[martin14]

Tyranny of the minority: How the most sinister trend of our age is a poisonous conviction taking root on the Left and among the elite that ordinary people are too stupid to be trusted with voting

$1:

Back in the 18th century, political reformer Henry Fox was advocating giving the vote to more people. But only, he insisted, to what he called ‘the better sort’. Not ‘the mob or the mere dregs of the people’. Heaven forbid!

Now, in the 21st century, such derogatory sentiments about ‘the people’ are dangerously back in fashion — ever since they dared vote for Brexit in Britain, and for Donald Trump in the United States.

Questions are being asked in high places about whether ordinary voters are fit to make decisions on major issues.

As a result, democracy — the cornerstone of our way of life — is being undermined, its very survival put at risk. Its modern enemies are mustering from all corners — but most worryingly from the Left, the very area where its stoutest defenders should be.

As a long-standing person of the Left, I fear that democratic freedoms are now in danger of being abandoned as elitists in our midst attempt to restrict them.

Every serious politician and thinker declares his or her belief in democracy. Yet, in practice, they seek to separate power from the people. The mantra has become ‘I’m a democrat, of course, but …’

Over Brexit, this profoundly insidious attitude was exemplified by John Major, former Tory prime minister, who denied the referendum result was binding and declared: ‘The tyranny of the majority has never applied in a democracy.’

Some of us might naively have imagined that majority rule was the very essence of democracy. But not, it seems, when millions vote against the wishes of a tiny political elite.

It was, of course, George Orwell in his 1945 novel Animal Farm, who described how ‘All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.’

Fast-forward to today and we find many Remainers similarly convinced that anyone who voted to leave the EU is too stupid to have the vote. The response was the same in America when voters failed to elect Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s victory, one U.S. professor declared, was ‘the dance of the dunces’, the result of ‘uneducated, low-information white people’ being given the vote. He added: ‘Democracy is supposed to enact the will of the people. But what if the people have no clue what they’re doing?’

The fury against the 17.4 million UK voters who dared to back Brexit — and the 62 million Americans who had the temerity to vote for Trump — brings frightening anti-democratic poisons bubbling to the surface of our societies.

The sheer bile that erupted from political and cultural elites in Britain after the Brexit vote revealed a deep-seated contempt for the people and for democracy. The Establishment reacted as if the ground had disappeared from beneath their feet. How could this have happened?

After all, the Remain campaign had marshalled every authority in the Western world to warn that a Leave vote would lead to economic ruination, a descent into barbarism, world war and, worse, falling house prices.

The people had been told to vote Remain by leaders of all Britain’s mainstream political parties, the governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of Germany, the then President of the U.S., and every celebrity from David Beckham to Johnny Rotten.

Yet a majority of voters actually disobeyed!

In the eyes of the Establishment, the only possible explanation was that those millions were simply too ignorant, uneducated, gullible, bigoted or emotional to understand what they were being told.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z4ZgzUsEZH

[Thanos]

Trump won with 27% of the eligible vote. Clinton picked up another 27-28%. The rest didn't vote because they don't care or they don't have any interest in participating in a farce. The only thing approaching a "majority" is the vast number of voters who just can't be bothered to play this stupid game anymore.

[Freakinoldguy]

Thanos Thanos:

Trump won with 27% of the eligible vote. Clinton picked up another 27-28%. The rest didn't vote because they don't care or they don't have any interest in participating in a farce. The only thing approaching a "majority" is the vast number of voters who just can't be bothered to play this stupid game anymore.

Do you think Trump would have won if everyone who was eligible in the US had voted or by the same token, do you think Clinton would have won if everyone eligible in the US had voted?

The point I'm getting at is that, those who have enough interest in their country and it's well being at least get off their asses and participate in the democratic process so, they have a say in who leads us. They may not always agree with the result or even the choices but, given the fact that they vote they'll always have the hope of being able to effect change in the future. Something the non participants don't have which, likely explains why they always seem to be the shrillest voice of protest when they don't agree with what's being done by the people they didn't bother to vote for or against.

It's not the Clinton's, the Trump's, the Trudeau's of the world that are the biggest threat to democracy, it's those who can't be bothered to participate in the democratic process.

[Lemmy]

;

[desertdude]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

The point I'm getting at is that, those who have enough interest in their country and it's well being at least get off their asses and participate in the democratic process so, they have a say in who leads us. They may not always agree with the result or even the choices but, given the fact that they vote they'll always have the hope of being able to effect change in the future. Something the non participants don't have which, likely explains why they always seem to be the shrillest voice of protest when they don't agree with what's being done by the people they didn't bother to vote for or against.

It's not the Clinton's, the Trump's, the Trudeau's of the world that are the biggest threat to democracy, it's those who can't be bothered to participate in the democratic process.

I'd +5 you if I could. I strongly think anybody who hasn't voted doesn't have the right to be making any noise in the first place, if you are so disgruntled, go and waste your vote and register your protest but show you are not against the democratic process itself but the selection of candidates, the way the process is flawed or whatever.

[fifeboy]

desertdude desertdude:

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

The point I'm getting at is that, those who have enough interest in their country and it's well being at least get off their asses and participate in the democratic process so, they have a say in who leads us. They may not always agree with the result or even the choices but, given the fact that they vote they'll always have the hope of being able to effect change in the future. Something the non participants don't have which, likely explains why they always seem to be the shrillest voice of protest when they don't agree with what's being done by the people they didn't bother to vote for or against.

It's not the Clinton's, the Trump's, the Trudeau's of the world that are the biggest threat to democracy, it's those who can't be bothered to participate in the democratic process.

I'd +5 you if I could. I strongly think anybody who hasn't voted doesn't have the right to be making any noise in the first place, if you are so disgruntled, go and waste your vote and register your protest but show you are not against the democratic process itself but the selection of candidates, the way the process is flawed or whatever.

I've said it before and will say it again...None Of The Above should always be an option on a ballot. If NOTA gets more of the votes than anyone, a new election with NEW candidates.

[raydan]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I've said it before and will say it again...None Of The Above should always be an option on a ballot. If NOTA gets more of the votes than anyone, a new election with NEW candidates.

I like that!

+5

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

Tyranny of the minority: How the most sinister trend of our age is a poisonous conviction taking root on the Left and among the elite that ordinary people are too stupid to be trusted with voting

$1:

Back in the 18th century, political reformer Henry Fox was advocating giving the vote to more people. But only, he insisted, to what he called ‘the better sort’. Not ‘the mob or the mere dregs of the people’. Heaven forbid!

Now, in the 21st century, such derogatory sentiments about ‘the people’ are dangerously back in fashion — ever since they dared vote for Brexit in Britain, and for Donald Trump in the United States.

Questions are being asked in high places about whether ordinary voters are fit to make decisions on major issues.

As a result, democracy — the cornerstone of our way of life — is being undermined, its very survival put at risk. Its modern enemies are mustering from all corners — but most worryingly from the Left, the very area where its stoutest defenders should be.

As a long-standing person of the Left, I fear that democratic freedoms are now in danger of being abandoned as elitists in our midst attempt to restrict them.

Every serious politician and thinker declares his or her belief in democracy. Yet, in practice, they seek to separate power from the people. The mantra has become ‘I’m a democrat, of course, but …’

Over Brexit, this profoundly insidious attitude was exemplified by John Major, former Tory prime minister, who denied the referendum result was binding and declared: ‘The tyranny of the majority has never applied in a democracy.’

Some of us might naively have imagined that majority rule was the very essence of democracy. But not, it seems, when millions vote against the wishes of a tiny political elite.

It was, of course, George Orwell in his 1945 novel Animal Farm, who described how ‘All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.’

Fast-forward to today and we find many Remainers similarly convinced that anyone who voted to leave the EU is too stupid to have the vote. The response was the same in America when voters failed to elect Hillary Clinton.

Trump’s victory, one U.S. professor declared, was ‘the dance of the dunces’, the result of ‘uneducated, low-information white people’ being given the vote. He added: ‘Democracy is supposed to enact the will of the people. But what if the people have no clue what they’re doing?’

The fury against the 17.4 million UK voters who dared to back Brexit — and the 62 million Americans who had the temerity to vote for Trump — brings frightening anti-democratic poisons bubbling to the surface of our societies.

The sheer bile that erupted from political and cultural elites in Britain after the Brexit vote revealed a deep-seated contempt for the people and for democracy. The Establishment reacted as if the ground had disappeared from beneath their feet. How could this have happened?

After all, the Remain campaign had marshalled every authority in the Western world to warn that a Leave vote would lead to economic ruination, a descent into barbarism, world war and, worse, falling house prices.

The people had been told to vote Remain by leaders of all Britain’s mainstream political parties, the governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of Germany, the then President of the U.S., and every celebrity from David Beckham to Johnny Rotten.

Yet a majority of voters actually disobeyed!

In the eyes of the Establishment, the only possible explanation was that those millions were simply too ignorant, uneducated, gullible, bigoted or emotional to understand what they were being told.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z4ZgzUsEZH

Deplorables are not the majority. Never have been. You lost the popular vote. Quit lying.

[Strutz]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I've said it before and will say it again...None Of The Above should always be an option on a ballot. If NOTA gets more of the votes than anyone, a new election with NEW candidates.

[Thanos]

fifeboy fifeboy:

I've said it before and will say it again...None Of The Above should always be an option on a ballot. If NOTA gets more of the votes than anyone, a new election with NEW candidates.

I like this but non-voting is still a legitimate choice and anyone who decides that way shouldn't be shamed for it. It's not the non-voters that are to blame when a shit like Trump wins, it's the fools that voted for him who are. The system is supposed to give voters someone to believe in, not make them vote strategically and cynically just to counter a greater evil by supporting a lesser one.

Don't know how to address the fact that the huge number of rejectionists that are no longer participating are the most glaring indication that the corporatized bought-and-paid-for system that produces a choice between a psycho like Trump and the ultimate grifting insider like Clinton is the the real problem, not the people who aren't playing the game anymore. Addressing the 800-pound gorilla in the room that is people not voting because their lives aren't going to get better, and are much more likely to get worst, NO MATTER WHO WINS is going to have to be dealt with someday.

[Mowich]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Thanos Thanos:

Trump won with 27% of the eligible vote. Clinton picked up another 27-28%. The rest didn't vote because they don't care or they don't have any interest in participating in a farce. The only thing approaching a "majority" is the vast number of voters who just can't be bothered to play this stupid game anymore.

Do you think Trump would have won if everyone who was eligible in the US had voted or by the same token, do you think Clinton would have won if everyone eligible in the US had voted?

The point I'm getting at is that, those who have enough interest in their country and it's well being at least get off their asses and participate in the democratic process so, they have a say in who leads us. They may not always agree with the result or even the choices but, given the fact that they vote they'll always have the hope of being able to effect change in the future. Something the non participants don't have which, likely explains why they always seem to be the shrillest voice of protest when they don't agree with what's being done by the people they didn't bother to vote for or against.

It's not the Clinton's, the Trump's, the Trudeau's of the world that are the biggest threat to democracy, it's those who can't be bothered to participate in the democratic process.

[Mowich]

$1:

There's small choice in rotten apples. But a more interesting question might be: Do you think Trump would have won if everyone who voted for him had had a peek into the future and been able to see what's gone on over the last month? Surely not.

The worst thing about Trump winning was that he brought Stevie Bannon into the administration. I don't know if people would still have voted for Trump had they been able to foresee the debacle taking place now, but I truly believe had they know about Stevie, it would have been a very different outcome.

FOG FOG:

It's not the Clinton's, the Trump's, the Trudeau's of the world that are the biggest threat to democracy, it's those who can't be bothered to participate in the democratic process.

“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” ― Plato[/quote]

[Mowich]

$1:

I've said it before and will say it again...None Of The Above should always be an option on a ballot. If NOTA gets more of the votes than anyone, a new election with NEW candidates.

Having NOTA on the ballot is not a bad idea but candidates aren't picked out of a hat. It is a long costly process, as is holding elections. I doubt you would get a majority of voters to agree to it - I wouldn't, for the cost alone.

[Strutz]

Mowich Mowich:

$1:

I've said it before and will say it again...None Of The Above should always be an option on a ballot. If NOTA gets more of the votes than anyone, a new election with NEW candidates.

Having NOTA on the ballot is not a bad idea but candidates aren't picked out of a hat. It is a long costly process, as is holding elections. I doubt you would get a majority of voters to agree to it - I wouldn't, for the cost alone.

Good point.

[fifeboy]

Mowich Mowich:

$1:

I've said it before and will say it again...None Of The Above should always be an option on a ballot. If NOTA gets more of the votes than anyone, a new election with NEW candidates.

Having NOTA on the ballot is not a bad idea but candidates aren't picked out of a hat. It is a long costly process, as is holding elections. I doubt you would get a majority of voters to agree to it - I wouldn't, for the cost alone.

In Canada that's not a problem. I just attended a candidate selection meeting. No biggie. Elections can be short and sweet. That can't work in the US with their fixed dates and two year campaigns. Here it would work.