politics

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
scottie
Offline
Joined: 26-01-08
Jan 26 2008 21:11
politics

Can political violence be justified in a democratic society

scottie
Offline
Joined: 26-01-08
Jan 26 2008 21:13

Personally i think it can be justified if the political leaders don't listen to what the people that elected them want

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 26 2008 21:54

well in a truly democratic society, which is what anarchists are aiming for, then not really, no.

However in the sham 'democracy' we live in now, which is a rather unconvincing show to hide the fact that money and those who wield make all decisions at the expense of everyone else - political violence is not only justifiable, it may well be neccessary.
black bloc

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 26 2008 22:05
scottie wrote:
Personally i think it can be justified if the political leaders don't listen to what the people that elected them want

there's actually very little democratic component to political leaders tho, remarkably little.

There might be a majority for a particular party, but the decisions that party makes, and who leads it, are entirely up to them. Furthermore, the 'majority' for the party is actually simply the party which got the most votes out of all parties; so they could have only got 20% of the vote, but if all other parties got less, they have a 'majority'. This is the case now i believe, and generally always is; the combo of the 2 opposition parties generally outweighs the incumbent.

FURTHERMORE!!!

the majority is only the majority of people who VOTED, which could be sweet fuck all. We currently are seeing the lowest turnout since WW1 in england, so whoever gets in, a huge chunk of the population (- almost half?) never gave their assent to even the elections, let alone the winning party.

Then you've got the class nature of society, and it only gets better from there grin

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 27 2008 12:45
Tacks wrote:
There might be a majority for a particular party, but the decisions that party makes, and who leads it, are entirely up to them. Furthermore, the 'majority' for the party is actually simply the party which got the most votes out of all parties; so they could have only got 20% of the vote, but if all other parties got less, they have a 'majority'.

no, you can win an election with fewer votes than the other party too.

j.rogue
Offline
Joined: 8-04-07
Jan 28 2008 00:23
Steven. wrote:
Tacks wrote:
There might be a majority for a particular party, but the decisions that party makes, and who leads it, are entirely up to them. Furthermore, the 'majority' for the party is actually simply the party which got the most votes out of all parties; so they could have only got 20% of the vote, but if all other parties got less, they have a 'majority'.

no, you can win an election with fewer votes than the other party too.

In the UK? I was under the impression that it was by percentages of the vote, not "winner take all" like in the States.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 28 2008 08:36
j.rogue wrote:
In the UK? I was under the impression that it was by percentages of the vote, not "winner take all" like in the States.

Nah, it goes by whichever party wins the most seats in Parliament at a general election, in theory, this could mean that one party won more seats than any other, but actually got a minority of the votes. Don't know if it's ever actually happened.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 28 2008 09:52

Technically, ever winning party has a minority of the votes in the UK. For example, in 2005 Labour got 9 million, the Tories, 8 million, the Lib Dems nearly 6 million, etc. Taking just the three main parties, Labour got 39% of the vote. So despite being in a minority, they have the majority of seats in the Commons. Generally, though the party that gets the most votes tends to win.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 28 2008 11:04

Demo's right. It's also feasible for one party to have a majority of seats even with a smaller percentage of votes than the next biggest party - since each constituency counts as one seat, and votes for losing candidates in constituencies mean absolutely nothing - i.e. no difference between 15,000 and 0 if the other candidate gets 15,010 in terms of the end result nationally.

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 28 2008 12:24
Quote:
It's also feasible for one party to have a majority of seats even with a smaller percentage of votes than the next biggest party

I don't think this has ever actually happened though, at least not in the last 30 years. But it's theoretically possible, I think.

john
Offline
Joined: 9-07-06
Jan 28 2008 13:30
madashell wrote:
j.rogue wrote:
In the UK? I was under the impression that it was by percentages of the vote, not "winner take all" like in the States.

Nah, it goes by whichever party wins the most seats in Parliament at a general election, in theory, this could mean that one party won more seats than any other, but actually got a minority of the votes. Don't know if it's ever actually happened.

in 1951 Conservatives won the election with less votes than Labour

Tacks's picture
Tacks
Offline
Joined: 8-11-05
Jan 28 2008 14:55

so yes, its even more crrrrrrrrrrrazy than i thought.

My AS Level politics teach would be ashamed of me for forgetting that sad