The Pitters' Place

Does democracy really exist?

I've complained in the past that Guatemala and also the U.S* voting is pointless because our systems are ruled by corporations and monopolies that finance and practically set the politics. So what you really have is an illusion of choice. Yes you do vote, but who really rules? The people who finance the party say what's in and out of the party. That's the reality of the situation. When I hear people complaining "Ohh Cuba only has one party!! That's dictatorship!!!" I go like this: Cubans might only choose from one party, we get to choose from diverse parties that in the end are essentially one. We have an illusion of freedom but we are not free. What Anita Sarkeesian said on the video I posted.

So I wonder if other countries are the same. Especially Europe or Australia, if the population actually had a say on what goes on in their countries politic-wise. And then I found this, Australian Aamer Rahman talking about the illusion of choice as a mean to control the population:



So...... are we all sheep to the corporations now? Is that what the world is?

** EDIT: Also to anyone saying "OOOOOOH LISZT WHY YOU COMPLAIN BOUT MURICA! YOU DON'T LIVE HERE!!!" Well I guess when said country has been influencing the other since the Mexican separation, I've earned my right to complain about what influences/exploits/oppresses me.

wonder if other countries are the same. Especially Europe or Australia, if the population actually had a say on what goes on in their countries politic-wise. And then I found this, Australian Aamer Rahman talking about the illusion of choice as a mean to control the population

Yeah - well I agree and disagree with the chap above. Essentially is a depressing case of different bucket, same shit when you vote. Economically, both parties, right and left have modified versions of a centralist view on how to manage the country. Social issues usually manifest quite differently between the two parties, for example, Labour would never introduce a "work for the dole" scheme, but its one of the first things that the amusingly confusingly titled "Liberals" tried to do as soon as they were voted in.

I don't think corporations have quite as influential a role on policy here as they do in the states past, liberals are more likely to pander to corporate sensibilities given, ideologically, that's how they see wealth creation happening - while Labour tends to be more about getting their pound of flesh out of corporations in order to pay for social welfare programs.

Essentially tho, they are much of a muchness altho I think its as much a symptom of pragmatism as it is anything else. In a two party system, legislation only gets passed if it passes thru the house of commons - so, any change requires that both houses agree to the change with swing voters being likely - even expected from both houses.. Its a kinda checks and balances system that ensures there are no wild policy shifts as far as possible which obviously promotes a stasis of policy.

The media is probably the most influential player in the mix. Some papers have an obvious political bias towards one party or another so that who ever has the biggest readership swings favour in one direction or another.

Having said that - one good thing that we do is televise political debate in a thing called "Question time" .. every week, parliamentary sittings are aired - live with no editing so the public can see the debate that goes on behind policy making.. It's heated and hardly shows a unified front on a range of issues from social,. international and economic so, looking at these debates you can see that both houses have radically different views on the variety of ways to handle certain issues but - the checks and balances thing keeps the results of these debates to a more moderately static middle ground compromise.

Naturally - if one party has a vast majority in both houses - change happens quickly and the real differences in policy usually come thru - but that doesn't happen often on account of how we elect the senate and the commons on different frequencies so that any public sentiment can be expressed by way of the electoral process

TL/DR - essentially, yes, there is an illusion of choice but there isn't a simple reason for this - at least here in Oz.

Switzerland.

phe_de wrote:Switzerland.

Ughhh... Fucking Switzerland. What about fucking Switzerland?

I almost went to boarding school in Switzerland.

I woulda gotten all the bitches.

Switzerland is shit, damn, imperialist, dirty country. It's A DIRTY fucking country.

But I hear there are beautiful women there.

I'm still going to bomb the shit out of it.

Nooooooo! Think of the sexy women(forget the children).

Switzerland has a direct democracy. And it works.

Cassius Clay wrote:Nooooooo! Think of the sexy women(forget the children).

There will be no mercy when the revolution comes!!!

phe_de wrote:Switzerland has a direct democracy. And it works.

I will look into it when I'm feeling better. It might work. I heard anarchy worked in Belgium too.

Democracy doesn't work because the ignorant, unwashed masses get an equal vote and they're all idiots.

Democracy is a crap solution, but its the least crap solution we've got.

The biggest problem with it aren't the politicians, it's the voters. The vast majority of them are stupid, completely self-centred, lazy and short-termist, so those that can even be bothered to vote end up electing politicians that tell them what they want to hear in easily digestible sound bites.

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:The biggest problem with it aren't the politicians, it's the voters. The vast majority of them are stupid, completely self-centred, lazy and short-termist

Except for us, of course.

Yeah... of course except for us...

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:Democracy is a crap solution, but its the least crap solution we've got.

The biggest problem with it aren't the politicians, it's the voters. The vast majority of them are stupid, completely self-centred, lazy and short-termist, so those that can even be bothered to vote end up electing politicians that tell them what they want to hear in easily digestible sound bites.

Why do you think I voted for myself in the last election?

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:Democracy is a crap solution, but its the least crap solution we've got.

The biggest problem with it aren't the politicians, it's the voters. The vast majority of them are stupid, completely self-centred, lazy and short-termist, so those that can even be bothered to vote end up electing politicians that tell them what they want to hear in easily digestible sound bites.

Why do you think I voted for myself in the last election?

Best. Idea. Ever.

Although I'm not sure how I would be as a president. I'd rather be a dictator or an emperor or something. EMPRESS... I mean Empress.

The solution is to stop pondering. Pondering never helped anyone.

What makes you think that? I will ponder the hell out of the system.

Also, I read the J-man's house of commons thing. It's a nice idea. I'll learn about gimme-your-dirty-money-Switzerland tomorrow.