Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

The criteria of a democracy


  • Please log in to reply

#16
fleamailman

fleamailman

    Member 2k

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,383 posts
Could I have a few more opinions on what people should be the right voting age please, for that reason I wont add it to the list yet.

Same for compalsery voting, for or against, please.

7)serperation of church and state
6)amemdable constitution
5)Universal sufferage
4)Secret ballot
3)Freedom of press
2)A set term of office
1)Foreign observers

New: no reprasentative voting(the head of the house votes for his family and yes there are countries where it exist but we have agreed not to mention any countries by name on this thread)

Hope people continue to be interested in the fundimental of democracy, sorry if it's heavy or boring to you then.

Thanks for pointing out my spelling too.

Edited by fleamailman, 14 September 2005 - 04:08 PM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#17
HarryMay

HarryMay

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 180 posts
can governance (democracy) and the manipulation of supply and demand to reward a chosen few co-exist?Democracy is the peoples right to rebel against oppression and slavery and demand fair treatment for all regardless of race,creed or nationality.The easing of human suffering should be the main point.
  • 0

#18
fleamailman

fleamailman

    Member 2k

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,383 posts
HarryMay, if I may borrow the words of Churchill here: "Democracy is the worse form of government except for everyone else", the point here of this thread is to create a benchmark, for myself and perhaps bring this subject to the forfront of everyones attention for the duration that this thread is welcome here. I ask myself if the apparant imperfectioin of a system is an excuse to abandon it as you enfer in your post, or to improve on it by mapping out its ideals, just as Henry Dunant did when faced with the problem of "if wars can't be stoped, how then can they be run more humainly". His answers were, in his order then, the creation of the Red Cross in 1862, the founding of the Internation Committy of the Red Cross(the building in front of the UN here in Geneva, which deals with the military side of the Red Cross) and the gathering of the representatives of 15 countries to sign the first Geneva Convention in the Alabama room in Geneva's oldtown townhall in 1865, Henry Dunant was at that time a middleclass nobody form a not very important country but imagine if that fact had distracted him form the justice of his intention.... I too am a nobody but then I would love to feel that democracy is made up from the will of the nobodies.

I thought that 18 years for voting would be easier to convince the normally conservative heads of states to accept, I certainly wish this to apply to those countries were married people can vote from 21 whereas unmarried people in the same country cannot vote till 23

For compalsery voting I can see there are pros and cons and would like more 2ct form those who would care to give it some thought.

Mostly agreed list now stands as:

8)No reprasentative votes
7)Serperation of church and state
6)Amemdable constitution
5)Universal sufferage
4)Secret ballot
3)Freedom of press
2)A set term of office
1)Foreign observers


Special thanks to the posters so far and to those allowing me to thread this subject here.

Edited by fleamailman, 15 September 2005 - 12:13 AM.

  • 0

#19
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Some countries you cant vote till you are 27, and only then if you meet certain criteria. In the end in alot of countries some people arent deemed worthy enough to vote in a democracy, it raises a good question to add to the discussion. The question is when is a person intelectually capable enough to choose a person they want to lead them. Should only people who have proved themselves be able to vote say by becoming either an acedmic/professional, serving in the military or being a civil servant or even just marrying. Or should everyone vote no matter what there status in soceity, fit or unfit to do so.
  • 0

#20
fleamailman

fleamailman

    Member 2k

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,383 posts
Warriascot, that is a tricky question but I imagine if a person is deened sane, something that has often been adused by the state though, that person should have the right to vote, if only becuase it would be very hard to decide at what level or test resulf that person is qualified. A goverment could quite esially rig the test, and bar those persons it felt threatened the status quo.

New: heppus corpus(misspelt latin for where is the body)

This was the one that is I feared might be too far from democracy, but again arresting without charge by the oppersition is a well known tactick, releasing that person afterwards, etc., I use the term Heppus corpus but if someone has a clear short from expression(four words about) to use instead, please let know.

New = Heppus corpus
8)No reprasentative votes
7)Serperation of church and state
6)Amemdable constitution
5)Universal sufferage
4)Secret ballot
3)Freedom of press
2)A set term of office
1)Foreign observers


All comments welcome, this is a democracy in working then.
  • 0

#21
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
I think that as well, but some democracies done so i thought i would ask the question. Well to arrest someone you first hace to have a reasonable amount of evidence to suspect them of a crime or can prove they have indeed commited a crime, but that is not technically handled by the elected body :at least here, its handled by the judicial body a seperate independant body, and the judges dont answer to the government they technically answer to the queen. So even if they wanted to arrest someone it would have to be done in the old fashioned pay off and plant evidence way, maybe possible to get the spy chaps to do it using the terrorist laws actually now, there is much fuss going on about these terror laws they havent been abused yet but it would be a very tempting thing for a senior politician. (a nice state of affairs to have things an additional level of monarchy while seemingly redundant can protect the people from an abuse of democracy)
  • 0

#22
Octagonal

Octagonal

    Member 2k

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,528 posts
Compulsory Voting....hmmm......

Does this really achieve what it is meant to?

Well, you can have compulsory voting and all that is required is that the persons name be marked off an official list and he/she returns a ballot paper. The voter marks the ballot paper in whatever way they see fit. This does not mean that the voter would necessarily vote for any particular candidate (informal or donkey vote). In this case the particular government would be elected by a ballot of all the eligible people, but would it necessarily be a majority of all voters? Maybe not.

"O"
  • 0

#23
fleamailman

fleamailman

    Member 2k

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,383 posts
Sorry sounds a good idea but not quite clear, are you reconmending conpalsery attendence at the polling booth but not compalsery voting per say?
  • 0

#24
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
I would go for compulsary attendance myself that should cover the "but im not voting as a protest" people as well.

Although you shouldnt not vote as a protest only bad things happen when you do that, go vote for screeming lord such and the mad raving loony party but you shouldnt not vote(or equivalent to the mad loony party). just my opinion on the matter.
  • 0

#25
fleamailman

fleamailman

    Member 2k

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,383 posts
11)voting age at 18
10)complusary attendence
9)Heppus corpus
8)No reprasentative votes
7)Serperation of church and state
6)Amemdable constitution
5)Universal sufferage
4)Secret ballot
3)Freedom of press
2)A set term of office
1)Foreign observers

New: refferendum through pettition.
in short to force the government to hold a refferendum once enough signatures have been collected about something
  • 0

Advertisements


#26
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
I like that one, wouldnt mind that at all. Wish we had it here. Although the cost of it is pretty prohibitive of that kinf of thing. Unless new technology is used, the proliferation of computers and secure networking could make referendums cheap and easy in the future, i would rather not have to vote for everything some stuff yeah like the single currency when it was still in consideration(its chucked out now fortunatley) but not everything i would rather see the money spent on the national health service.
  • 0

#27
fleamailman

fleamailman

    Member 2k

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,383 posts
12)Refferendum through pettition.
11)voting age at 18
10)complusary attendence
9)Heppus corpus
8)No reprasentative votes
7)Serperation of church and state
6)Amemdable constitution
5)Universal sufferage
4)Secret ballot
3)Freedom of press
2)A set term of office
1)Foreign observers

New: first pass the post or proportional repersentation, which is better then?
  • 0

#28
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Proportional representation is working for us, obviously the PM is from the dominant party but he isnt a HoS technicaly he is the representative of the parliment. Proportional representation is a good thing as it means that the true feelings and attitude of the population is represented in appropriate strength in the parliment.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP