There have been several discussions about US, and British politics which tend to suggest that our boasted democratic system is no longer working.. (Never mind whether you call it a republic or a constitutional monarchy, if it operates on democratic principles, I call it a democracy)

The original democracy, Athens in the 5th Century BC, had about 3,000 voting members, who were all entitled to attend the Assembly, speak, and vote. Modern democracies are so much bigger!

My idea is that a country the size of Finland, Denmark, or Holland has a chance of a genuinely democratic system. Federal countries like Switzerland may also work, as each canton makes its own decisions, and only major national concerns are dealt with by the National government.

The really big democracies, such as India,.... not a chance. The US, apparently not, though I suppose some of the smaller states may function fairly well; it seems, however, that the federal system has led to a lot of duplication of effort, to put it mildly. Britain worked better when there was a two-party system; multi-party systems tend to lead to weak coalition governments.

Politics might actually work if it wasn't run by humans. Unfortunately, justified greed always works its way into any political system. I say "justified" because people in authority who make the decisions always justify things to benefit themselves.

I know, I didn't answer your question, but I don't think it can be answered.

Scotland will work. I have faith in my fellow countrymen. At least we will attempt to have a sense of morality in government...when it descends into the usual money grab it will be no one's fault but our own.

That too will be satisfying enough...

Scotland will work. I have faith in my fellow countrymen. At least we will attempt to have a sense of morality in government...when it descends into the usual money grab it will be no one's fault but our own.

That too will be satisfying enough...

I think Scotland would be just about the right size. Any larger, and the representatives are too remote from those represented.

But how the world would get along if it was composed of hundreds of Scotland-sized states, I don't know!

Scotland will work. I have faith in my fellow countrymen. At least we will attempt to have a sense of morality in government...when it descends into the usual money grab it will be no one's fault but our own.

That too will be satisfying enough...

But Scottish 'independence' is being proposed in a very undemocratic way.

The vote is only being given to residents of Scotland as to whether they should leave the Union. Surely all members of the Union should have equal say? What about ux in England - should we not have a say in this? The Union is, after all, a tripartite agreement between two countries and a Principality.

I personally would vote for dissolution of the Union, if it was total. No more Scottish MPs in th English Parliament, no common currency (akthough the RBS could still sponsor the Six Nations). Separate civil services, alhough I suppose we'd have to keep all the Jock doc's in the NHS.

Scotland will work. I have faith in my fellow countrymen. At least we will attempt to have a sense of morality in government...when it descends into the usual money grab it will be no one's fault but our own.

That too will be satisfying enough...

But Scottish 'independence' is being proposed in a very undemocratic way.

The vote is only being given to residents of Scotland as to whether they should leave the Union. Surely all members of the Union should have equal say? What about ux in England - should we not have a say in this? The Union is, after all, a tripartite agreement between two countries and a Principality.

I personally would vote for dissolution of the Union, if it was total. No more Scottish MPs in th English Parliament, no common currency (akthough the RBS could still sponsor the Six Nations). Separate civil services, alhough I suppose we'd have to keep all the Jock doc's in the NHS.

No doubt there will be a bitter battle for resources if Scotland does choose to go its own way.

For me simply running her own affairs and tightening up on immigration will do for starters.

Scotland will work. I have faith in my fellow countrymen. At least we will attempt to have a sense of morality in government...when it descends into the usual money grab it will be no one's fault but our own.

That too will be satisfying enough...

I think Scotland would be just about the right size. Any larger, and the representatives are too remote from those represented.

But how the world would get along if it was composed of hundreds of Scotland-sized states, I don't know!

Perhaps more people would vote, as they would feel their vote actually counted.

Ergo...more democratic....perhaps politicians might open their ears more often.

No doubt there will be a bitter battle for resources if Scotland does choose to go its own way.

For me simply running her own affairs and tightening up on immigration will do for starters.

Keep the monarch? Or have a President?

What about fishing rights?

No doubt there will be a bitter battle for resources if Scotland does choose to go its own way.

For me simply running her own affairs and tightening up on immigration will do for starters.

Keep the monarch? Or have a President?

What about fishing rights?

Easy we keep the monarchy and ban the Spanish fishing fleet.

These days a monarchy makes very little difference; he/she is only a president in drag. You need somebody to do the ceremonial duties (e.g. entertaining foreign heads of state, opening bazaars (important ones!), presiding at "state occasions".

There are three kinds of democracies, so-called;

1. With a monarch and a parliamentary system, like UK.

2. With a President who is also the head of government, like USA and France (disastrous... too much power for one person, and too many extraneous duties)

3. With a president (without power) and a parliamentary system, like India and Singapore.

Parliamentary systems have various defects, such as

1. Single dominant parties (like Singapore)

2. Too many parties, like Italy, Germany and, nowadays, Britain.

You could say Britain has three, but given the way the Lib Dems have operated in office, I would say its a straight fight between two next time around.

You could say Britain has three, but given the way the Lib Dems have operated in office, I would say its a straight fight between two next time around.

I tend to agree with that, Smokie. Coalition governments rarely work (except perhaps in wartime); no party is strong enough to put through effective legislation. The only recent Thai government which actually did anything (whether you agree with what it did is another matter) was Thaksin's when he had an absolute majority.

You could say Britain has three, but given the way the Lib Dems have operated in office, I would say its a straight fight between two next time around.

I tend to agree with that, Smokie. Coalition governments rarely work (except perhaps in wartime); no party is strong enough to put through effective legislation. The only recent Thai government which actually did anything (whether you agree with what it did is another matter) was Thaksin's when he had an absolute majority.

It certainly seemed a better place to me under Thaksin.

Getting back to the UK's coalition government I fear its a case of neither party having a clear enough vision regardless of the other.

The UK will strengthen again regardless of this....good time to have sterling now I reckon.

IMHO, the size of the nation makes little difference. It is the Constitution and adherence to that document that matters.

"Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

IMHO, the size of the nation makes little difference. It is the Constitution and adherence to that document that matters.

"Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

The Constitution is just a piece of paper; Britain doesn't have a written constitution.

Is it democratic when a prospective president has to spend many millions before he even gets on the ballot? when the country spends itself into bankruptcy, and the citizens can do nothing about it? when the country goes to war against the will of large numbers of its citizens?

Democracy is about people, not about pieces of paper, however well-intentioned they may be. The ordinary citizen, in most so-called democracies, counts for nothing.

A republic is not the same thing as a democracy.

IMHO, the size of the nation makes little difference. It is the Constitution and adherence to that document that matters.

"Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

The Constitution is just a piece of paper; Britain doesn't have a written constitution.

Is it democratic when a prospective president has to spend many millions before he even gets on the ballot? when the country spends itself into bankruptcy, and the citizens can do nothing about it? when the country goes to war against the will of large numbers of its citizens?

Democracy is about people, not about pieces of paper, however well-intentioned they may be. The ordinary citizen, in most so-called democracies, counts for nothing.

A republic is not the same thing as a democracy.

Then if it wasn't too late, I would delete the post as being off topic.

IMHO, the size of the nation makes little difference. It is the Constitution and adherence to that document that matters.

"Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

The Constitution is just a piece of paper; Britain doesn't have a written constitution.

Is it democratic when a prospective president has to spend many millions before he even gets on the ballot? when the country spends itself into bankruptcy, and the citizens can do nothing about it? when the country goes to war against the will of large numbers of its citizens?

Democracy is about people, not about pieces of paper, however well-intentioned they may be. The ordinary citizen, in most so-called democracies, counts for nothing.

A republic is not the same thing as a democracy.

Then if it wasn't too late, I would delete the post as being off topic.

No need to delete - this thread is working through what we each understand by the word 'democracy'.

Most of your quotes are from far back in the past, when the population of the US was far smaller than today, when slave-owning was a fact of life, when farming/plantation work was a major part of the state.

Things have moved on, society is not what it was. I wish things were not so, but I cannot turn the clock back 200 years. Neither can I create men of honour and leisure, who have the time and wealth to be able to devote themselves to the good of the people.

We are now saddled with politicians, who devote their lives to self-promotion, self-aggrandisement, power without too much responsibility, living off the public purse, generally being nasty little shits. But that is the world we have. not the one we would like to have.

Scotland will work. I have faith in my fellow countrymen. At least we will attempt to have a sense of morality in government...when it descends into the usual money grab it will be no one's fault but our own.

That too will be satisfying enough...

Sometimes, you can be too subtle...

The only reason I believe that our future government will not plunder the country into the dark ages is that I have no confidence in their ambition, imagination or ability.

Scotland will work. I have faith in my fellow countrymen. At least we will attempt to have a sense of morality in government...when it descends into the usual money grab it will be no one's fault but our own.

That too will be satisfying enough...

I think Scotland would be just about the right size. Any larger, and the representatives are too remote from those represented.

But how the world would get along if it was composed of hundreds of Scotland-sized states, I don't know!

I suppose you could look at places that were balkanised into lots of little states, like, for example, the Balkans; you could look at how much better the Asian republics are doing free from the tyranny of Soviet centralised incompetence.

SC