An Elective Dictatorship?

murdera2k6

The purpose of this thread is discuss whether in the UK or America we have a Elective Dictatorship or not, it is meant to stimulate intellectual debate rather than crap we've been seeing on the forums lately.

In 1976 Lord Hailsham used the phrase 'elective dictatorship' to express his anxiety about the growth in executive power. he argued that with a flexible consititution, a majority governement could bring about fundamental changes almost at will, showing scant regard for the democratic process.

The suggestion behind the theory is that there is an imbalance in the constitution. Executive power has grown at the expense of parliamentary power. The only thing said to hold a government in check is its need to retain enough popularity to win the next election.

When a party is elected into government, it generally holds a majority in the House of Parliament (due to the FTPT voting system), this allowe the party to pass through any bills through parliament because of this majority and the whipping system. The MPs (abit like a senator but there are more of them and are elected by constituency rather than states) of the ruling party can be forced into voting on the bill in a certain way due to Party Discipline (i.e whipping system).

The whipping system is a method used by the parties to enforce party discipline. When voting MPs must follow the whip. The Chief Whip  decides what and how seriously to whip the vote. A whip is usually underlining the vote to show importance.

If one whip (underline) is issued on a vote, it means that it is not important, turn up to vote yes/no if your in the area.

If two whips are issued on a vote, it means the party wants you to turn up (you need a good excuse if you didn't), and vote yes/no.

If three whips are issued on a vote, it means you must turn up and vote yes/no otherwise you are kicked out the party. On some really important bills, people have been wheeled on a bed from the hospital just to vote!

So, a ruling party can simply whip a vote three times to pass it through, is the general principal of an Elective Dictatorship. To what extent do you think we have in America/UK or whichever coutnry you are from?

Edit - Typos and grammatical errors

baff

100%.

 

I'd like to see some sort of change to the parliamentry system where the legislative voting is done by the people and not the parliament. Ending the party system forever.

Currently what we have is pretty indistinguishable from communism where government is simply dominated by the single largest party.

 

Part of the problem is the move from a Minister of Parliament being an honourary position to a professional one. If you don't abide by the whip, you lose your job. A job that pays three times the national average, comes with many many perks and requires no qualifications or experience to get.  

 

 

If we can all vote for Leona Lewis to win Britain's Got Talent, then it is perfectly achieveable for us to all vote on the Lisbon Treaty or any other change to our laws.

There really is no call for our current system in this day and age. Time for politics in this country to recognise the primacy of the people over our leaders.

 

I can't imagine our leaders giving up their power without bloodshed any more than Charles II was willing to hand over his primacy to parliament without it.

More likely is I will leave the country for somewhere with less intrusive governing.

 

Until that day, let no member of parliament leave their palace without bodyguards. They might own the government, but they don't own the streets.

murdera2k6

Originally posted by baff


100%.
 
I'd like to see some sort of change to the parliamentry system where the legislative voting is done by the people and not the parliament. Ending the party system forever.
Currently what we have is pretty indistinguishable from communism where government is simply dominated by the single largest party.
 
If we can all vote for Leona Lewis to win Britain's Got Talent, then it is perfectly achieveable for us to all vote on the Lisbon Treaty or any other change to our laws.
There really is no call for our current system in this day and age. Time for politics in this country to recognise the primacy of the people over our leaders.
 
I can't imagine our leaders giving up their power without bloodshed any more than Charles II was willing to hand over his primacy to parliament without it.
More likely is I will leave the country for somewhere with less intrusive governing.
 
Until that day, let no member of parliament leave their palace without bodyguards. They might own the government, but they don't own the streets.

Interesting, I agree to a large extent. However lately, there has been a case of disenchantment, disillusionment and alienation of the public, especially the recent MPs expenses scandal and due to this, i think that people tend to vote on current issues and emotions rather than seeing into the future and what else the government will offer, furthermore, secondry votes (e.g. by-elections and local elections and quite often European Elections) are generally seen as a way to give the current government a kicking and in a way punish them, in this sense i think that the public would not be fit to vote on matters of the EU, what's even more scary is the lack of importance placed on the EU, EU law can override ours at any point. Personally I am against the EU, we are losing the sovereignty of out nation. Anyhow, voter turnout is at an all time low, democracies don't represent the people the represent the people who vote, so do we have a fully democratic society?

baff

I don't think it's a recent case of disenchantment. I think the furore over expenses is a zeitgeist. We are talking about chump change.

Like your appraisal of the local and European elections I believe the expense debaccle is an excuse by the public to give the politicians a good kicking. It's just served to crystalise a conclusion about politicians that everyone had already made.

 

As for voter turnout, what on earth is the point of voting? 

They are going to do what they want anyway. They represent themselves, not us. Voting just gives them a moral mandate to do what they please.

If they had a telephone vote on the EU, many many more people would vote. Lots of people don't vote on issues they don't care about (parliamentarians too). So there will always be issues lead by the people who give a shit. The doers in society rather than the passengers so to speak.

The key to voter participation is twofold in my opinion, make it easy for them to vote and make their vote actaully have a direct effect on policy.

The current system of voting has little to no discernable affect on policy. Electoral promises are ignored and you only get one vote per 12,000 laws passed. You don't even get to choose the candidate you wish to represent you only the party you prefer. So you can either waste your vote or vote one party out.

 

A key requirement to being a democracy is to rule with the consent of the people.

We don't have a democracy in this country because our leaders don't.

  

murdera2k6

Originally posted by baff


I don't think it's a recent case of disenchantment. I think the furore over expenses is a zeitgeist. We are talking about chump change.
Like your appraisal of the local and European elections I believe the expense debaccle is an excuse by the public to give the politicians a good kicking. It's just served to crystalise a conclusion about politicians that everyone had already made.
 
As for voter turnout, what on earth is the point of voting? 
They are going to do what they want anyway. They represent themselves, not us. Voting just gives them an emotional mandate to do what they please.
 
A key requirement to being a democracy is to rule with the consent of the people.
We don't have a democracy in this country because our leaders don't.
  

I agree 100%. What get's to me the most is that facist parties like the BNP will try to milk this for what it is worth and they probably will wina seat this time becuase of the proportional representation voting system.

Another question, do you think the current FPTP system is fair and representative of the people or do you think that the we should switch to PR or perhaps a hybrid like in scotland the AMS system?

baff

I don't like proportional representation.

Those parties that do, are those that will get more seats from it.

All such suggested reforms are no more than gerrymandering. The Conservatives want to lower the amount of seats in parliament. Sounds good, but the end result gives them more power. Labour wants to end hereditory peers, surprise suprise, the end result gives Labour more seats in the House of Lords.

It's just gerrymandering. I have no time for it.  

 

The problem with PR is it does not safeguard the rights of regional minorites.

Under a system of PR, because rural Norfolk has a lower populace, it has a lesser say over the ruling that people predominantly living in London will make there.

Thus the office worker will be able to tell the farmer how to farm. A mining community how to mine. A Catholic community how to practise their religion etc etc etc

Under a system of PR the power moves over to the mob. Essentially it moves to London where 40% of the nations population are.

So London fashions will get passed into law. Had this been the case in the eighties, vegetarianism would have been enforced by law.

This is one of the big problems with the EU. Popular sentiments like organic farming that are vote winners with people outside of the agricultural industry have come into law. So now we have no decent fertilisers and weedkillers and aren't allowed to exercise pest control etc. Driving food prices up and indeed contributing to a global food shortage.

Because coal mining is out of fashion in the green thinking cities across the EU, poor countries with no other viable power source will be forced to use more expensive ones at great loss to their local economies and personal wealth. Quite simply what's right for some people isn't always right for others.  

The sensebilities of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few.

If you live on the otherside of the country/continent to me, you should have no say on my local matters at all. PR gives you this. That's why most established electoral systems don't use it. It's not a new revolutionary approach to politics, it is an old and obvious one that people don't use for very good reason.

I'm not familiar with the Scottish system.

Protection of minorities is a problem issue in any voting system. Regional representation is way of addressing this.

 

 

The BNP made me laugh, on the day the expenses all got published they had a party political broadcast.

It went like this "Vote for us, we are decent people".

 

And given what else we'd seen about politicians that day, it seemed to me they were right.

Fascists will never get to be taken seriously in Europe anymore than Communists will in the U.S. It's got more to do with our history than their politics in my opinion. I'm not scared of the people voting BNP. In a democracy people should be encouraged to vote as they wish. The main parties use fear of the BNP as a whipping stick to get voters to vote for them.

It's symbolic of the way we all vote, and what's wrong with the system. We vote people out, rather than vote people in. People will vote Conservative, not because the Cnservatives are so great, but because they want Labour out. The main parties know this and are using the same logic to scare people into voting for them when they bring up the BNP.

I'd rather save my vote for a party I actually want in, rather than focusing on who I want out. To express my consent for the system rather than just "tactically" voting to express my lack of it.