In any true democracy...

[0-anthony-0]

In any true democracy the number of people who didn't vote should have an influence on the governing of the governed.

Could any Goverment that is formed be said to be representing those who didn't vote?

Are those not voting voting for no government?

[fallen-archie]

We had a chance to change the voting system yet opted to retain the status quo. To get people engaged in the democratic process we need to kick activists up the arris and shift the debate to policy as opposed to personality.
ww also need to acknowledge that some things we prefer not to discuss do require airing, political correctness is often a means to subdue argument as are issues of race or religion. Without reasonably free speech there can be no democracy.

[soppysofty]

When will we have a compulsory voting system?

They have it in Australia and it seems to work as no one party ever gains overall control so there is more debate and the laws etc. passed are a better reflection on what the people want.

Maybe it is time we had it here?

[evoman3957]

I think Death & Taxes are probably quite enough compulsory things for most people to accept, there's plenty of others that people impose upon themselves; by chosing the roads they walk..........otherwise known as responsibilities........now there's a word to debate.

[fallen-archie]

Taxes occur every day, Death is just a one off. Therefore compulsory voting, just once every four years, seems perfectly reasonable especially as it would reflect everyone's wishes which would justify our democratic process.

[evoman3957]

Admirable sentiments, in a perfect World, but how long before the process is hijacked or manipulated. As an example......what if Adolf Hitler ( mark 2 ) was to hold democratic elections, make voting compulsory and put 1 or even 2 puppet candidates up to run against Him. You'd get shot if you didn't vote and you'd be too damn intimidated to vote for either of the other 2 candidates.  So guess what " Adolf " would come out as the democratic man of the people, with 90% to 100% of the vote..............and please.......knowing people as I do.......History as I do........and the World today.....as I do.......don't tell me it couldn't happen.........even in this " Utopia " of ours.

[jd.linklater]

 I've always been in favour of a PR system of voting but as we don't have that system in place I think a compulsory vote is the next best step to ensure everyone who places a vote is represented.

Most of the objections to voting seem to be based on there being no suitable candidate in a particular constituency, in my view a spoilt paper is preferable to just not voting, at least then you are expressing your views. By refusing to vote you are not simply showing your disdain for the available candidates but you are opting out of the democratic system completely.

If you don't want to take part in democracy, what alternative system would you find preferable?  

[fallen-archie]

I Suppose if we allowed the state to deteriorate into that kind of farce it would be our own fault. If we have transparency and the kind of scrutiny essential to maintain democracy then I personally don't see a problem.

JD I agree with you, perhaps if all voters were given a tax discount compulsion would not be necessary.

[astrologica]

People died for us to have the right to vote....especially so that women can vote. Those that don't vote, they don't have the right to moan about the government. I do wonder how these people that don't vote would feel if they had a letter telling them that they don't have the right to vote...everyone else can, but not them. I suspect there would be a few then whinging about their rights.

[cee-dee]

OK, how do you define democracy? The will of the people?

Is it the will of the majority? If so, how is it different than mob rule?

A thousand people are howling "Hang him" as some bloke is proved to have killed someone and a few people are saying at it's not right to hang the bloke. The democratic "decision" is to hang him?

Turning to "The Law". If a referendum was called to vote to bring back Capital Punishment and the democratic decision by those who voted was for a return, would there be all sorts of spin put on percentages of those who didn't vote plus those who voted against in an effort to overturn the democratic decision by those who felt strongly enough to vote for a return?

Democracy, a word conjured up to be interpreted any way you like?

[fallen-archie]

Would you prefer a Plutocracy? Oh hang on that's what we have😎

[evoman3957]

No, what we have is a Puppet show; the same as everywhere else in the World. The question is whether it's just one person........or several people.......pulling the strings. Try getting away, or fighting the Puppeteer (s) and see how free you really are. " Freedom is another word for nothing left to lose ".

[bankhaunter]

In a democracy the will of the majority does not overrule the rights of the minority, though some think it does or would like it to.

[upthecreekyetagain]

There is far more to democracy than the simple following of the wishes of the majority - one of the main tenets of democracy is the rule of law and equal rights before the law.  As such a group of people calling for the execution of an individual without the due process of law would not be a democratic decision.

Whether or not a democratic decision would be open to calls for that decision to be overturned brings into play yet another of the ingredients of a democracy - the right to free speech, the right to criticise decisions made and those who made them.

[cee-dee]

Read what I said. I said proved to have killed someone?

Again, if capital punishment was to be reintroduced and someone proved beyond doubt (not reasonable doubt, that's not good enough) to have killed someone, the rule of Law would be that the bloke should be executed but there'd be a group (like there is on here) saying he shouldn't be executed.

The majority got the Law changed but those "against" would be adding those who didn't vote to those who voted agains and they'd be saying the true majority didn't vote for the Law to be changed.

[upthecreekyetagain]

I did read what you wrote - you didn't define how he had been proved to have killed someone, via legal process or otherwise - if by legal process I don't see the relevancy of the baying mob.

If proven by legal process then an execution would be perfectly democratic - not because 'a thousand people are howling "hang him"' but because the law, decided upon in a democratic way, stated that was the punishment to be applied.

Those protesting that decision would also be behaving in a democratic way by exercising their right to free speech and attempting to persuade others to their point of view.

[bankhaunter]

It was a very good thing the right to set tariffs for those given a life sentence was taken away from the Home Secretary.

It removed the danger of sentence length being determined by public demand fuelled by publicity and politics.