There are many reasons for which you can vote by proxy. I see no problem with this except for security.

The actual time it would take to go through all the security hoo ha to get be able to vote in such a way would probably be aslong as the time it would take for the lazy barstewards to get out and vote.
I'd rather not have people vote for my representatives as if it were some xfactor show.

The x-factor is a better example of democracy than Westminster, and everyone knows the phone votes are rigged.

I wouldn't think so, Westminster is a very good example of democracy:
Right to franchise is open to anyone of any race, religion, wealth and sex. There's only an age restriction of 18.
Each person elects their own representative to champion (so to speak) your constituency’s interests on the national stage.
There are many select committees with various appointees to question ministers on various issues.
All members of parliament have equal voting rights


There are places that need reforms (but like most institutions it's a task and half)
House of Lords to be fully elected by PR and down sized to 400 members
House of Lords to be given more powers on rejecting and amending legislation
A third house to be of appointed judges (much like the Supreme Court) to approve constitutional legislation
The third house to have a large function in maintaining the powers of each area of the legislative processes of parliament
Lower the voting age to 16
Move election of the House of Commons to a PR system
Get a written Constitution
The MPs in government can vote to veto the ministerial appointment of the Prime Minister
That’s what is generally nagging to be done nowadays IMO
But some of those reforms are subjective in matter and more about efficiency than democracy.
Since the lord (though unelected) has little power, since FPTP has advantages over PR (and vice versa) and is still democratic.

No they don't. They have to follow the party on many things.

When you get a bit older and understand how the world really works, you'll realise what intrinsically corrupt institutions the two houses are, we'll never have true democracy as it would potentially upset the status quo.

We'd be much off under a benign dictator (or council) then we could all get on with our lives and stop worrying about all this pretension of democracy and the associated bullsh!t, that goes with it.

As long as intelligent people continue to blindly believe in democracy in the same way children believe in Santa Claus we are all fu*ked.

I get pissed off with people like you who pull out the "one day you'll understand" line.

It's BS, and people only use it when they're clutching at straws and can't back up their point in any other way.

Show me some proof and if I think it's accurate I'll agree with you.

If you haven't got any proof then go and write a conspiracy theory. Maybe put it on YouTube or something.

Just don't start telling people "you're too young to understand" - it's condescending, patronising, and won't win you any friends.

Still have equal voting rights.
You could pick apart a lot of things based on "they have to toe the party line" which is worthy of ridicule because the public elect more often than not MPs based on party so they oublic elected parties of mps that have whips, but you'll always have them.

most the time an MP elected with a party will agree with the policy and if they are coerced into voting by party whips though they disagree usually it is on an issue which they don't hold dear. However back benchers have often voted against their party when something crosses the line. However it is the public that elects parties. You couldn't govern if every back bencher who had a minor trouble with a policy voted against the party it would cause unstable government.

Again age doesn't come into this. And if by older you mean more reactionary and bitter then I'd rather not as it is an attitude of cynicism. "True democracy" Of course never exists.
I listed several areas of reform that are necessary to bring us up to date with the rest of Europe.
You need Government whips and parties For effective governance. (otherwise government wouldn’t last a week after an election before being dissolved and going to the country again)
Media can’t be restricted because that is fascist but if you leave it free it ends up controlling government anyway.
“benign/benevolent dictator” Is about the most naive idea anyone has ever shared with me (you’re not the first) Since that’s like Bloody dictator raffle, get stuck with the wrong one you’ve got him for life. Never has an Ideal made be chuckle to myself so heartily, benevolent dictator
+1 to what nick stated.

I wasn't trying to be condescending with the age comment, it's just that the older you get the more you realise and hopefully know and understand, but perhaps younger people don't realise that.

There's nothing conspiratorial about anything I've said, you obviously can't understand my point of view because you're too young and that's not a criticism it's an observation (maybe an incorrect one) but to say my arguments aren't valid and say age isn't a factor is the really patronising bullsh!t.



Obviously you equate dictator with Hitler or Mussolini, I don't so I see nothing wrong with a benign/benevolent dictator concept provided the proper controls are in place to prevent wrong doing. If you've not read it I suggest The Republic by Plato, it has some very interesting ideas about alternative non democratic government, but then again maybe it's a waste of time for you as you're obviously not open to alternative ideas.



I'm not bitter, I'm disappointed, if you're stupid enough to believe voting will change anything that's your problem and my opinion, regardless of age.

Well In your many wise years you must have not realised that people prefer being judged on the merit of their argument not on the basis of their age.


Well you just admitted to being bitter in the sentiment of your statement and the sinew of your text.
Well if you’re learned enough to know without doubt that brown doesn’t care if he loses power at the next election then you’d be right. If every person who is dissatisfied with the government voted against them then the government is out that’s pretty good change.

Yes I’ve heard this “theory” from a girl I know, the details aren’t known to me but I do understand the framework of the Idea. Now let’s direct you to a famous quote from Winston Churchill to roughly paraphrase.

And yet another

This “idea” of a benevolent dictator is all it is an Idea, it’s not reality nor would it ever work. Who would we accept as our leader? How and where would we choose him/her? How would we deal with all the conflicting opinions of 61,000,000 people in the UK? Seriously put 20 random people in a room on 20 different subjects and I bet a tenner that not even two people agree on all 20 topics, so how do you satisfy 61,000,000. I know democracy doesn’t but at least they are always trying to win votes.
Plato wrote his works at a time when population centres such as Athens had a population size of about 250,000 out of that total the men with citizens rights were 30,000. Athens has been under dictatorship, democracy and oligarchy before Plato was born. Dictatorship is easy when you’re in a system that believes only 30,000 people should have citizen’s rights (all from a fairly similar class), the rest being women and slaves. Hell democracy is easy. Plato was writing for a system of government that he believed would be equitable over 2,357 years ago FFS.
It’s an ideal that only really works for people in the world of lord of the rings and that is the only place where a benevolent dictator exists. In reality dictatorship regardless of what they were made out to be intending only had their own interests and ego at heart.

I get the impression you haven't really digested any of my points, nor any of the stuff you just googled in the last two hours, then judiciously misquoted quoted me and it to make it look like you have.

Try thinking about what you've just read and formulating and argument based on it and your own personal (albeit limited) experience, instead of paraphrasing other peoples ideas.

Voting by SMS could be a good idea. As long as security is suitable then once a system has been set up for an election, then it would make a referendum much cheaper to do. More chance for PR.

LaptopAcid, I'd appreciate it if you attempted to explain your point rather than just label myself and Eddie as being unable to understand it due to our age.

For example, what in particular do you think is impossible to change by voting???

_______________________________

I happen to agree that in theory, the best form of government is a dictatorship where the leader is some sort of god, who is completely selfless, completely fair, and completely honest.

But we all know (and obviously LaptopAcid knows it better than any of us, thanks to his greater age) that no-body fits those criteria.

I didn't google I did classical civilisation last year and also know quite a few people who do philosophy

What I have stated is that the idea of a benevolent dictatorship just isn't practical based on several points.
I have also heard and digested that point of " voting wont change 'owt" however it does.

For example (if I were a month older) If I were to vote against my current labour constituent in favour of a liberal or Tory I would likely contribute to a Tory victory. In however small a part. So voting does make a difference. Also I would refer you to other threads in the forum that I have commented relative to economics. What party achieves a majority of MPs at the next election could mean the difference between this country achieving growth again or stagnation.

Of course democracy was easier back in Athenian times with only 1 in 5 adults having citizens rights all 30,000 could vote the rest being foreigners, women and slaves. So would dictatorship. But people require accountability to not turn into a steaming corrupt mess of tyranny.
What I would say is that such an idea of benevolent dictatorship is a pipe dream, romanticism and has rarely, nay, probably never existed outside of fairy tales and theory.
I quoted every point on your post. Everyone can read your post so you can’t be misquoted.
I did formulate an argument around your points I do history and economics FFS critical evaluation.
I barely paraphrased and It is a bit hypocritical to also say that quote other individuals reduces the validity of an argument since you stated another person’s idea IE Plato. I think that Lord Acton and Churchill summarize my beliefs on this subject and idea of benevolent dictatorship eloquently.

I believe in democracy, but the electoral system in this country is not democratic, it's heavily biased towards money. You can only vote for a limited number of candidates, consequently only one of the big parties is going to get into government because only they have the resources to field enough candidates to get a majority in parliament. Said resources (money/media coverage) are provided by from wealthy individuals or big companies who have a vested interest, a good example of this is Rupert Murdoch backing the Tories in order to have the BBC dismantled as it is big competition for News International.

As individual citizens we can't change anything all you can do is write to your MP (who you probably didn't vote for) which unless it's something trivial has no chance of succeeding, the other option is pay someone to lobby which of course unless you are BP or BAE et al is prohibitively expensive. Take bankers bonuses as an example, the massive weight of public opinion is against these people getting billions of pounds of what is effectively tax payers money, Alistair Darling has the power to stop this happening, yet he won't because the government represents the interests of big business/money rather than the people they actually should be.

I'd like to vote for the Green Party, but my area (and many others) won't have Green candidates because the Green party don't have the money to field candidates in seats they likely won't win, how's that democratic. In a truly democratic society surely anybody (of sound mind and good standing) should be able to get elected.

Given the current rotten state of this country at the minute, I think even an evil dictator would be a better option than 600 corrupt, lying, hypocrites only interested in feathering their own nests.