Democracy - One Reason Why It Doesn't Work Anymore

Democracy - there is no better system. Any other system that has a chance of working even marginally requires it to be a command system and command systems don't work out too well for most people regardless of wether it's fascist, communist, theocratic, autocratic or whatever. At least democracy evolves, 50 years ago political parties in Canada wouldn't even think of the platforms they have today, but enough people get together and push ideas forward again and again and now, for better or for worse, we have gay marriage and product liability laws.

With regards to motor vehicles and the dreaded SUV's - a recently published report stated that about 40% of vehicles in Canada were of the smaller economy type(Civics, Cavaliers), 35% were people-hauler family size minivan/wagon types, 15% were trucks and business type vehicles and the remaining 10% were specialty vehicles like fancy sports cars and SUV's. So there's not much fat to trim in those numbers, most people don't purchase more than what they need and those that can are a small number. If other forms of transport become cheaper, like trains, people will go there, but until then they're stuck with this reality.

I agree with you on the transportation issue, look at New York City, nobody owns a car. Parking is a joke and the mass transit works.

What's the matter with cities like Toronto and Vancouver ? We don't have the funding.

Meanwhile, our system has been bought out. The best example is the fight between "organized money vs. organized people." People lose because organized money will perhaps lose a battle, and then prepare years ahead for the next battle, and usually win the next time.

They have the resources, the lawyers, the lobbyists, and the "get the job done" guys.

It's tough, but in the right situation we can make some headway, the idea being don't telegraph your next move. Stay under the radar.

Small shovels can move a mountain.

I'm not giving up.


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

I assume you mean "Constitutional democracy" anon.

Democracy means "By and for the people." The system right now isn't designed to work for the people, but maybe it can be fixed. Maybe you're right. We'll see.

I think democracy is a fabulous idea. We should give it a try some time.

Just kidding. Unfortunately, Jim, I think you have described exactly what is wrong with the system and exactly why we actually have nothing approaching 'democracy'. Although, I am not convinced that democracy is necessarily what we want or what would be best for us, it is probably our best option. Democracy gave us Hitler and .... I was about to write 'Bush' but then I remembered the 'dimpled chads'!!

I think democracy is only an acceptable course and can only have an acceptable outcome if the electorate is educated. And I don't think this is any chicken-or-egg situation --- the education will have to come first. You and I (and hopefully all the readers of Vive) obviously care about our country but it is only by educating the bulk of us that we can expect democracy to flourish. And even though that democracy might sometimes give us something horrible (like Mulroney), that's an acceptable price to pay for the right of having the people's voices truly being heard.

Paul Harris

You make a good point. I, however, think that democracy's big dirty little secret is the way that people tend to vote. Nowadays, the masses vote for the "lesser of all evils" instead of the best person for the job. This is what happened in the June election, is it not? Maybe politicians have done this to themselves from lying and furthering their own aims, but this is a big problem. <p>---<br>"What is the nature of your thoughts, gentlemen?" - Pierre E. Trudeau

We shouldn't settle for what we have now just because its kind of good, sometimes. We deserve the best system possible and that would require eliminating this spectacle we live in now. Capitalism has failed us, the people, in favour of gaining power and profit for the rich elite. Socialism has failed us as well, in that it only creates minor reforms and stops itself before doing significant change. And communism, well that has never truly existed in society. There were absurd variants like Stalinism which competely contradicted the writings of Marx.

The fact of the matter is we dont have any real power right now. We are spectators, watching as the world deteriorates and as corrupt leaders, greedy corporations and propagandist media control every aspect of our lives. The only thing we have left to hope for is to unite in revolution and take what is ours: Freedom. Then, I am sure we will discover a system that can fit our need.

"<i>The best example is the fight between "organized money vs. organized people.</i>" Organized money, while it might bicker among it's many selves, has a united purpose. Organized people is an oxymoron, and organized money knows this. If we want a change, we've got to start argreeing among ourselves, if not on the details, then at least on the essence. <p>---<br>RickW

One of the main problems is the voting system. The First Past the Post voting system means powerful interests really only have to buy off the two main parties....and the voting system makes it almost certain or other of them will be the government, by itself. Yes, once every 25 years or so, we have a minority government......and most people tend to look back on them fondly as times when democracy really worked and nothing could be taken for granted. The smaller party supporting the governing party was able to moderate and help shape legislation with a - combined - wider share of interests and values in view. Then a couple of years later, the major party calculates it can win all the marbles for itself....and dispense the with the support of the minor party...and an election is called and we resume the usual one party government pattern.

It doesn't have to be that way. Proportional representation would create a situation where no one party cuold govern alone UNLESS it had the support of a clear majority of voters.

Canada has suffered for many years because one party (whichever) has been able to win a majority of seats in Parliament despite winning a good deal LESS THAN 50% of the vote.

Even worse, the voting system has meant that conservatives win the west - despite many Liberal and NDP voters living there. It has mean that the east goes to the Liberals or the Bloc....despite many conservatives living there.

Canada's apparent balkanisation and poloarization is BECAUSE of how the voting system blocks any representation for any but the largest minority in each riding.

Proportional representation would address that, too....

But even better, PR does away with the idea of a "wasted" vote. Most of know what it's like to be conservative in a safe Liberal seat...or Liberal in a safe conservative seat. Your vote doesn't elect anyone....and you must rely on voters in other ridings to elect any Mps from the party you favour. So you vote "tactically"....hoping to elect the 'lesser of two evils".

In a PR system, you don't have to think that way. You can vote for the party you WANT because they WILL win seats - provided they get at least 3% or 4% of the total vote (the threshold).

The advantage to ALL of this is that when Parliament has 7 or 8 parties - in proportion to their share of the vote - it is MUCH harder for business interests of other lobbies to buy legislation - as they can do now.

Since no one party can dictate what laws will be pased, any law will require the support of MPs from more than one party.

That may sound scary.....until you lift your eyes and lok around the world....and SEE that of the world's democratic nations, well over 80% of them use PR voting systems.

.....and these are among the most stable, well-managed, economically successful countries on earth.

Look at the countries above canada on the OECD list of rich countries: most use PR to elect their governments.

Countries with First Past the Post have been drifting down the OECD list - asa trend - for years.

Democracy didn't give Germany Hitler. Yes, Hitelr did get 40% of the vote in the last election held and he was the largest party. But the other 60% were able to keep him out of power, until his thugs began to threaten, intimidate - and kill - some of their members. In response, they tried to joinwith him to "moderate" his behaviour.....but he used the emergency powers the Allies had insisted be placed in the constitution to seize power.

So political thuggery gave us Hitler...and Democracy prevented him from taking power sooner.

Of course, had Germany had the First Past the Post vting system we use, at 40%, Hitler would probably have won a huge majority - outright - instead of being left in opposition until he effectively pummelled his way into power later on.

LL, you have made some great points about the real difference between PR and Preferential voting.

You should take some of your data and post it on Fair Vote Canada, as they are for PR, but many members still are convinced that preferential is better.

You have shown clear examples that this is not the case.

www.fairvotecanada.org



---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

Socialism has worked in Canada. Look at what Tommy Douglas did, and we`re better off for it. The problem is, the corporations and the elite ( I don`t think they should be called that) do all they can with their money and power to smash socialism. Socialism can work if people weren`t so greedy!

---
Dave Ruston

Don't be so quick to praise socialism. The two principal failures of modern social change are Stalinist "communism" and reformist "socialism". The reason is that they are merely variants of capitalism.

Yeah, true, but I just think that a Tommy Douglas brand of socialism is a good system of governing. You can`t have pure capitalism, and you can`t have pure communism. I think a mixed economy is good for all people.

---
Dave Ruston

A few pieces of legislation does not make a country socialist.