The current system persists because most people are happy enough not to complain. And the current wave of democratic backsliding is arguably caused by people becoming unhappier, and trying to fix that by voting for far-right candidates/parties.
Remember Brexit? 51% vote for one thing, suddenly the entire economic situation goes to shit, without consulting experts, union leaders, economists, diplomats, anyone. Just “yea sounds good let’s leave this shit”. That is what direct democracy is.
What representative democracy seeks to do is the exact opposite: the agonizingly slow parliamentary processes, coalition politics, political pandering, social dialogue, and general unwillingness to do anything rash is the entire point. It makes democracies stable. That’s their whole job. To provide a stable, predictable political environment in which people and businesses can thrive.
Autocracies scare businesses away because every time a ruler dies or is deposed, there is a high likelihood of deep political troubles. Even during the ruler’s lifetime, there is a higher likelihood that he will do something rash (say, invade Ukraine) and then refuse to acknowledge mistakes because an autocratic political apparatus just doesn’t tend to reward honesty. Democracies can make mistakes as well, but every election cycle gives everyone an opportunity to change direction without losing face. And the balance of powers ensures that, if a mistake is made, it probably isn’t a catastrophic one.
Now democracies can be too slow to change sometimes. They may be too meek to appropriately deal with an expansionist autocratic state (see: WWII). Some (e.g. France, the US) have “fixed” this issue by giving a lot more power and flexibility to the Executive branch of power. It’s a hard balancing act, because while the advantages to “reactivity” are obvious, it also concentrates power in a way that makes it easier for a wannabe autocrat to hijack.
Furthermore reality isn’t so black&white. There are as many democratic systems as there are democracies. Switzerland has some direct democracy. Some countries (Germany, the Netherlands) are way more parliamentary than others (the US). Lots of Democratic countries have strong social safety nets to ensure that, literally, people don’t go hungry (if your idea of a “socialist” country is Canada, know that Canada is a mere starting point for social-democracy). Voting systems greatly affect democratic outcomes (ranked choice FTW). Unions and citizen involvement makes social democracies work. Many democracies are experimenting with modern methods of citizen involvement, for instance I personally like the idea randomly selecting a diverse section of the population to study a subject, consult experts, and draft propositions to be voted on; it removes a lot of the “useless” aspects of ministerial politics.
How would you change the voting system in case of a referendum? It was the easiest possible case, for or against. There’s no advantage to voting “for” when you’re against or vice-versa. You could require a supermajority, but on which basis? Because you don’t like the outcome? Setting arbitrary thresholds would just be indirect democracy with extra steps.
Now of course the UK should get rid of FPTP in favor of another voting system, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the referendum.
My brother, gestures broadly at the world behind him i cannot fathom where you are getting this idea.
But i do agree that I’m getting very hungry
The current system persists because most people are happy enough not to complain. And the current wave of democratic backsliding is arguably caused by people becoming unhappier, and trying to fix that by voting for far-right candidates/parties.
Remember Brexit? 51% vote for one thing, suddenly the entire economic situation goes to shit, without consulting experts, union leaders, economists, diplomats, anyone. Just “yea sounds good let’s leave this shit”. That is what direct democracy is.
What representative democracy seeks to do is the exact opposite: the agonizingly slow parliamentary processes, coalition politics, political pandering, social dialogue, and general unwillingness to do anything rash is the entire point. It makes democracies stable. That’s their whole job. To provide a stable, predictable political environment in which people and businesses can thrive.
Autocracies scare businesses away because every time a ruler dies or is deposed, there is a high likelihood of deep political troubles. Even during the ruler’s lifetime, there is a higher likelihood that he will do something rash (say, invade Ukraine) and then refuse to acknowledge mistakes because an autocratic political apparatus just doesn’t tend to reward honesty. Democracies can make mistakes as well, but every election cycle gives everyone an opportunity to change direction without losing face. And the balance of powers ensures that, if a mistake is made, it probably isn’t a catastrophic one.
Now democracies can be too slow to change sometimes. They may be too meek to appropriately deal with an expansionist autocratic state (see: WWII). Some (e.g. France, the US) have “fixed” this issue by giving a lot more power and flexibility to the Executive branch of power. It’s a hard balancing act, because while the advantages to “reactivity” are obvious, it also concentrates power in a way that makes it easier for a wannabe autocrat to hijack.
Furthermore reality isn’t so black&white. There are as many democratic systems as there are democracies. Switzerland has some direct democracy. Some countries (Germany, the Netherlands) are way more parliamentary than others (the US). Lots of Democratic countries have strong social safety nets to ensure that, literally, people don’t go hungry (if your idea of a “socialist” country is Canada, know that Canada is a mere starting point for social-democracy). Voting systems greatly affect democratic outcomes (ranked choice FTW). Unions and citizen involvement makes social democracies work. Many democracies are experimenting with modern methods of citizen involvement, for instance I personally like the idea randomly selecting a diverse section of the population to study a subject, consult experts, and draft propositions to be voted on; it removes a lot of the “useless” aspects of ministerial politics.
51% rule is a symptom of the voting system, not the divide between populations.
I would wager the actual divides on topics are in much different ratios when you can vote how you like without disadvantaging yourself.
How would you change the voting system in case of a referendum? It was the easiest possible case, for or against. There’s no advantage to voting “for” when you’re against or vice-versa. You could require a supermajority, but on which basis? Because you don’t like the outcome? Setting arbitrary thresholds would just be indirect democracy with extra steps.
Now of course the UK should get rid of FPTP in favor of another voting system, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the referendum.