[fleamailman]

High, one notices that their are almost two hundred countries in the world, most are democracies, and yet while figuratively I seem to live on the doorstep of the UN, being here in Geneva, I notice too that this is a subject that there is very little dierct comunication on this subject, each country continues with the democratic political system it has, which I am not against. It's only that I thought that would it be great if people could agree upon the standard here.Something like the Geneva Convension then, only addressing those points which make up a democracy. The Geneva convension, as a peice of paper. is a shock for its simplicity both in being short and easy to read. My request here then is just to ask here people what they think are the critira for a democracy while seeing if they can do this without naming any country per say as of course most people think their country's democracy is best.

This for me is not a new project as I have already quite a long list of points but I will start with some points but please remember that there is no preference to the criteria meaning the first point is not the most important, no we are just making a list here, seeing if we can contribute without getting sidetracked into details, I will start, to give everyone as idea of what I mean.

The criteria should contain:

Universal sufferage
Secret ballot
Freedom of press
A set term of office
Foreige observers


Anyway, hope this post does not offend and is not deemed too political. Looking forward to some great posts but then again, I won't mind if no one feels that this is worth posting about.

Edited by fleamailman, 12 September 2005 - 11:52 PM.

[Advertisements]

*Is confused* o_o

[cassykins]

*Is confused* o_o

[fleamailman]

I will try to simplify then. What do you feel are the important points needed to have a justafiable democracy.

I think some of them are:

Universal sufferage
Secret ballot
Freedom of press
A set term of office
Foreige observers


All I am asking, is that you add to this list those points that you feel missing.

[Perhaps then, I should have just written this as my first post, oh and sorry about the spelling which I don't care about]

[Justin]

Just a question for you.

How free do you believe the press should be? Should they be allowed to post false information? Or information relating the National Security?

Other than that, I think your list is pretty good.

PS - From a moderator point, im watching this post carefully, so keep it as clean as you possibly can .

[ScHwErV]

Let me take a crack at this.

I think freedom of the press is bloated and grossly abused.

I think the press should be held to the same standards as everyone else. If you report something that is wrong, then thats slander, and were sending you to jail. If you didnt have the right information, then you should check your sources better.

If you want to run into a war zone, then feel free to do so, but you take your life into your own hands.

I also believe that if you spin news or cannot report in a factual way, then you are also guilty of something and you should be taken to jail. The news should not be about one stations political agenda or bias. Keep it factual, or keep it off my tv.

ScHwErV

[fleamailman]

So although we all agree that the freedom of the press is a fundermental point on the list, it is hard to define, shall we come back to this point later, perhaps in a post of its own soon as it, like some of the other points I have in mind are hot potatoos believe me. Now, I have quite a few others and will share promise, but lets let everyone contribute here as I am sure there are also quite a few that I have overlooked.

One small thing I repeat here, is please do not mention any country my name, nor the person that runs that country, or this post will become sidetraced which would be a pity I think.

Edited by fleamailman, 13 September 2005 - 10:50 AM.

[warriorscot]

Yeah democracy is a tricky thing its possible to be to free and that then encroaches other peoples freedoms but theres nothing you can do especially if you have a set in stone constitution. I am quite happy with my current level of democracy and freedom we are developing a nice threee party system which gives plenty of balance to decisions they have to talk to each other one party cant push a policy through. Thats another thing as well i want to bring up should people be MADE to vote, i think they should that way everyone has a voice and if they have to use it it means the population as a whole is fully represented, not just those with enough time to do so.

[admin]

I would say any government of the people, chosen by free and open elections.

The others may be ideals of open society, but aren't essential for a democracy. Democracies work because it's the voice of the people deciding policy, and governing their actions. It's adaptable to change, but can repress the minority.

I would like to think this site is run mostly as democracy (except election of the site admin ), and that's one of the secrets to its success.

[fleamailman]

Great posts,good point Worriorscot, so to recap should we now add one more to the list bellow? Being;

New = Compalsery voting
Universal sufferage
Secret ballot
Freedom of press
A set term of office
Foreige observers

Anyone against the new one, if so lets know why. If we are all agreed here, lets think up other points.

Chorus: One small thing I repeat here, is please do not mention any country my name, nor the person that runs that country, or this post will become sidetraced which would be a pity I think.

[warriorscot]

Well i like adaptable constitution when you say this is the constitution no exceptions you are asking for trouble, things like firearms, we banned them and so had to make an amendment to our constitution to the same way. There is disadvantages to democracies as well, its very possible to have a leader elected not of the liking of the majority of the nation, i still like democracy but its not essential to live a happy and free life.


Although in this day and age we could have more balots as the glories that is technology would allow important issues to be voted on more regularly. As policies arent decided by the people they are decided by the governmemt they dont have to do what the people want all the time, its only at election time they give you what you want the rest of the time its there best interests or the interests of the rich, the rest of the time they do just enough to keep most people happy without starting some kind of unrest.

I am not a fan of amalgamating into large countries with large single governments, we got devoloution a few years ago and its done us nothing but good (well alot of money on a parliment that while a nice building just doesnt go.) We decide on the issues that affect us most and it means we arent affected by things that arent to do with us and vice versa, we are still overall governed by the big parliment but we get alot of leeway for the stuff we want to do(helps cause we have less toffs up here so we chucked the whole bias towards private education at uni thing(YAY for me, i got into a uni i wouldnt have twenty years ago). I dont like the idea of a superstate it makes a little sense but as citzeins we get the short end of the stick in a deal like that.

[fleamailman]

New = amemdable constitution
6)Compalsery voting
5)Universal sufferage
4)Secret ballot
3)Freedom of press
2)A set term of office
1)Foreige observers

What then should be the minimum voting age?

Chorus: One small thing I repeat here, is please do not mention any country my name, nor the person that runs that country, or this post will become sidetraced which would be a pity I think. The points are numbered but to make it easy for you to reply, those numbers do not reflect an order in importance.

[fleamailman]

First hot potato.... , should I add to the list: the serperation of church and state?

8) voting age from 18 year old.
7) amemdable constitution
6)Compalsery voting
5)Universal sufferage
4)Secret ballot
3)Freedom of press
2)A set term of office
1)Foreige observers

[warriorscot]

I would say 16 for voting if the state thinks you are old enough to have sex and get married then you should be able to vote. Im all for the seperation of the church and state because otherwise it wouldnt be a government of the people i have yet to hear of a country where everyone is of the same religion well, some claim to have the same eg. communist ones they have no religion but it doesnt work in practice as some people always have some kind of a religion of some form.

By the way its youve spelt foreign wrong.

[Guse]

I've gotta dissent with compulsary voting. Part of having a "Free" society is that people have the ability to make their own choices. If they choose not to vote, be it from laziness, apathy or protest they should possess the ability to not vote.

Also, as someone who was once 16 (and "old" for my age) I'll say that 16 is too young to vote. Too many rash/ill-thought-out decisions to really be trusted with deciding a leader. 18 is a good age for that.

[warriorscot]

I dont know at 18 im alot less reliable and sensible than i was at 16, although i have more of a life now than i did then: maybe they should just skip the teens and start at twenty? Well you should have to attend voting i would say that way you can abstane from voting but anyone who should vote will do it if they are there. Also there are certain responsibilities or duties that comes with being a citizein of a democratic nation, one of them is voting.