One thing is for sure. Doing nothing will not improve the situation.

And from history: Using violence rarely improved the situation.

Then we are left with things like changing the voting system to improve at least a little bit.

This or one would believe that we are already at the best point possible and nothing can be improved at all.

And that's what I don't get: Britains have the one time chance to improve a bit and missing it. They must see it really different.

Because it won't improve a thing. Even if smaller parties do start getting more seats, their appetites for advancement will be even more voracious than the now-complacent big parties and the country will still suffer. Those that mean well will not have the mental stamina or alacrity to do what's necessary to improve things and their ideas will lack the thorough thinking through required and those who do become more successful will suffer the same corruption that power brings because they'll be desperate to hold onto those positions and all their benefits and wages which come with it.

The big 2 pretty much cover the population en-masse anyhow with the Conservatives covering the Middle & Upper Classes and the Labour Party covering the working classes (both supposedly). It'd probably be a better coalition of those 2 were forced to work together, it might not get much done but it'd certainly slow down the screwing up.

Your talking about a True Democracy there is no parties every able person in the country votes on all policies.. There is a problem it doesn't work very well. There is a reason even "Democratic" nations are actually republics

For the record I would be fine with all this... all good ideas.

The problem still is not democracy though, the problem is we do not bother to elect people who will do this.

Having only the big 2 would not be enough choice for me. It would be like an invitation for corruption because they would know after one or two periods each party swings back into administration. At least 3 would make a choice for me. But then the majority vote would mean that a party with much less than 50% of the votes can have the majority in parliament. Most of the votes would probably be wasted on candidates without a chance. That's how it is now and I think it is undemocratic. The winner (alone or in coalition) should have the majority of votes behind him.

But then many small parties and a proportional system can indeed make creating a government more difficult. It would make the whole process more democratic but could mean more instable. However, I think, that even in one party you should get internal quarreling and all of this. Shouldn't be much different from a coalition. A coalition at least would represent the majority of votes. And for those voters who cannot find themselves being represented by the big 2 parties, it would mean a huge benefit.

That's why I think it would be an improvement, although not an incredibly big one. But still not doing it seems like a deliberate step backwards for me. Those chances don't come every day.

So potentially, a benevolent dictatorship/single rule regime would benefit the people?
Interesting theory. I like it.

But of course, then the counter argument is that " power corrupts".

We need Jedi. NOW. ( Sith need not apply ).

The problem is people are inerently selfish. The same motivations which cause politicians to think of themselves would cause the majority of the country to think of themselves, only now without media watchdogs and any semblance of accountability. How much longer would desegregation, women's suffrage and a thousand other unpopular policies have taken to happen if we just let everyone vote on majority rule for policies?

On top of that you also have lack of education and understanding. Bash politicians all you like but they generally have a much greater understanding of world affairs, economics and government than the average Joe on the street. Looking at popularity polls across the decades it's easy to see how majority rule could get us into all kinds of trouble.

There is a reason democracies are representative republics, as wodmarach said.

well if it helps i voted yes lol

Any system where a democratic government does not come to give banks tax payer money because those banks played lottery on a global scale with no election in between and no punishment for anyone involved would be better than the current representative republics. And I am not talking about the USA in this case ,p.

But maybe that goes to far, its not a fault of the representative republic as such, rather its a fault of implementation by humans and their infinite moral corruptibility.

Still you got a point, a true "mob rule" would be even more dangerous... But the question is really, whom is that representative republic representing. Because my gov sure as hell ain't representing me nor is it doing what I voted for (and what they promised they'd do). If you are informed about German politics (Nuclear exit, bank bailout) and all that, you'd understand why i don't see my gov representing anything but populism.

Bleh, this is too depressing to even think about

Look to the events in Wisconsin over the last four months to see why this is a bad idea.

For a particular example, our local state Senator is facing a recall election - essentially the same thing you're proposing. This move came as a result of one vote, though he won his first election by a comfortable margin and was reelected this past fall also with a good margin. While he does lean toward one party he certainly does not vote party-line. In an area that predominantly votes one way, he represents the other viewpoint and still manages favorable reviews and a healthy swing from those who typically vote for the other party. In all, I'd call him a good custodian of our vote.

But then this one issue comes along and a single vote, cast with every intent of helping to fix a very large budget problem, puts him under the gun from a frustrated minority. His opponent is an opportunist Representative who has never run against him before, but the hoopla over this one issue finally gives her a chance to win the seat. Never mind that the incumbent already does a good job. To be fair, she adequately represents her district, as well, though I disagree with her on most stuff.

The recall process in this state does not require there to be any actual reason for a recall petition to be circulated. No laws were broken, no damage has been done, and those who voted for the bill are actually trying to improve the state's long-term financial outlook. But a temper tantrum from the bill's opponents presents the chance to remove an effective and fair leader for one single decision they disagree with. We've opened a Pandora's Box in this state; the only thing stopping a recall of all the elected officials in the Assembly and the Governor is that there is a requirement of a minimum time in office before a recall petition can be circulated.

While your intent might be good, the reality shown from this example is that the overall picture can be ignored by decisions made on one particular issue.

There was an Average Joe, from Ohio - I think he was a plumber or somesuch. ; ) He joined one of the newly-formed Tea Party groups, at which you have previously thrown derision as they attempt to do exactly what it is you're suggesting here.

All kidding aside, the Representative Republic worked as intended for a long time. What screwed it up was taxes. Political power is derived in part from the people, but it mostly comes from the ability to tax and spend. In the early days of the nation, that power was small and the individual states had a greater influence on the legislation that affected the citizenry. Eventually, Federal power grew as it flexed it's taxation and spending muscles. Now we're to the point that many have lamented in this thread - a single vote is typically washed away in the flood of a couple hundred million other votes.

If we want to bring back the power of the vote, we accomplish that in two ways that don't require fundamental changes to the voting process:

- limit Federal power and place the authority back at local levels. As an example, suppose one wants to affect some primary school issue. If this matter is dealt with at the federal level, that single vote is 1/200,000,000 or so, and the measure the person is pushing might only be favorable to the education situation in a few states. Take it down to the state level and the vote is closer to 1 in one million or 10 million. Go further to the local level and it might be one vote in a couple thousand. As a benefit, the measure that works for one district or state isn't forced upon all districts throughout the nation, whether or not it makes sense to do so.

- complete change in the taxation and spending processes. Tax money is political power, and that political power in turn allows one to create tax rules or create special spending projects that bring in more tax money or create credits that ultimately encourage various interests, public or private, to feed the reelection coffers. If we can remove the influence and favors that are wrought with changes to our ever-expanding and very confusing tax code, then we can begin to remove the influence of special interests that drive a lot of legislation.

Going back to the Wisconsin example earlier, the state faces losing federal funding of a local public transit system because the budget repair bill has changes to the union negotiation process that goes against the rules that are set in order to receive that federal funding. For one, why is this local issue in part funded at the federal level, and second, why is the federal government using the power of its own budget to hinder a state from correcting its own budget deficiencies?

Power, that's why. And it's derived from the ability of our federal government to make taxation and spending rules at the state and local levels.

I fear the only conclusion a full AGI draws about Humans is gonna be "Its a virus, kill it" ^^

But it'd be a safeguard built by humans, surely containing at least 16 serious security holes and flaws of which at least 2 are non-obvious logical contradictions which invalidate the whole thing. ;p

Heres an idea, lets code an AI that codes us an AI that codes us the safeguard for the real AGI. Mhh, that would work.. if you can ever convince an AI to code an infallible safeguard....

I am so feed up with dictators. They always think they are god greatest invention, and they promise so many things, but they never deliver. All their dictatorships runs around proving how glorious they are but never about getting something done.

http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/black_day_for_democracy_in_the_uk/post22
It's not an improvement - it would *probably* make things worse.
I can't answer for others why so many voted against it, but for me, researching the topic, and looking at the campaigns run by the politicians for and against it (to get a more balanced view of their points), led me to the conclusion it could and/or would be a fairly bad idea to vote for it.
If it's such a good system for the masses, why do only THREE countries in the whole world use it? And of those three, the Australians I've talked to about it say it's a bad system, and they want something else? (okay, maybe a half-dozen out of millions, but still.... :P ). And saying that, you could have the most perfect system in the universe to vote for government, and people would *STILL* complain about it.

At the end of the day, everybody thinks they can do it better than everyone else, and nothing really changes anyway - inertia is just toooooo great. It's been mentioned in this thread before, but power does corrupt, and even if the system had changed last week, the next lot to get in would find ways to profit from it, and corrupt it, and cronyism and exploitation and lazyness would be as rampant as before very quickly.

Exactly!
A nation needs a strong virtuous leader unbound by the common rabble to excel.

Democracy despises greatness and only rewards mediocrity.