-makers who will make decisions based on the long-term good. Deciding to do things that may only have a payoff in 10, 20, 50 years' time.

How do we have meaningful elections regularly while maintaining the space for decision-makers to act in the long-term good? I don't think that's an easy question to answer. Here in the UK, we're plagued by short-termism in government and our elections are relatively widely spaced out.

 

[tim]

Maybe. I'm a bit sceptical. The Chartists lived in quite a different world where large-scale campaigning wasn't really a thing. In the US, the House of Reps is every two years and they're campaigning a lot. Every year and it would be constant campaigning, no?

New Zealand has national elections every three years. Can't think of anywhere that is on a shorter cycle than that.

The Chartist movement was probably the largest scale political campaign that this country has ever seen. Over three million people signed the 1842 Chartist petition.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Chartist movement was probably the largest scale political campaign that this country has ever seen. Over three million people signed the 1842 Chartist petition.

Yes, fair point. I was wrong in saying that. I'm still sceptical, though.

 

[Wilf]

The Chartist movement was probably the largest scale political campaign that this country has ever seen. Over three million people signed the 1842 Chartist petition.

Inc several hundred Queen Victorias iirc.

 

[Pickman's model]

.

annual parliamentary elections, as the Chartists wanted, might be a start.

Not to mention self-determination for Ireland

 

[Pickman's model]

Your points are not untrue, but it's still a pointless nitpick. Democracy is something that comes in degrees. We have more of it than some countries, less than others, but we're certainly further along the spectrum of more than less on a worldwide survey. For example, candidates do not have to be vetted by religious authorities here, as they do in Iran. People are allowed to stand in the street and say down with the governement here (this right has been eroded around the edges, but try doing that in Cuba and see where it gets you).

So, extremely imperfect as our system is (and by fuck, there is a lot wrong with it), next month's elections are a meaningful exercise in democracy. Elections here can and do lead to a change in government. They are a limited exercise in democracy but that doesn't mean they lack meaning as elections in, say, Russia do.

Oh don't talk such shit. It's got fuck all to do with candidates and elections and everything to do with what happens between elections.

 

[kabbes]

This is a joke, I know. But it kind of exemplifies part of the problem here. We need decision-makers who will make decisions based on the long-term good. Deciding to do things that may only have a payoff in 10, 20, 50 years' time.

How do we have meaningful elections regularly while maintaining the space for decision-makers to act in the long-term good? I don't think that's an easy question to answer. Here in the UK, we're plagued by short-termism in government and our elections are relatively widely spaced out.

Yeah. It was a joke but that was also in my mind too. Politics on a five year cycle produces politicians that are trying to justify themselves only ever within a handful of years.

 

[emanymton]

Switzerland is an interesting experiment in direct democracy. One of the features of its referendums is the low turnouts - often well under 50% - despite them making it really easy to vote - you can do it online.

I don't think any country is even close to a good system, tbh, although federated, devolved systems are better. My answer would combine elected representatives with a body that is selected at least partially through sortition. But any system relies on people getting on board and participating to avoid systems being hijacked by relatively small but highly motivated groups. That seems to be one of the most difficult bits. Applies to all levels of democracy, from state elections to small associations.

When I was about 16 I had the idea that with the Internet we could have a system where each MPs vote counted as the number of people they represented, but individuals could choose to vote themselves instead, which would reduce the weight of the MP's vote. Essentially every parliamentary vote would be a referendum you coul opt in on, or leave it for you MP to vote on your behalf.

When I grew older I saw some issues mainly that the problems we face are not going to be solved by a change in voting system. But I'm still quite attached to the core idea.

 

[Dogsauce]

It’s not about elections but how the range of acceptable opinions informing the way people vote is or was largely controlled by corporate-owned media. There was a time when I thought the internet might bypass this, but all it has given us is the same sponsored opinions/options pushed even harder at us, and a remainder of utter cranks and racists that seem to be the only people successfully operating outside of this.

 

[kabbes]

How about this random idea to balance democracy with long-term thinking: politicians are elected on a 15 year term, but on a rolling basis so that, eg, 1/15 of them per year face their constituencies. With 600 seats, 40 constituencies per year would have an election.

 

[JimW]

I've always thought key would be a robust right of recall; so you can elect them for quite lengthy terms but there's a straightforward mechanism to trigger a recall election if needs be, maybe just ten percent of electorate so they need to be circumspect but enough of a threshold so it's not every week some individual is pissed off.

 

[brogdale]

Oh don't talk such shit. It's got fuck all to do with candidates and elections and everything to do with what happens between elections.

Always thought that, the day I was invited to vote for who told me what to do at work, I might be living in some sort of democracy.

 

[Chilli.s]

Id prefer to see decision making in a method similar to jury service. People are obliged to do it but it dosnt cost them. Anonymized so no revolving door jobs. No more red blue green party bollocks and all the associated expensive pantomime. Say 2 years training and 4 years service. it couldnt be any less effective than the current shitshow

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe. I'm a bit sceptical. The Chartists lived in quite a different world where large-scale campaigning wasn't really a thing. In the US, the House of Reps is every two years and they're campaigning a lot. Every year and it would be constant campaigning, no?

New Zealand has national elections every three years. Can't think of anywhere that is on a shorter cycle than that.

If you got rid of the pernicious party system matters would be better. Famously no one can serve two masters - you can't really be eg a labour mp and represent constituents as either party or electors lose out