DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Bad news for F1- Mosley may stay President beyond 2009

**DfrtYhyu** · 12-17-2008, 10:09 PM

Say for example we adopted your policy to the UK election process. London has a population of 15million people (metropolitan area). Wales has a population of 3 million.

Yet Wales covers nearly 12 times the area of London. Bearing this in mind, if we adopted a policy of number of votes, rather than wards, it would create a huge amount of segregation, where London would totally suck up resources, and only work in the interest of itself, leaving the rest of UK to be starved of cash. Its simply not democratic.

It IS democratic.

And yes, democracy is often ugly.

I think you misunderstand what democracy means. What I am arguing is true democracy. You are merely pointing out all the fallacies of democracy. It is an age old debate going back to ancient times. The same arguments we are debating here can be read in Plato's Republic.

Pure democracy, also known as direct democracy, is simply that: Rule by the Majority. In a pure democratic system, every member has equal votes. Yes, in this scenario, London will suck up all the resources of the UK (as many people would argue it has done).

Obviously, that is a fallacy in democracy, which means all constitutional systems have tried to balance it somewhat by creating artificial weights to be added to the votes. In America for example, the Founding Fathers decided on one purely democratic body in Congress (the House of Reps, in which states are represented based on their population) complemented by a very un-democratic body (the Senate, in which each state, no matter how big or small, has two votes).

In the Westminster style of government, democracy has been balanced by distributing electoral divisions ("seats"), which creates marginal seats, in which elections are then won or lost.

Both such balancing measures have their own faults: mainly creating safe and marginal seats and states. In the US in a presidential race, because it is not direct democracy (a simple majority vote) but a system of "electoral colleges", if you live in a safe state, say NY, your vote is pretty much meaningless. Same thing applies in a Westminster system: it doesn't matter if you are a Conservative in some northern parts of UK, or a Labour member in some SE parts: if your division is not marginal, your vote simply has no value.

The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, of which I am a member, has about 700,000 members. The "Conseil Pontifical pour la Pastorale des Migrants et des Personnes en Deplacement" (Vatican's Motoring Club) has officially, 40 members. That means that in FIA's elections, members of the latter club's votes counts 17,000 times as much as my vote (and my vote probably has more weight than most Americans' votes).

This is NOT democratic.

Frankly, if you don't like democracy, and you would like to balance it so that "smaller clubs are not bullies by the bigger clubs", then that's your idea. Just because it sounds "fair" to you doesn't make it democratic. Remember, there is nothing fair in pure democracy: it's a simple rule by majority.

Moi? I'd rather stick to democracy, which as Churchill said: is the worst kind of government, except for all the other ones.

12-17-2008, 10:09 PM	#38
DfrtYhyu Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 512 Senior Member	Say for example we adopted your policy to the UK election process. London has a population of 15million people (metropolitan area). Wales has a population of 3 million. Yet Wales covers nearly 12 times the area of London. Bearing this in mind, if we adopted a policy of number of votes, rather than wards, it would create a huge amount of segregation, where London would totally suck up resources, and only work in the interest of itself, leaving the rest of UK to be starved of cash. Its simply not democratic. It IS democratic. And yes, democracy is often ugly. I think you misunderstand what democracy means. What I am arguing is true democracy. You are merely pointing out all the fallacies of democracy. It is an age old debate going back to ancient times. The same arguments we are debating here can be read in Plato's Republic. Pure democracy, also known as direct democracy, is simply that: Rule by the Majority. In a pure democratic system, every member has equal votes. Yes, in this scenario, London will suck up all the resources of the UK (as many people would argue it has done). Obviously, that is a fallacy in democracy, which means all constitutional systems have tried to balance it somewhat by creating artificial weights to be added to the votes. In America for example, the Founding Fathers decided on one purely democratic body in Congress (the House of Reps, in which states are represented based on their population) complemented by a very un-democratic body (the Senate, in which each state, no matter how big or small, has two votes). In the Westminster style of government, democracy has been balanced by distributing electoral divisions ("seats"), which creates marginal seats, in which elections are then won or lost. Both such balancing measures have their own faults: mainly creating safe and marginal seats and states. In the US in a presidential race, because it is not direct democracy (a simple majority vote) but a system of "electoral colleges", if you live in a safe state, say NY, your vote is pretty much meaningless. Same thing applies in a Westminster system: it doesn't matter if you are a Conservative in some northern parts of UK, or a Labour member in some SE parts: if your division is not marginal, your vote simply has no value. The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, of which I am a member, has about 700,000 members. The "Conseil Pontifical pour la Pastorale des Migrants et des Personnes en Deplacement" (Vatican's Motoring Club) has officially, 40 members. That means that in FIA's elections, members of the latter club's votes counts 17,000 times as much as my vote (and my vote probably has more weight than most Americans' votes). This is NOT democratic. Frankly, if you don't like democracy, and you would like to balance it so that "smaller clubs are not bullies by the bigger clubs", then that's your idea. Just because it sounds "fair" to you doesn't make it democratic. Remember, there is nothing fair in pure democracy: it's a simple rule by majority. Moi? I'd rather stick to democracy, which as Churchill said: is the worst kind of government, except for all the other ones.
	Quote