sminicooper
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,148
- Likes
- 329
A 52% win from 37% of the electorate is a poor way to run a democracy.
So what do you do with those who don't want to vote? March'em down to the polling booths at gunpoint? Have a society where the electorate are so scared, that there is 100% turnout (and they will vote the right way!) – North Korea for instance? It's important that people have the right not to vote because that in itself says a lot about the people who put themselves up for power.
52% vs 37% percent is not "a poor way to run a democracy" in fact it demonstrates that democracy rules. However, a low turnout is always disappointing and the only way I can think of sensibly improving it is to provide better candidates.
It reminds me of how a quorum of about 12 members, probably, even less, could bring a whole garage out on strike and did, many times. Some garages,-- I'm talking about the old LPTB, where my father was a driver--were hotbeds for strike action.
There was nothing democratic about the London Busmen's union in the 1950/60s – indeed they were controlled by a minority of extremely active militants who abused democracy. But a lot of the minority who didn't vote against them were intimidated and of course didn't mind accepting any advantages that the union gained for them. They were the ones who allowed democracy to be subverted. I don't see how you can compare that to the EU referendum.
If a minority group gets control, watch it!
Sure, a very sensible warning. But we have a democratically elected majority government. The people who are flirting with danger are those who cannot be bothered to get off their ar$e and use their vote which so many people went to so much trouble in the past to obtain for them.
Last edited: