The UK Election!!!!

This election (like most others) won't matter a single bit. The so-called 'choice' consists of three main parties which advocate almost identical policies on the things that matter like public spending, crime, globalisation, the economy and the war in Afghanistan.What the British public thinks about the issues has become pretty irrelevant. The majority of the British public wants to have the railways re-nationalised. None of the three parties offers such an option. The majority of the British public wants the introduction of capital punishement for certain crimes. None of the three parties will even discuss this. The majority of the British public wants a scheduled troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. None of the three parties is prepared to set such a date.In a country that prides itself in its democratic traditions and has recently taken (along with the US) to enforcing 'democracy' upon other countries, the separation of the 'demos' from the state speaks volumes about the self-serving bunch of authoritarian hypocrites who have been running this country for ages . The massive percentage of people who abstain from voting is but a sad indictment of the failure of the republic as a system of governance for a 21st century western country. It's about time we had a change, true democracy is desperately needed otherwise we're heading for our own 1789 with a few hundred Marie-Antoinettes governing us without knowing nor caring about what this country wants and needs.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Instead you seem quite content to be under the tyranny of the minority.
At least majority rule is a much fairer system than the current minority rule. It's time for a change. Decisions taken by majority public vote aren't extreme, by definition. It seems you are the one advocating minority policies, which are therefore radical and extreme. Shame on you. Guess what? The nutjob who dribbles in the corner of the pub is already in charge of the country. He's called the 'prime minister'. Only in your blinkered head my friend. There is a real choice!
Edited by Legend, : No reason given.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I thought that would be common knowledge to anyone keeping up with public opinion, but here you are anyway: The majority of the British public wants to have the railways re-nationalised The majority of the British public wants the introduction of capital punishement for certain crimes The majority of the British public wants a scheduled troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

But that would be beside the point. The point being that they're both issues that a very significant proportion of the British public (whether it's 50 or 70 precent doesn't really matter) want addressed in a certain manner but all main parties fail to even consider. Yes it would have been more accurate. It would have also been superfluous and detracting from the point I was making. And that's *exactly* where the problem lies: in a representative republic the end-goal of the system is to get someone elected, so you have politicians pursuing 'political strategies' to get them elected instead of trying to echo the voices of the people they're supposed to represent. In a democracy, on the other hand, the end-goal of the system is to get all voices heard and to action items that the majority of the people want addressed. In a democracy, issues like the ones I've mentioned could never be brushed inder the carpet, as they currently are. Once more, you're inadvertently(?) exposing one of the the main weaknesses of the current system: politicians trying to please people and making compromises. The purpose of a 'representative' should be merely to represent the people who elected them. That means expressing all views of the people in their constituency however unpalatable they may be to him/her personally. In a true democracy there is no middle-man, no random arbiter of what should be discussed and what shouldn't, so whatever issues concern the public are being brought forward, discussed and voted on. That's why democracy is a much more efficient and fair system. Exactly. The problem is that, more often than not, the 'most important' ideas are the ones judged by the politicians as 'important' and they don't necessarily reflect what the public deems as 'important', hence issues like the ones I mention get ignored. if 70 or even 50 percent of the public have a specific and unambiguous opinion on life-or-death issues, such as the death penalty or the troop withdrawal, then taking the stance that these issues are not 'as important as...' smacks of elitism, condescension and pursuit of agendas unrelated to the main duty of rerpesentation of the public. Very true. The ancient Athenians exercised the method of ostracism to constrain the power of certain people. It uniquely offered the opportunity to the working class to remove members of the aristocracy from power without resorting to violence. There is no antithesis between democracy and checks and balances. Do not confuse ochlocracy with democracy.In any case, the bottom line remains that even a 'tyranny of the majority' is a much fairer system than the 'tyranny of the majority', don't you agree? Well, the Conservatives seem to be talking the talk about people participating in government but right now this is all it is, just talk, nothing more. Until I see definite and constant commitment and detailed plans about how this is going to be achieved, then those promises alone aren't going to persuade me to vote for them. My vote will be cast for the party/candidate who I think is likely to do the least amount of damage, unfortunately. It's a sad state of affairs but since our system chooses to totally ignore the significance of abstaining/empty vote it's the only way I can put my vote to some use. Which answers the first part of your question: the party which changes the voting system to add a 'None' option to the ballot will be seriously flirting with my vote.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I disagree. I've expanded on previous threads on how we now have the technology necessary to implement democracy for the first time in two millenia. Which is why it would be a massive incentive to provide/increase education for everyone, so that we can have educated people making educated decisions. The current system provides no such incentive, on the contrary it favours the uneducated, unthinking masses who can be easily swayed by the man with the shiny costume, friendly demeanour and nice speaking manner (*cough* Nick Clegg *cough* ) But the economy wouldn't be run a daily basis by the public, the public would make decisions in priniciple (e.g. we need stricter banking regulation, we want to reduce deficit, etc.) and they would be implemented by economic experts. Yes. That's the price you and I would pay for having democracy. We would have to put up with things we don't approve of. But guess what? We already do! Off the top of my head, war in Iraq/Afghanistan, taxes, traffic management policies, political correctness, all these are things that most people dislike but are imposed to them by the minority. The only difference is that in a democracy this 'imposition' happens by the majority on the minority, not the other way round. So you're effectively objecting to the fact that in a democracy most people would be happy and the people who would be unhappy would have less cause for complaint! That's a false dichotomy. The third (and preferrable) option would be to educate the public up to the level where they have enough understanding to appreciate the difference between demagogy and objective analysis and therefore make informed decisions of their own, i.e. elevate them above 'Sun reader' level. There is no need to make everyone an expert, just give them enough education to be able to distinguish facts from bullshit. I'm talking about fairness in the very simple sense that decisions taken on majority vote are inherently fairer than decisions taken on minority vote. I may be unhappy if a policy I disagree with is passed based on 70% of the vote but I can console myself in the fact that the majority of my fellow citizens agrees with it. I will be extremely more unhappy if a policy I disagree with is passed based on 30% of the vote (or on the vote of 600-odd people as currently happens), as -apart from the original disagreement itself- I will also strongly feel that this is an unfair imposition on me and most of my fellow citizens.Your examples are contrived to mislead . There is no reason to assume that in a democracy people will make decisions that favour short-term geographical, religious, et al affiliations. Even if that happened then people would just switch to the particular location/religion/etc that reaped the most benefits. What would happen then would be that there be no more benefits to reap as the location/religion/etc would have lost its superior status (if everyone moved to London then it would stop being the most populous city in the country and therefore having the advantage).The beauty of democracy is that it's a self-organising system: responsibility, like rewards, is a collective repercussion. We all gain or we all lose, any privileged gains/losses can only be temporary. This happens because there are no middle men to blame when things go wrong or to reap rewards when things go well. Democracy represents a change in culture, as well as political system. They could have put together a detailed plan explaining how exactly they're going to achieve their ambitions. And they could have done so long before election time so that it didn't look just like vote-bait. The thing is, after all these years I don't believe anything Labour say anyway. A very small step in the right direction. A big step in the right direction if it comes to fruition. Like I said, the Conservatives have put forward the ideas that would most effectively lead to people participation. However, their late introduction and lack of elaboration on their implementation makes the cynic in me believe that they're just trying to tease the vote out of the growing number of people in the UK concerned about authoritarianism and the loss of liberties, like me. The ideal situation would be to have a 'None of the above' options on the ballot paper, but failing that my vote will be given either to Conservatives (for their suggestions, as above) or to Plaid Cumry (good candidate and also support local issues). But it's just a case of avoiding the worse (Labour) instead of hoping for the best.May I ask what you would consider the most important issues in this election and what would sway your vote?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

So am I. The thing is, that doesn't mean that we're unable to participate in discussions, listen to opinions and make an informed decision based on what we know on the issue. The danger lies with people making decisions while lacking the necessary information or having been given misleading information. That's a negative by-product of the representative system: people delegate responsibility (and consequently 'thinking/analysing' ability) to their representatives. They do the thinking, so we don't have to. True democracy empowers people to think for themselves. In a democracy, good education for all is in everyone's interest, not just for the ruling elite. Even more than the current decision by the economic 'experts' have failed? How much more stupid are you than our current rulers?Is our current finance minister (Chancellor of the Exchequer) a financial expert? Nope, he's not not even close.Is our current Foreign Secretary an expert in foreign affairs? well.... he used to holiday in Madeira, but that's where his expertise ends!I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point: NONE of the people ruling us are either smarter than you or I, or experts in their respective fields. The fact is that most of them are career politicians who have never had a proper job in their lives! Yet you seem to think that they are somehow fitter than you to make important decisions. Care to explain why? That's just a myth propagated by people who have vested interests in the current system. So far you haven't provided a single argument to support this statement. By having to vote on "which areas will have to be cut in order to reduce the deficit". A contrived answer to a contrived question.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

If the public is as idiotic as you think then surely they shoudn't even be allowed to vote for representatives, no? How can you 'get' to them? The only way you can remotely affect them is by not voting for them at the next election. That still won't affect the millions of others who'll vote for them because of their nice smile/confident gain/whatever. That's what you get in a representative system: people vote for the representative as much (if not more) than the policies they support. A truly democratic system places the onus for decisions directly on the people. You can't hide behind your MP any more. You can't claim that 'they' got it wrong. Even if you think the majority decision is wrong the onus is on you to educate and inform the rest, not hide behind the incompetence of the ruling few. It's a system that empowers people and nurtures self-improvement, unlike our current representative republics. This applies to the people who are currently in power as much as the rest of us. If your point is that idiots/uneducated people will be in a position to make decisions then it's a moot point: they already are! So I'm not quite sure what you're complaining about. You're just contriving unrealistic hypothetical cases. Even if there ever was such a conflict it could be very easily resolved by asking the public to choose between the two conflicting options. First off, higher education levels doesn't necessarily mean higher intelligence or ability. Second, education levels are not much on their own unless accompanied by relevant real-life experience. Third, you're insinuating that your MPs are in government positions related to their academic qualifications or real-life experience. I very much doubt that and I can vouch that this isn't the case in the UK, or in many other countries for that matter. Fair enough but this is the exception rather than the rule. You've given hypothetical scenarios that could never happen in real life. No referendum can ask: "do you want to lower taxes" without giving a list of suggested methods of achieving that, or without suggesting a list of services to be correspondingly cut. You're following the argumentative approach of "If God was all-powerful he could make a rock so big he couldn't lift it, ergo God can't be all-powerful". In other words, you're just lumping together self-contradictory statements in order to create a paradox and present this as evidence that falsifies the intial premise constructed on said semantical contradiction.You seem to have an unhealthy fear of democracy but you haven't shown any good reason why it should be feared. You don't trust the people to make important decisions but you trust them to vote someone else to do it for them. I find your fear irrational and your argument contradictory.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Perhaps. Bad decisions will prevail and bad outcomes will occur. But instead of shrugging our shoulders when that happens and put it down to X politician/party's fault and then pretend to address the problem by voting for someone else at the next election we will have to look at ourselves and justify our decicions to ourselves and our fellow citizens. The only options would be to either ignore the problem and suffer the consequences or try to fix it by directly voting for appropriate measures. There is no 'lazy' option available in a democracy and that's a major advantage. err...no... if you've noticed, I don't want 'ministers' to have executive authority, only administrative one. The people decide and the 'ministers' only implement those decisions.
I don't want 'frequent referendums', I want constant polling on all matters (within reason). I don't want direct elections, I want direct decisions made by the people of this country and not their representatives. If my sexual preferences were outlawed because a tiny minority found them 'immoral' then I'd perceive this as a massive injustice, I'd be incensed and would try to overturn the situation with every means at my disposal. If, on the other hand, a massive majority voted against them then my first reaction would be to question whether I really want to live in this country. It's the answer to the age-old question "who the hell are you to tell me what to do?" If the answer is "the whole bloody country" then your complaint really becomes the untenable defence of an extremist view. Agreed. This is why our government ministers have a whole army of technical and scientific advisors to explain difficult subjects to them. The same army of advisors that would be explaining things to the public before a vote is taken. Your point? I couldn't help but chuckle when I read this. I thought you just described our current political system. Although whether most the people running this country have 'good intentions' is questionable. Recent evidence strongly suggests that their intentions are to line up their own pockets. Or -in Tony Blair's case- to also be worshipped as a liberating, benevolent deity by the heathen of the middle-east. But I'm digressing. In fact this's a very apt (albeit unwitting) allegory on our current system: The two wolves are the corporations and the ruling political elite. The lamb is the common man, the people. The lamb knows it's going to be eaten but consoles itself that at least it's allowed to vote on it! Like everything else in a democracy, the people are responsible for the results of their decisions. If you're in the minority vote and perceive that an injustice has been done then it's your responsibility to educate and make other people aware to the injustice. If the majority is already aware and still disagrees with you then you should really consider if you want to be part of a society that condones such injustices.BTW, you're making it sound as if under our current system people are more likely to be held accountable for injustices which is blatantly untrue, I hope you agree. Well, if Londoners paid no council tax, had free education and all those other wonderful advantages that you seem are likely to happen under a democracy then I put it to you that yes, people would move to London, hell I'd be down there in a flash. You mean on people participation in government? I don't know, I failed to find any pertinent suggestions in their manifesto. Which is no suprise really from a quintessentially authoritarian party.

quote:

---

Any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament.

---

It's a big step in that it forces politicians to address the issue, even if they reject it. It forces them to admit that there *is* an issue. Consider this: the petition against road pricing in 2007 gathered 1,130,000 signatures. Yet all that was achieved was a vague promise from the minister for Transport that he would 'listen to the objections'. There is currently a petition on YouGov about to break the 100,000 limit: it's against the abolition of the Childcare voucher scheme. Under the Tory plan, this would force a partliamentary debate on the issue, a debate that under the current system just won't happen. This is why it's a big step, beause government will find it a lot more difficult to sweep popular concerns under the carpet and pretend they're not there.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I couldn't read your link due to Java/scripting issues. I presume it's referring to Socrates being put to death by a democracy. How's that relevant to my point?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I don't want to get into arguing semantics but I'm talking about an (electronic) forum which is always active and covers a plethora of issues instead of a once-a-year ballot on some major issue. Heavens no, perhaps my usage of the word 'polling' was misleading; Let's call it 'direct voting' instead. Not necessarily, I'd much rather people spending their time and energy making decisions on what needs to be done instead of who's going to do it. Even if the experts were elected they still wouldn't have any executive power so any damage could be minimised (unlike in the current system). If 90% of the people decided that foot-worshiping should be illegal then yes I would! Wouldn't you? Yes of course they would have less grounds for complaint. The majority of represented officials cannot be said to equal the majority of the people. In fact it rarely does. That's why I'm so resentful of traffic policies and political correctness amongst others: because they are enforced upon me by a tiny but vocal minority. If the vast majority of the population supported these I'd still be unhappy but I'd have much less grounds for complaint. Why are you sounding incredulous at this statement? By definition, it isn't. On the other hand, it isn't the vast majority that would eliminate any resentment. But, hey, 51% of the population is about 30 million people. Which is a significantly larger figure than 646, don't you agree? If they can fully explain things to someone like John Prescott or Geoff Hoon I fail to see why they couldn't satisfactorily explain them to the majority of the population. You're either seriously underestimating the ability of joe bloggs or seriously overestimating the ability of your average cabinet minister. Is that really the type of people we want governing us? The people who manage to do well for themselves when everyone else is being shafted ?! I'm not expecting the system to work perfectly, especially not at the beginning. Mistakes will be made and adjustements will be needed. The point is that it's a self-improving system, which encourages participation, analytical thinking and increasing self-improvement. Which is a huuuuge improvement on where we are now. I naturally accept the risk. But compared to the current situation of the minority pissing on the majority, I think it's a small risk to take. You haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying: case (A) If our current government makes a wrong decision then hardly anybody pays. The government protects itself, the bigger the mistake (e.g. Iraq war) the better the protection. The people are absolved of responsibility as they didn't take the decision. Nobody pays. Case (B) a future democracy makes a wrong decision. The majority of the people (who made the decision) pay. They pay by suffering the direct consequences of their decision and also by the scorn of the minority who voted against it (the "I told you so" element). There is no hiding behind some politicans ("if I knew they were going to do that I wouldn't have voted for them"). There is no governent or MPs to blame. No scapegoats. It's just us and our decisions. That's the beauty of democracy. The entire population moving to London would make the issue of running the rest of the country totally irrelevant. London would be the country. In any case, I can't see this as a plausible scenario in a democratic state. Issues local to London would be voted on by Londoners, while nation-wide issues would be voted on by the whole nation. If the London voters, by means of their voting power gave London advantages over the rest of the country then the rest of the country -again by means of their voting power- would wrestle them back. Democracy is a wonderfully self-organising system. I never denied the potential for flaws in what I'm suggesting. I just want to make clear that it is a realistic proposition, one we should really be considering at this stage of our social evolution. The potential advantages far outweigh the risks.I'll leave you with a quote from Jesse Jackson:

quote:

---

In politics, an organized minority is a political majority.

---

Edited by Legend, : added quote

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I've already answered this in Message 152 :

quote:

---

Issues local to London would be voted on by Londoners, while nation-wide issues would be voted on by the whole nation. If the London voters, by means of their voting power gave London advantages over the rest of the country then the rest of the country -again by means of their voting power- would wrestle them back.

---

Besides, there are currently more MPs representing London than any other area, yet you're not concerned that they might conspire to privatise all education/health/whatever in London or anywhere else for that matter. What makes you think it's going to be different in a democracy?

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

We must not confuse the unfairness of an act with the 'grounds for complaint' for that act. I -and many others- find the overdraft fees charged by banks totally unfair. However, as I've accepted the terms and conditions set by the bank, I have very little ground for complaint against it. Again, let's try to not confuse the severity of an injustice with the 'grounds for complaint' for that injustice. The majority (or at least a significant percentage) of Germans at the time saw the expulsion of Jews as fair, believing Nazi propaganda that the Jews were responsible for the many ills that had befallen Germany since world war one. It was an act sanctioned by the elected government with the support, or at least tolerance, of most people. That doesn't reduce the awfulness and unfairness of their treatment in any way, but it does give less grounds for complaint than it would if, say, this act was carried out by a minority party without the approval of the people at large.Imagine, if you wish, someone being evicted from their house because their neighbour doesn't like them. Unfair? Yes. Grounds for complaint? Yes.
Now imagine the same person being evicted from their house because the whole street doesn't like them. Unfair? Yes. Grounds for complaint? Not so much. Agreed, but where numbers begin to matter is in the grounds for complaint for that unfairness. Again, you only have to look at the bank charges issue to realise why that is: let's assume we all agree that bank charges are unfair. Now, if only one bank charged those exorbitant fees and the others didn't you'd have much stronger grounds for complaint than if all of them did, as happens now. The level of unfairness doesn't depend on the number of banks but the cause for complaint does. You keep saying that but, at the same time, keep coming up with statements that look suspiciously like attempts to defend it. Which seems a bit contradictory to me. Where exactly did you do that? I agree, but simply identifying people is pretty much useless if no consequences will ensue from it. They suffer the knowledge that it was them who caused this disaster, not Tony Blair or the government. They suffer the criticism and scorn of the opposition directed towards them, not Tony Blair or the government. They have nowhere and noone to hide behind. They are accountable for their decisions. In the long term this is a good thing: accountability breeds responsibility. Only superficially: In the current system you can deflect responsibily. After all you're only responsible for electing the politicians not for what they do. In a democracy, you are responsible for your decisions. The social repercussions from having empowered, responsible citizens are enormous and probably deserve a new thread or two. Yes, it is a legitimate issue and I wasn't trying to gloss over it, I've just been trying to present a democratic system as a feasible alternative we should be aspiring to and working towards, not some utopia that can never work as you and others seem to allude to occasionally. No I don't as it would go against my libertarian principles. It would also present voting as a gifted privilege, rather than a fundamental right which I think it should be. I would vote instead for free/subsidised education available to all, ensuring that the majority of the population achieve a satisfactory level of education. I would also want an education system that places more emphasis on analytical ability rather than memorising of data. Good point. I think the voting age should be the end of the compulsory education period, if one exists. if it doesn't however, I fear we may be stuck with a pretty arbitrary number which will naturally be decided by popular vote.

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

Not quite, the grounds for complaint is a combination of many factors, including the perceived fairness of the event but also its legality, consent, breach of contract and many more. The more such boxes I can tick, the stronger my grounds for complaint become.On the bank charges occasion my grounds for complaint are diminished by the fact that it's a legal practice, exercised by all banks. It's still unfair, but my complaint doesn't hold as much water as it would if it was only my bank doing it and/or if I hadn't consented to it.Similarly, in the Jewish persecution case the grounds for complaint are diminished by the fact that the majority of the people had approved ot tolerated it. It doesn't make it fairer or easier to accept for those who suffered it but it does mean that at the time the Jews didn't have as a strong case for complaint as they would have otherwise. Agreed. In addition, their grounds for complaint could have been that the majority of the German people wanted them to stay or that the expulsion was forced by an unlawful governemnt. But these things weren't true so the grounds for complaint weren't as strong as they could have been. It's not about having nobody to complain to it's about having more arguments to back up your complaint. In addition, fairness is a subjective term. What's fair to me or you may seem unfair to everyone else and vice versus. So if you find yourself in a minority and your only grounds for complaint is unfairness, you can hopefully understand that it won't give you much leverage. Whether something's fair or not is largely dictated by how many people find it fair. We find the expulsions of German Jews unfair, yet most German people at the time didn't. Hence the complaint on the grounds of unfairness didn't quite cut it at the time. I haven't given my consent to have speed cameras installed outside my house. Yet they're there. The corner stone of every democratic system, even our current representative republic, is that the minority submits to the will of the majority, whether that is the majority of the electorate or the majority of their representantives. If that wasn't the case then I should have the right to stop obeying every law that either I or my MP didn't vote for. What you seem to be worrying about is that in a democracy this principle will inexplicably be rendered invalid or suddenly fail and express minority consent will have to be given for every decision that appears unfair to it. I really can't understand why you seem to think so, other than perhaps a misunderstanding of what true democracy is.Democracy isn't ochlocracy and it isn't mob rule. Democracy is quite literally government by the people, it's about governing to principles but cutting out the middle men. If you're not worried about minority rights being trampled in our current system then I fail to see why you would fear so under a democratic one. That's an unfounded assumption. Currently, the people have someone else to blame: the politicians, even if they voted for them the people can't be held accountable for the politicians' mistakes. In a democracy there's no one else to blame but yourself. If the majority have made a catastrophic decision then they can only blame themselves. It's a massive difference to the existing system and its consequences are far reaching on a social level. On the contrary, there is the most direct form of accountability that can be: everyone is accountable to everyone else. If the people decide so then that's what it is. Just like today's parliament can decide that four year olds should be able to vote, though that's highly unlikely. My personal vote would be for the age when formal education is over or -if that doesn't apply- 18 years old. Which is why I said that I'd support voting at the end of formal education, presuming that by then the above skills would be at a satisfactory level. On a different note, we shouldn't be thinking of what restrictions to impose on voting but on how to ensure that everyone is allowed to participate in the voting process as this is the only way democarcy can work. If people are excluded then it's not democracy, almost by definition. On the other hand idiotic voters make for idiotic decisions. That's why democracy is a system that lends itself so naturally to extending and enhancing educational standards. Agree with the first part, disagree with the second. If you start excluding the 'unfit' to vote and you only include the 'fit' ones then (i) it's not a true democracy and (ii) you lose all incentive to provide/increase education for all, as the ones that can affect decisions already have it. They can still vote. Though their lack of skills will mean that they will be unable to participate in the debate preceding voting and so they should be unable to influence votes other than their own. Absolutely. I'd like to see exam questions in an analytical style instead of just naming the articles of the treaty and the date it was signed. Make kids think about why people do things instead of only the whats and hows. I believe that in a democracy such an educational system would form a kind of vested interest in order for the system to work efficiently.

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

Yes, that could happen. Just like it can happen under the present system. You've heard of devolution, right? What you're stating is the next logical step: independence. If that doesn't cause you concern now I fail to see why it would do so under a democracy. You've failed to provide a reason why it should. It can happen under the present system as easily as under a democracy. If that doesn't worry you now, why would it worry you then? For the same reasons they do now.You seem to believe that if people get empowered enough to govern themselves they will suddenly become some sort of selfish, thoughtless zombies out only to fulfill their short-term, self-serving needs. Care to explain why?

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."

Within the limits of the constitution and whatever other checks and constraints there may be, yes that's true. Exactly the same is true of our current Parliament. So what's your problem? You would have to consider the checks and constraints imposed by the constitution or whatever other mechanism is available. Just like now. So what's your problem? No, first off it's unlikely to be just 51% as that would leave too many people opposed, second you'd have to consider the checks and constraints imposed by the constitution or whatever other mechanism will be available.Once again people: *democracy is not the same as ochlocracy!*Ancient Athens had a number of governing bodies that complemented each other, like the Courts and the Boule which served to impose some checks and balances upon each other and the people's Assembly. The main difference with modern 'democracies' was that sovereign power lied directly with the people and not some 'representatives'. That's what I'm advocating. In the Athenian democracy you'd have to convince the majority of people that excluding a region would be a good idea with no direct or indirect consequences and that if their own region became impoverished they wouldn't have just set a precedent against themselves, that's no insignificant feat right there. Then you would have to convince a court of alloted jurors (representing all regions), that this idea doesn't violate the laws of the city, i.e. in-effect a constitutional check. Come to think of it, it seems much easier to me for such an act to succeed under the present system. Your point is weak and derives from ignorance of what a democracy is. The first act of a nascent democracy would/should be to decide on a constitution. Its second act should be to set the conditions and manner in which the constitution can be changed. Every constitutional government system I know of has some mechanism for changing its constitution (look at all the US amendments). So what's your problem?Just look at the closest thing we have to a constitution: one of its main principles, the Habeas Corpus was effectively abolished in the course of a few months by simple parliamentary majority. Talking about worthless constitutions, eh?If our current state of affairs doesn't worry you, I fail to see why you'd be worried about a written constitution that can be changed as and when the people see fit. If anything you should feel much safer knowing that your future lies in the hands of millions of others instead of a few hundred ones of questionable integrity and objectives.

---

"Political correctness does not legislate tolerance; it only organizes hatred."