Call This Democracy?

[Smurf]

Firstly a pathetic 52% turnout.. Well done to all who voted. Those who didn't should IMO be ashamed.. Ok the choices are poor it can be argued but when in effect one on two don't bother their erse you really do despair.

Then out of the 52% who did bother to vote we have the winning party the SNP who took no more than a third of the actual votes who have we are told the 'Moral authority'. I know it was the same with Labour in 1999 and 2003 so it's not just sour grapes on my part.

FWIW i think the SNP do have the right to try and form an administration but what really does my head in is the bloody Liberal Democrats..

The Liberal Democrats have gone from being the Third party to being the Fourth party and it looks likely that should the SNP offer a bit of flexibility on any constitutional referendum will yet again take their place in cabinet.. Sorry but this just feckin stinks.

FWIW i reckon it will be a tactical error of the SNP to go into coalition with the Lib Dems. Much better to go it alone IMO.

Jack McConnell should do the honourable thing and resign. The Labour Party didn't perform that badly (only down 2% on 2003) but IMO should the SNP fail to form a Government then McConnell has absolutely no moral authority to be part of any 'Unionist Rainbow Alliance'.

IMO if all of this is Democracy then feck it.

[Forzahibs]

I'd vote if there was something worth voting for , empty promises just don't do it for me any more

[Dunc89]

Didn't realise the turnout was that low! How can France manage to get an 85% turnout, and we can only get just over 50%? I would've thought that with all the publicity about a close battle between the SNP/Labour and all the talk of the Union and Independence, not to mention the sunny weather, the turnout would've been pretty good.

[sKipper]

Originally Posted by Dunc89

Didn't realise the turnout was that low! How can France manage to get an 85% turnout, and we can only get just over 50%? I would've thought that with all the publicity about a close battle between the SNP/Labour and all the talk of the Union and Independence, not to mention the sunny weather, the turnout would've been pretty good.

Turnout was actually nearer to 60%. Over 5% of papers were spoiled and these are not counted in turnout figures.

[sKipper]

Originally Posted by Smurf

FWIW i think the SNP do have the right to try and form an administration but what really does my head in is the bloody Liberal Democrats..

The Liberal Democrats have gone from being the Third party to being the Fourth party and it looks likely that should the SNP offer a bit of flexibility on any constitutional referendum will yet again take their place in cabinet.. Sorry but this just feckin stinks.

FWIW i reckon it will be a tactical error of the SNP to go into coalition with the Lib Dems. Much better to go it alone IMO..

Ive said before on here, the Lib Dems can't go wrong. They could be in power for ever. If the parliament swings between Labour and the SNP, neither will likely get an overall majority now and therefore the Libs will be on hand to bolster the numbers for evermore

[gun ainm]

It seems strange to blame those who feel unable or unwilling to participate in our electoral system for the death of democracy - perhaps it is that system that should be scrutinised instead?

on re-reading it does appear that you question the sytem as well - fair enough. Any thoughts on change?

[egb_hibs]

I'm not sure Selks. If all those unwilling to participate went along and spoiled their ballot, then this argument would gain strength. However I'm unsure that voter apathy consists of much more than a general disinterest resulting from an absence of issues to feel strongly about.

I certainly do not believe that people want to play a bigger personal role in the governmental process, and I'm even more certain that many of them aren't equipped to.


More and more I'm coming to think that you and I have more in common politically than I would have once thought. However, I think that you are more optimistic than me, about the amount of other people that would share our preference for personal liberty.

[gun ainm]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

I'm not sure Selks. If all those unwilling to participate went along and spoiled their ballot, then this argument would gain strength. However I'm unsure that voter apathy consists of much more than a general disinterest resulting from an absence of issues to feel strongly about.

I certainly do not believe that people want to play a bigger personal role in the governmental process, and I'm even more certain that many of them aren't equipped to.


More and more I'm coming to think that you and I have more in common politically than I would have once thought. However, I think that you are more optimistic than me, about the amount of other people that would share our preference for personal liberty.

given the inability of 8% of the electorate to fill in the form I am perhaps becoming slightly more jaded and less optimistic but everyone says thats to be expected as i am now closer to 40 than 30

certainly i dont think that scotland is "ready" for some sort of revolution based on direct democracy and libertarian socialism, despite my seeing that as a pretty decent point to aim for....there definately preparatory work to be done. I'd be interested to look at proposals for the short term which might encourage greater participation in society by its members....

[egb_hibs]

I think the idea of 'revolution' is one that we should be parking Selks. it may seem glamorous, but it really means hurting a lot of people to make less sustainable progress than a more evolutionary approach would deliver. The closest we've had to a libertarian revolution is the thatcher years - that was possibly the most bloodless form of revolution you could get, and yet the pain it caused is still remembered and resented. Much better to aim for a reformist approach.

Secondly, IMHO one needs to decide what's closest to the heart; libertarianism or socialism, because they don't go together. Certainly not in a developed nation. In my view, libertarianism can only succeed through people's voluntary participation in autonomous institutions, including charities, churches, places of learning, private companies, cooperatives and so on. Imposing a collectivist system - and it always will be an imposition given that many people, would view the freedom to do their own thang as being indivisible from liberty - is just not libertarian. it seems to me that a better term for anarchism might be federal socialism, rather than libertarian socialism, as it's point of departure from mainstream socialism seems to be more about decentralised undemocratic governance versus centralised, rather than being about liberty?

what do you think?

ps - the above notwithstanding, i do conceed you need some limits on liberty as true liberty would be brutally darwinistic.

[gun ainm]

On the idea of revolution vs evolution I am undecided - my instincts agree with yours however I am unconvinced that those in power will allow any real shift away from the status quo willingly. I am happy to put that to one side for the moment however and agree we pursue an evolutionary approach.

you've made a philosopher's response (you're not a U2 fan by any chance? ) to my question, i am unsure that i'd agree with the supposition that libertarianism is incompatible with socialism. certainly i feel we are in agreement that socilaism in its old sense (centralist & state controlled) is a dead duck. The libertarian element i take to express the basic philosophy of decentralised power and small government in direct opposition to state socialism rather than a laissez faire, free market idiology. Anyways I am unsure as to how usefully we can analyse terms such as these, I think what i was driving at was what mechanisms might we utilise to achieve movement towards a decentralised and more participatory model...federalism might be a useful step I suppose although it doesnt really excite me I have to admit.....the smaller scale changes if numerous could come to add up perhaps these should be introduced by your autonomous groups as it would seem contradictory to expect the state to implement them

that said i do believe the state does have a duty to reflect on the consistently low participation of "citizens" in the current model - theres been alot of talk aboput moral authority and legitamacy post the SNP's "victory" however some of us have been making those noises for alot longer than that.

so 2 questions

1. what is the responsibility of the individual
2. how does the state address the democratic deficit

[egb_hibs]

My starting point of view of libertarianism is that the ultimate libertarian position - which is emphatically not desirable btw - is that no man is under any obligation or constraint other than what he decides to take upon himself. As I say, not desirable, but I do think it is desirable to find the point that gets nearest to this, whilst maintaining what I view to be a humane and civil society.

Collectivist socialism is completely incompatible with this definition, as one cannot realistically opt of it. This is completely different than saying there cannot be socialist collectives under my model; of course there can, if that is a how a group of individuals choose to proceed. However, the closest approximate economic model that suits this is capitalism as it allows that collective to co-exist with other enterprises made up of individuals who've elected to pursue other models, including hierarchical ones. However, absolute laissez faire is brutal and i reject it. Ideological purity, as you've perhaps gathered, means little to me, so this troubles me not.

Anyway, we need states to manage the minimal set of boundaries that we can get away with. And that's the challenge - staying as small as possible, blunting the edges of pure, untrammelled liberty.

anyway, i'll respond to your questions later tonight; need to have a think about them.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

However, the closest approximate economic model that suits this is capitalism as it allows that collective to co-exist with other enterprises made up of individuals who've elected to pursue other models,

Isn't what you describe there, collectivist enterprise co-existing alongside capitalism rather than within it ?

[SG7nil]

I think the folk that didn't bother to vote have to be aware that by not chosing to do so means that they have no right but to accept the will of the majority that bothered to get off their arses and do so (regardless of how small a proportion of teh electorate that may be).

I know that the lines between the parties is so blurred these days that many folk think it'll make little difference regardless who comes into power, but I've have thought with the obvious differences between the SNP and all other parties in this case that more people would have been galvanised into action.

Apathy rules right enough!

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Brian

Isn't what you describe there, collectivist enterprise co-existing alongside capitalism rather than within it ?

within, alongside... not sure there is a difference as i see capitalism as a 'non system'. if viewing it as alongside, allows for a reconciliation of my position and selks then i'm all for it

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by theselkie

so 2 questions

1. what is the responsibility of the individual
2. how does the state address the democratic deficit

okay, within the current system:

1. I think people have the obligation to vote, and this should be legally enforced, with a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

I see this as being an obligation, because society is a collective endeavour. Everyone benefits from it, and asking people to make as modest a contribution as voting, is the least that can be expected in terms of a social contract.

2. I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean by this.

I you mean that the lack of voter participation means democracy is compromised i'm not sure i agree. it might do if everybody was casting a 'none of the above' vote, although not necessarily even then.

Even in the case of the latter, given that it is a free country, then anybody can set up a party to represent their point of view if they're not happy with what's on offer. Whatever else they are or are not, the SSP, Solidarity, Scottish Christian Party, Christian People's Alliance, Had enough party, BNP, UKIP and Greens are testament to this.

But these guys never get much of a vote and I don't believe that's due to smaller marketing budgets - not in the main anyway. I think it's because what they have to offer does not appeal to people.

If most people have access to cheap credit, then they're basically happy. And that, I'm afraid is that.

There are sheep and shepherds Selks. To pretend otherwise is to delude oneself. An as long as people have the ability to self-determine which they are, it's not a situation that worries me very much.

[Smurf]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

okay, within the current system:

1. I think people have the obligation to vote, and this should be legally enforced, with a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

I see this as being an obligation, because society is a collective endeavour. Everyone benefits from it, and asking people to make as modest a contribution as voting, is the least that can be expected in terms of a social contract.

Find myself agreeing with all of the above.

[Pilrig]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

okay, within the current system:

1. I think people have the obligation to vote, and this should be legally enforced, with a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

I see this as being an obligation, because society is a collective endeavour. Everyone benefits from it, and asking people to make as modest a contribution as voting, is the least that can be expected in terms of a social contract.

Since 97 I haven't voted in a Westminster election, not through apathy but choice and political principle. So if voting becomes compulsory, as you suggest, I've to be penalised for my political stance and my choice is nullified ?

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by Pilrig

Since 97 I haven't voted in a Westminster election, not through apathy but choice and political principle. So if voting becomes compulsory, as you suggest, I've to be penalised for my political stance and my choice is nullified ?

but wouldn't voting 'none of the above' be a clearer expression of your discontent, than a non vote which is indistinguishable from being happy with whatever outcome comes along. I'm sorry, but personally I do think you have a duty of participation, extending, if necessary, to an obligation to formally register your dissatisfaction with all available options.

I know that it's usually said flippantly, but it's true; people have died to win this right.

[oo2beahibby]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

okay, within the current system:

1. I think people have the obligation to vote, and this should be legally enforced, with a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

I see this as being an obligation, because society is a collective endeavour. Everyone benefits from it, and asking people to make as modest a contribution as voting, is the least that can be expected in terms of a social contract.

Apart from the fact that what your suggesting is in itself undemocratic and no civilised government on earth would even comtemplate introducing such legislation, how on earth can you force someone to vote? What punitive measures do you suggest?

[Greenmachine]

Originally Posted by oo2beahibby

Apart from the fact that what your suggesting is in itself undemocratic and no civilised government on earth would even comtemplate introducing such legislation, how on earth can you force someone to vote? What punitive measures do you suggest?

Voting is compulsory in Australia.

[Pilrig]

Originally Posted by Greenmachine

Voting is compulsory in Australia.

And according to one of my Aussie rellies there's a campaign to make it 'uncompulsory'. With all due respect to Oz, compulsory voting is undemocratic.