I had a lovely big Fiskian answer there and lost it... Bah.. AnywayJohn_fi_Skye wrote:Democracy my arse. It's a sham. Typically in a UK general election, one party will win a substantial overall majority in parliament by gaining 40% of the popular vote. And to see the value of a popular vote you've only got to look at some of the dross people watch and vote for in "reality" or "talent" TV shows - especially the "celebrity" ones, in which people with little or no talent are lauded as wonderful, and votes are cast in their millions to endorse such opinions. And our media certainly aren't free: they may be free of government control, but they're very firmly under editorial control, and editors are paid by and accountable to owners.
But because democracy is thought to be "a good thing", we just get more and more and more of it. As I've posted before, we should elect two levels of representatives: one to run local services like bin collection, and one to run national services like the health service. That's all we need. Whereas I and all those morons who vote for people to be evicted from the Big Brother House, and all those morons who voted either way last year to decide whether a performing dog was the most talented Briton, get to vote for the local authority, and for the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh, and for the UK parliament in London, and for the European parliament in Brussels. Four levels! What for? So that instead of just deciding who's best at running our bin collection and our health service effectively and efficiently, we get lost in alleged debate which for some unaccountable reason requires people to split up into parties, and if you're in Party X you just of course have to oppose anything Party Y ever says. And if Party X is in power at a level which decides on the allocation of money to the level below in which Party Y is in power, the two parties can just endlessly blame each other for the fact that services aren't operating well. If we just had fewer fucking levels, we'd save politicians' salaries and expenses, as well as all the money we spend on their secretaries, civil servants, speech writers, spin doctors and all the rest. And then we'd be able to use the money we've saved, to improve the services the politicians should be running for us.
And again because democracy's such a "good thing", we have to extend it to electing mayors, and electing the individuals who oversee each police force, and if we do away with the monarchy we'll have to elect a fucking president! May I have died of alcoholic poisoning before I ever see the day!
And may all those turkeys I've been referring to vote for the best Christmas gift ever: the wholesale reduction in their own numbers! Wait a minute! What's that fat pink thing up in the sky there? It's a fucking pig!
You seem to have a twofold issue. In short the public are too stupid and the amount of voting leads to voter fatigue. The public, well, take the lowest IQ of the group and divide it by the number in said group and you have the IQ of such a group, so to speak. However while I agree that there is a lot of voter fatigue, since you point out that the simps have no issue in voting for T.V. shows, perhaps its the rigmarole involved that puts them off?
Also Drink deeply John old man, before long we'll be voting on whether the traffic lights should change. Sláinte.
