I lay back
You can never return
I can never say I'm sorry
You can never forgive me
I buried your broken life
Drained it with an anabashed mind
Only know realising
That your dove white skin
Your raven black hair
Are now no more than dirt
Meat for the earth
A broken artifact of a god's perfect hands
Lies shattered among the worms
I made you believe I was only there for me
My callous heart froze you
The sun fades with your light
I run from you
As you did from me
And the world forgets you
But the demons remain
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Democracy
Democracy, wow. The best thing ever. Where would we be without democracy? Probably all slaves to the evil despotic regimes or something. Democracy is so good that we will enforce it on other countries (Iraq 2003, Germany after World War I etc). Oh the irony...
We all have it drilled into our heads that Democracy is wonderful. Because we can choose who gets into power. You vote and have your say about who runs the country. Wonderful, best thing ever. And no-one contests it.
Let's just think about this for a moment. Here in the United Kingdom the rule is first past the post. The party with the most votes gets in. That's fair isn't it? The party that gets in is the most supported one. Happy days. However, once that party is in power, they have the say. Not only that, you do not have to get over 50% to get into power. With so many parties, most get in at about 40%. So basically, 40% of people get their "say" in how the country is run, and the remaining majority of 60% do not. And even then, the 40% do not choose what happens, the people that they chose do. A few people now have the control over the nation. Maybe not in tyranny, but with relative freedom. Look how many times the government does something the people do not like. By the end of their 1st or 2nd term they are usually hated. The government in the end never pleases people. George W Bush, Gordon Brown etc. This is another thing. Is the government really chosen? In most countries there are only two or three main parties. Two or three parties that stand a real chance of getting into power. The Democrats and Republicans in the USA, the Conservatives and Labour in the UK. So really, you can only "choose" who gets into power out of two or three parties. Not that many. Two views, two main policies. And usually they are both very similar to each other. So...what choice do you have? Capitalism or capitalism? You could vote for the communists or BNP of course, but let's face it, for at least the next 50 years (if they're lucky) they have no chance.
Now we get onto the business of actually choosing a party. We've already established that in a General Election you have a choice of two main parties, both pretty close in views. But at least you have a choice. Or do you? There are usually tens or maybe hundreds of millions of people living in a country. You have one vote. It's hardly going to swing it. Most people stick with one party during their lives. The people that get the deciding vote are the ones that aren't decisive on who they want. And most of the time they will go with what the general view of the government is, and after a few years in power it's generally not a positive one. So the party is voted out. They're seen as the saviours, and at first they do well. But after a few years they decline and the other party is voted in again, new and strong. And so the cycle repeats. Most governments don't last more than 2 terms. You might as well really just swap them over every few years, it won't change much. Either party is going to get in eventually. Each one adapting to the views of the people at the time, and therefore are similar, as previously mentioned.
So after all this, it seems that you don't really get to choose who gets into goverment and even less so how the country is run. You cannot know what they will do in all situations over the country.
Now, other systems. Let's start with the USA (I know they're a federation but whatever). Theirs is one of the worst. Everyone in a state votes, and the party that gets the most votes in each state wins the specified points for that state, and at the end the winner is the one with the most points. Hang on a second...one party gets chosen for 300 million people? Now I know that in individual states they have quite a lot of power but still. That one party then covers all those people. One of only two parties let's remind ourselves. And then look in closer detail. The ratio of points to population isn't exactly equal is it? An easy example, Minnesota and Wisconsin have the same amount of points for the election. However, Minnesota's population is about 5,220,393 (2008), Wisconsin's is about 5,627,967 (2008). This basically means that Wisconsin is worse off. The views of more people (about 400,000 more than Minnesota) count less than those of Minnesota. Wisconsin has a higher population but gets the same amount of points for the election as Minnesota. That's hardly fair. Even if the populations were only 1 person in difference it wouldn't be completely fair. Why is there this system? It means that the party with the most overall votes doesn't always get in. A famous example. 2000, George W Bush versus Al Gore. George W Bush gets 50,456,002 of the popular vote, Al Gore gets 50,999,897. George W Bush gets into power with and electoral vote of 271 and Al Gore has 266, even though he got less votes. Even then, it was close. Just over 50% of the voters have now chosen a party for the 100% of the nation. Let's also point out that only just over 1 in 3 people voted. So about 1 in 6 people have voted for the party that now have control over everyone. And that is another thing, if not a lot of people vote, then the democratic process is pointless. I have heard this said before, a vital flaw in democracy. See all the adverts telling people to go out and vote? To preserve their precious democracy. People are press-ganged into voting for this reason. So all in all, democracy isn't as great as its' hyped up to be.
Last of all, a type of democracy that could work. This type of democracy has the same ratio of representatives in the parliament as to the amount of votes received. Instead of the main parties getting voted in in different areas then all going into parliament so that the small parties never get a chance of getting enough votes in a single area to get into parliament, they can get in through this. Even if they get 1/200 of the votes, they can still get one person into parliament for that 1/200 people's say. So that they are not ignored. I forget the name of it, but it seemed promising. But then I realised. If 60% of the people elected hold a certain block of views (left-wing we'll say) and the other 40% a different (right-wing), it's not as if the 40% will get their way in 40% if things. That 60% will always have the majority, and therefore will usually win.
Lastly, democracy claims to give everyone a vote. People under 18 can't vote, prisoners can't vote, the royal family can't vote, people without citizenship can't vote, I'm pretty sure people with mental disabilities can't vote. Even if some of these are justified, it defeats the claim that democracy lets everyone have an equal vote.
So as far as I can seem democracy is completely flawed. You don't really get to choose who gets into power and when someone does they have the power over you. You have to obey. One block of views will get their way until the next party gets in and the cycle continues over and over.
We all have it drilled into our heads that Democracy is wonderful. Because we can choose who gets into power. You vote and have your say about who runs the country. Wonderful, best thing ever. And no-one contests it.
Let's just think about this for a moment. Here in the United Kingdom the rule is first past the post. The party with the most votes gets in. That's fair isn't it? The party that gets in is the most supported one. Happy days. However, once that party is in power, they have the say. Not only that, you do not have to get over 50% to get into power. With so many parties, most get in at about 40%. So basically, 40% of people get their "say" in how the country is run, and the remaining majority of 60% do not. And even then, the 40% do not choose what happens, the people that they chose do. A few people now have the control over the nation. Maybe not in tyranny, but with relative freedom. Look how many times the government does something the people do not like. By the end of their 1st or 2nd term they are usually hated. The government in the end never pleases people. George W Bush, Gordon Brown etc. This is another thing. Is the government really chosen? In most countries there are only two or three main parties. Two or three parties that stand a real chance of getting into power. The Democrats and Republicans in the USA, the Conservatives and Labour in the UK. So really, you can only "choose" who gets into power out of two or three parties. Not that many. Two views, two main policies. And usually they are both very similar to each other. So...what choice do you have? Capitalism or capitalism? You could vote for the communists or BNP of course, but let's face it, for at least the next 50 years (if they're lucky) they have no chance.
Now we get onto the business of actually choosing a party. We've already established that in a General Election you have a choice of two main parties, both pretty close in views. But at least you have a choice. Or do you? There are usually tens or maybe hundreds of millions of people living in a country. You have one vote. It's hardly going to swing it. Most people stick with one party during their lives. The people that get the deciding vote are the ones that aren't decisive on who they want. And most of the time they will go with what the general view of the government is, and after a few years in power it's generally not a positive one. So the party is voted out. They're seen as the saviours, and at first they do well. But after a few years they decline and the other party is voted in again, new and strong. And so the cycle repeats. Most governments don't last more than 2 terms. You might as well really just swap them over every few years, it won't change much. Either party is going to get in eventually. Each one adapting to the views of the people at the time, and therefore are similar, as previously mentioned.
So after all this, it seems that you don't really get to choose who gets into goverment and even less so how the country is run. You cannot know what they will do in all situations over the country.
Now, other systems. Let's start with the USA (I know they're a federation but whatever). Theirs is one of the worst. Everyone in a state votes, and the party that gets the most votes in each state wins the specified points for that state, and at the end the winner is the one with the most points. Hang on a second...one party gets chosen for 300 million people? Now I know that in individual states they have quite a lot of power but still. That one party then covers all those people. One of only two parties let's remind ourselves. And then look in closer detail. The ratio of points to population isn't exactly equal is it? An easy example, Minnesota and Wisconsin have the same amount of points for the election. However, Minnesota's population is about 5,220,393 (2008), Wisconsin's is about 5,627,967 (2008). This basically means that Wisconsin is worse off. The views of more people (about 400,000 more than Minnesota) count less than those of Minnesota. Wisconsin has a higher population but gets the same amount of points for the election as Minnesota. That's hardly fair. Even if the populations were only 1 person in difference it wouldn't be completely fair. Why is there this system? It means that the party with the most overall votes doesn't always get in. A famous example. 2000, George W Bush versus Al Gore. George W Bush gets 50,456,002 of the popular vote, Al Gore gets 50,999,897. George W Bush gets into power with and electoral vote of 271 and Al Gore has 266, even though he got less votes. Even then, it was close. Just over 50% of the voters have now chosen a party for the 100% of the nation. Let's also point out that only just over 1 in 3 people voted. So about 1 in 6 people have voted for the party that now have control over everyone. And that is another thing, if not a lot of people vote, then the democratic process is pointless. I have heard this said before, a vital flaw in democracy. See all the adverts telling people to go out and vote? To preserve their precious democracy. People are press-ganged into voting for this reason. So all in all, democracy isn't as great as its' hyped up to be.
Last of all, a type of democracy that could work. This type of democracy has the same ratio of representatives in the parliament as to the amount of votes received. Instead of the main parties getting voted in in different areas then all going into parliament so that the small parties never get a chance of getting enough votes in a single area to get into parliament, they can get in through this. Even if they get 1/200 of the votes, they can still get one person into parliament for that 1/200 people's say. So that they are not ignored. I forget the name of it, but it seemed promising. But then I realised. If 60% of the people elected hold a certain block of views (left-wing we'll say) and the other 40% a different (right-wing), it's not as if the 40% will get their way in 40% if things. That 60% will always have the majority, and therefore will usually win.
Lastly, democracy claims to give everyone a vote. People under 18 can't vote, prisoners can't vote, the royal family can't vote, people without citizenship can't vote, I'm pretty sure people with mental disabilities can't vote. Even if some of these are justified, it defeats the claim that democracy lets everyone have an equal vote.
So as far as I can seem democracy is completely flawed. You don't really get to choose who gets into power and when someone does they have the power over you. You have to obey. One block of views will get their way until the next party gets in and the cycle continues over and over.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)