Even were such a system possible, which it presently isn't....
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.
It might be preferred to have smart people making decisions even if there are some conflicts of interest between them and the people they make the decisions on behalf of rather than have half of the people making decisions be below average intelligence or have below average knowledge of the subject at hand.
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* )
Do I want the economy run in the way that the 'average person' would? Hell no.
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.
If America tried it, creationism would probably be being taught in very little time.
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!
I think it might be easier to use science to try and learn how to align the interests of the decision makers more closely with the interests of those affected, to figure out why humans - even experts - make immoral decisions and how the frequency or magnitude of those decisions might be minimised. The alternative is to try and educate the public up to the level where the difference between the average person and an expert is negligible.
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.
Legend writes:
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?
Not necessarily, no. Either system can produce unfair outcomes. Do we want selfish educated people deciding the unfair outcomes, or everyone at once? Greater London could command 1/9 of the vote! Is that fair? Kind of. But also not. When it comes to taxation, is it fair that the people of say 8 cities get 1/5 of the vote as to how much people in say Truro should pay towards road or fuel tax? Well sort of, but sort of not. Fairness is kind of difficult to pin down really.
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.
To be fair though, what else can the Conservatives do, but talk?
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.
As far as the points you raise, Labour doesn't have a great deal to say. Their main pertinent point is that they say they will increase the autonomy of local governments.
The thing is, after all these years I don't believe anything Labour say anyway.
I guess the Lib Dems biggest pertinent thing is the single transferable vote, which you may think gives the people an increase in representation in parliament.
A very small step in the right direction.
The Conservatives say they will make any petition that secures 100k signatures will be put to parliament for debate and for bills to spend some time 'paused' in process to give time for the public to read and discuss them
A big step in the right direction
if it comes to fruition.
Of those ideas, aside from your confidence whether they will be implemented poorly or at all, which do you think puts more power in the hands of the people? It's just that - if you want the kind of ends that you talk about...you probably won't get it in one single stroke. You have to work slowly towards it. Do you think any of the ideas here might give the people enough power to take the next step in a true democracy?
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"
™ Version 4.2