as in, when there is something that has to be decided in britain, a piece of paper comes through your door and you tick, yes or no.
2006-09-04 10:53:07 · 14 answers · asked by jokrox2000 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Not if Diebold provides the piece of paper!
2006-09-04 10:54:56 · answer #1 · answered by CharlieB 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not. That is why we have politicians to act on our behalf as representatives. Would you really trust the opinions of Fred and Vera at number 10 Dim street? on complex matters. Also, the vast majority of Government business doesn't involve voting on things, it is about debate and law making. More than anything, however, is the fact that it would be completely unworkable. Think of the work involved in counting the answers. Also, the majority of issues can't be reduced to a single question. You would also get massive inconsistency in policy application, because each question would not be presented in the same context. That is the other vital thing, answers would be influenced by the way a question was framed. What would be the point of politicians.
No, you are trying to advocate too much Democracy. And I think you probably got your idea from the never ending mini referenda that the TV channels keep holding. All it does is undermine our Democratic system of Government.
2006-09-07 21:07:59 · answer #2 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How would that work? The Postal service in Britain can't cope with mail now, how the hell could they cope when they have to deliver 25 million pieces of paper every time there's a decision to be made i.e. all the time.... and who's gonna count them?
2006-09-04 10:57:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Self rule only works in theory. Governments are elected for a reason, inorder for decisions to be made quicker and more efficently. If every person in the country was to make decisions about every topic, bill, act, law ect ect people would not get any real work done.
2006-09-04 11:05:50 · answer #4 · answered by Jan10 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean direct democracy, with no intermediate representative making the laws?
Or do you mean anarchy, with the only laws being what each person imposes on themself?
Both are a bad idea. Because both rely on people being rational and intelligent and actually making informed choices with a willingness to live by the consequences of their choices. And so far, the human species has failed pretty dismally at such attempts.
2006-09-04 10:56:13 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be nice but the way this Country works you would have to send out papers to vote for the people who are going to deliver the pieces of paper.
2006-09-04 10:56:15 · answer #6 · answered by timone 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends how many decisions you want to make a day. I think there should be a 'right to vote' on issues if enough people request it. It would prevent representative governments from going to far from what the people voted for.
2006-09-04 12:16:51 · answer #7 · answered by Phil J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would it not be true to say that whoever sent out the pieces of paper would actually be ruling; that would not be self rule!
2006-09-04 11:07:13 · answer #8 · answered by Not one of the crowd! 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Err... NO!! Unless you wanted a BNP style Britain, women confined to housewifery and sexual slavery, and everyone on the dole. In fact, I bet quite a few of you are nodding your heads with glee at the very idea of it...
2006-09-07 06:36:30 · answer #9 · answered by PinkPurrrr 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because we don't want to spend all day making decisions. We pay politicians to make our mistakes for us.
2006-09-04 10:56:12 · answer #10 · answered by 👑 Hypocrite 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋