They sure are worried about her...

Because, Rand, a political system which does not compromise is usually called a "tyranny". What you describe, with your rule of the majority, is called an ochlocracy, not a democracy.

Being able to compromise on matters shows that you're a decent human being. You don't need to compromise on everything. But, sometimes, yes, it's far better to strike a deal than being a bloody-minded oppressor. "My way or the highway" is not a stable system of government.

It seems to me that you have no clue at all of how politics actually work.

I feel like we've had this discussion before. Granted it was more polite before because it didn't involve the hostility generated by Brexit on both sides. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Because, Rand, a political system which does not compromise is usually called a "tyranny".

---

Maybe you should learn to read what was written? I already said I want compromises to happen but that they should happen before the election not after it. I wrote that I'd rather compromises are made honestly with the voters than disingenuously between career politicians with the voters cut out.

Here we have compromises but they're made before the vote. Take spending as an example, you can increase spending fast, you can avoid or reduce a deficit, or you can cut taxes. You can't do all three, a compromise has to be reached. As a party of government here is expected to enact their manifesto in full there's compromises these choices and principles have to be made early on. I voted for my party knowing that they were pledging to cut the deficit by cutting spending in unprotected areas, raising spending in certain areas, cut certain taxes and keeping stable the main taxes. This compromise was made and offered to the voters and chosen by the voters above all other compromises.

The alternative is that you get a plethora of parties promising contradictory pledges that then hobble together and "compromise" so the politicians do what they want but the voters have been cut out of the equation.

Quote:

---

What you describe, with your rule of the majority, is called an ochlocracy, not a democracy.

---

No it is not: Ochlocracy, or mob rule, is often incorrectly equated with tyranny of the majority; however, ochlocracy involves illegal action and does not necessitate a majority.

Quote:

---

Being able to compromise on matters shows that you're a decent human being. You don't need to compromise on everything. But, sometimes, yes, it's far better to strike a deal than being a bloody-minded oppressor. "My way or the highway" is not a stable system of government.

It seems to me that you have no clue at all of how politics actually work.

---

Nor is it what we have. Nor is it what I'm proposing.

Yeees, right. You're electing people for several years and expect them to be soothsayers? Right. Jesus Christ, you are one stupid son of a bitch.

Where exactly was your "compromise before elections" on the matter of Brexit?

Oh, and stop citing Wikipedia on historical or political matters. Because they themselves are not keeping that straight, by the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrann..._majority#Term

Quote:

---

A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule").

---

Just because you are rude and ignorant doesn't make you intelligent. You can call me any names you want, it doesn't make you smart.

I don't expect people to be soothsayers. We have 650 people elected as MPs whose job it is to debate and frame policies that happen in those years based on the principles they were elected upon. Manifestos deal with issues and principles that are known at the time of the election not events after it. MPs can and do rightly compromise on the issues that come up after the election, that doesn't make compromising on issues known before it justified or acceptable unless circumstances change considerably.

The Tory "compromise before election" on the matter of Brexit was quite well publicised but if you must know it is on page 72 of the Tory manifesto. The divide was that the nation was divided on whether we should be in the EU or not. Parties like the Tory party were divided rather than united on this. The compromise was to have an In/Out referendum to settle the matter. That happened on 23 June 2016 and the rest is history.

I recommend reading up on Arrow's theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow'...bility_theorem

There's no such thing as a perfectly democratic system. Each has advantages and disadvantages and works better under some conditions than under others. What matters is having rules, having everyone play by those rules, and exclude as few people as possible from the political process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I feel like we've had this discussion before. Granted it was more polite before because it didn't involve the hostility generated by Brexit on both sides. . .

---

Whoa, how did you get your blind spot for the hostility on the Brexitanian side fixed? Is it a new procedure, because you never even hinted at seeing things this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I recommend reading up on Arrow's theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow'...bility_theorem

There's no such thing as a perfectly democratic system. Each has advantages and disadvantages and works better under some conditions than under others. What matters is having rules, having everyone play by those rules, and exclude as few people as possible from the political process.

---

You do realise there is only one side here claiming 'his' democratic system is infallible. I make no such claims about the Dutch system and Khen hasn't even mentioned the German one. Randblade on the other hand is pontificating about his most perfect British system whenever the subject comes up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

You do realise there is only one side here claiming 'his' democratic system is infallible. I make no such claims about the Dutch system and Khen hasn't even mentioned the German one. Randblade on the other hand is pontificating about his most perfect British system whenever the subject comes up.

---

That was aimed mostly at Rand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I recommend reading up on Arrow's theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow'...bility_theorem

There's no such thing as a perfectly democratic system. Each has advantages and disadvantages and works better under some conditions than under others. What matters is having rules, having everyone play by those rules, and exclude as few people as possible from the political process.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I recommend reading up on Arrow's theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

---

Thanks Loki. I was actually thinking of asking if computer modeling made it possible/reasonable to use a ranked-order voting system as a guide for the coalitions that parties should be making, to make it more democratic. Someone already figured out the answer was "no."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Whoa, how did you get your blind spot for the hostility on the Brexitanian side fixed? Is it a new procedure, because you never even hinted at seeing things this way.

---

I acknowledge when Rand is being sneering. Often it's provoked. Sometimes it's not. And plenty of times he's not and you (and Khend, Loki, Aimless, etc) are. Very few instances where he is and you aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

So politicians get to decide who won the election then rather than voters?

I like Government's being held to account. It sounds like a joke but "Compromise" to me is a dirty word whereby Politicians get to dumps their promises while claiming the moral high ground. Abandoning your pledges isn't compromise it is a betrayal. Just this past week there has been uproar here over a tax rise in the budget that broke one of the government's manifesto promises. Because it broke a promise the rise has been scrapped to honour the manifesto. Had we had a Coalition government this could have been wrapped up as one of your so called compromises instead.

You seek unaccountable compromises after the people have voted and are out of the way. We seek for our parties to be coalitions in themselves and for the compromises to have been formed before the election. That's why our losing party got nearly a 50% higher share of the vote than your winning one. Our winning one got nearly double the vote share that your winning one did.

I'd rather compromises are made honestly with the voters than disingenuously between career politicians with the voters cut out.

---

These compromises are subject to the exact same accountability as in the UK, being elections. If the voters feel their party did not keep their promises they will lose votes next time (see labour this election). Plus you're always free to join a party and as a member get to vote on the (public) coalition agreement before the government is sworn in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

These compromises are subject to the exact same accountability as in the UK, being elections. If the voters feel their party did not keep their promises they will lose votes next time (see labour this election). Plus you're always free to join a party and as a member get to vote on the (public) coalition agreement before the government is sworn in.

---

Yes the same happened in the UK when a coalition was formed and the Lib Dems decided as part of their coalition agreement to "compromise" on their pledge of abolishing tuition fees by tripling them from £3000 to £9000 per annum instead. The Lib Dems saw their seats at the following election reduced from 57 seats to 8 seats thank to their betrayal and our voting system.

The problem is it took five years to punish the Lib Dems for "compromising" and in the mean time there was nothing to stop or turnback the fees tripling. Unlike in the past week were a minor proposed breach of the manifesto was reversed because it would be betraying the manifesto to do that.

Considering your most popular party barely scraped one in five votes, the next popular were fascists and no other party got more than one in 8 votes I think it's safe to think your voters aren't thinking the parties are working well at keeping their promises.

This is how representative democracy works. You don't get instant punishments. In fact, countries that do allow such punishments tend to be remarkably unstable.

I never said there should be instant punishments did I? There wasn't one for the Lib Dems. I said it's better if compromises are taken seriously with the electorate and the government is elected on a serious and complete program of government.

And that works out so well right now doesn't it? A government led by a PM who didn't even get elected by her own party, having thrown overboard the concept of compromise so thoroughly that she's only following a platform promoted by an extremist minority.

It's working very well as the rejection of the manifesto breaking tax rise earlier this week has shown. Not sure what extreme policies you're talking about. Had we been in a Coalition that could have been slipped through as a so called compromise. You're just giving carte blanche to ignore any commitments Ray prove inconvenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes the same happened in the UK when a coalition was formed and the Lib Dems decided as part of their coalition agreement to "compromise" on their pledge of abolishing tuition fees by tripling them from £3000 to £9000 per annum instead. The Lib Dems saw their seats at the following election reduced from 57 seats to 8 seats thank to their betrayal and our voting system.

The problem is it took five years to punish the Lib Dems for "compromising" and in the mean time there was nothing to stop or turnback the fees tripling. Unlike in the past week were a minor proposed breach of the manifesto was reversed because it would be betraying the manifesto to do that.

Considering your most popular party barely scraped one in five votes, the next popular were fascists and no other party got more than one in 8 votes I think it's safe to think your voters aren't thinking the parties are working well at keeping their promises.

---

If your winning party doesn't do what they promised there's also no real consequence until the next election. Aside from internal party pressure (hell you can't even have early elections if I remember correctly) and that still happens here as well.

Also the voter in our system has a better chance of fine tuning his/her choice because of the wide array of parties. We even have two explicit anti-EU parties; one with fairly strong xenophobic undertones, the other more philosophically opposed to the EU as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

If your winning party doesn't do what they promised there's also no real consequence until the next election. Aside from internal party pressure (hell you can't even have early elections if I remember correctly) and that still happens here as well.

---

Under no system is there consequences before the next election but given that the manifesto of the winning party becomes the manifesto ofnthe government it carries more weight than a pre election manifesto that is binned immediately in favour of a Coalition agreement. So the pressure is Greater not to break winning promises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Also the voter in our system has a better chance of fine tuning his/her choice because of the wide array of parties. We even have two explicit anti-EU parties; one with fairly strong xenophobic undertones, the other more philosophically opposed to the EU as it is.

---

That's the problem! Your system to my eyes not only doesn't make the politicians compromise until after the election, it doesn't make the voters compromise either. Each voter can go for an extremist and uncompromising version but then the reality of the government bears little resemblance to the stances voted for.

Your system seems to me like a political version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. You get your voters to act like Veruca Salt or Augustus Gloop etc - extreme stereotypes of themselves rather than well rounded and balanced. Parties and voters are better at demanding what they want than conceding what it will cost.

And yet we somehow don't vote for extremists en masse. Weird, that.

Oh, yes, and your guys are soooooo balanced. A party like the UKIP certainly wouldn't ever come into existance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's the problem! Your system to my eyes not only doesn't make the politicians compromise until after the election, it doesn't make the voters compromise either. Each voter can go for an extremist and uncompromising version but then the reality of the government bears little resemblance to the stances voted for.

Your system seems to me like a political version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. You get your voters to act like Veruca Salt or Augustus Gloop etc - extreme stereotypes of themselves rather than well rounded and balanced. Parties and voters are better at demanding what they want than conceding what it will cost.

---

You're one election away from Corbyn being prime minister. You're just luckly he's incompetent. In a PR system, you need 51% support for extremists for extremists to take power. In your system, being the largest faction within one party (i.e. representing maybe 10% of the population) is sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

And yet we somehow don't vote for extremists en masse. Weird, that.

Oh, yes, and your guys are soooooo balanced. A party like the UKIP certainly wouldn't ever come into existance.

---

You don't?

UKIP have 1 out of 650 MPs. How many do VVD have? How many are AFD going to get?

Ours isn't the only good system at keeping them out. The French voting method does a good job too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

You're one election away from Corbyn being prime minister. You're just luckly he's incompetent. In a PR system, you need 51% support for extremists for extremists to take power. In your system, being the largest faction within one party (i.e. representing maybe 10% of the population) is sufficient.

---

There's as much chance of Corbyn being PM as there is of Geert Wilders becoming PM. It's not going to happen.

The chances of Corbyn becoming PM are much better than those of Wilders. They're not even in the same ballpark so far apart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You don't?

UKIP have 1 out of 650 MPs. How many do VVD have? How many are AFD going to get?

Ours isn't the only good system at keeping them out. The French voting method does a good job too.

---

And? The AfD is currently in the process of demolishing itself as parties like those usually do. They flare up, get some votes for a period or two and then annihilate themselves in a spectacular fashion.

That's what "no compromises, ever!" results in, after all.

And? So are UKIP whonhave peaked at 1/650th of Parliament.

The point is: Does the AfD have a meaningful say anywhere? Because if not you can fuck right off.

I'd also like to point out that your system prevents any kind of actually new (and stable) party coming up, as in: Having a meaningful say. I mean, you have what? Conservatives, Labour and the rest might as well not bother.

Does UKIP have a meaningful say anywhere? Because if not you can fuck right off.