Why am I signing the petition to keep human rights.
Human rights are more than just words on a page it is our responsibility as humans to respect each other, help each other and to protect those in need. Every human is entitled to them. Everyone. Everywhere. I feel that one that is localised to "Britain" will lose the universal human aspect.
It's there as a universal law and acts as a protection so that people in power can't trample on those below them. Created by lots of different people not just one government with similar ideologies. Especially when the people calling for these changes only represent 37% of the population.
So it worries me that government are proposing to change them without these proposed changes in full public knowledge... Especially whilst we are still at the stage where the current ones still aren't entirely more than just words on a page.
https://www.change.org/p/uk-government-keep-the-human-rights-act?recruiter=98764330&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-reason_msg&fb_ref=Default
o.o and then there is my words on how what we have now isn;t really a democracy that the voting system we have is silly and that proportianl representation is a better way to go o.o
Me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI .... There are quite a few other ways...Other Human A
that would be far better than PR, but would still leave the issue of more hung parliaments. My preference would be to keep the same, because of a higher efficiency of decision making, but it's down to the voting masses. (hear that, i wouldn't riot if i didn't get my way in a democratically fair election)
Me
True it could lead to that... I feel it's something that could be worked on, and at least it would be a better starting point.Other Human A
Rioting isn't a bad thing it's more how you go about it.... Everyone has the right to freedom of speech.
Your bracketed comment implies what we have now is democratically fair... But...It's not....Something summed up wonderfully in another of CGP's videos o.o
again, it's my opinion, but until we have something we know will work better, why create a government that will take forever to do anything?Other Human B
Rioting isn't bad? I'm not gonna argue this point, but it's quite self explanatory. Reread what you just said.
It is fair, the largest swing of votes went towards the conservatives, and the majority of area's wanted a conservative mp to represent them, it's not the fairest, but it's fair.
Ngl I don't get why people are rioting cos the Tories got in, as much as I don't like them, they got more votes than everyone else and thus won the election fair and square, however the bit I don't agree with is that because I live in a very conservative area, if I don't want to vote conservative my vote is effectively null and void. They should consider everyone's votes when allocating seats.Human A
only 62% of my area turned out to vote, if the other 38 turned up and voted labour, they would've beaten the tories, your vote always matters, even if not in this election, if people see labours vote rise, more and more people will think about voting labour. I'm against PR for the reasons i've already made, saying any more would be going in circles.B
Also, why do we need 650 mps in the house of commons half of whom get paid a shit tonne for turning up half the time, and for 5 minutes the other half. Sack half of them and we can save more than enough to stop making cuts to the nhsA
Halving the amount of MP's would save about 2 million a year (they all get paid sub 100K), and would do very little for the NHS, and would then make the voting system even more unfair, and less local representation for everyone.Me * Two separate reply comments
It would mean choices made involve the majority not the minority...A
Ah, sorry no, rioting is bad... Protesting that's not...My brain just went and confused the terms there.
Okay so... Yes they won "fair and square" but the system being used is inherently unfair which is the thing I was saying.... it gives the illusion of democracy but it doesn't represent everyone votes... It's not equal which you can see through minority rule, through gerrymandering, through the spoiler effect that comes with this style voting and the ultimate two party system that it ends up with... And it discriminates against smaller parties because of the strategic voting it creates...
The video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo o.o
a choice should always be made with the majorities best interests at heart, but keeping a thought on how it would affect the minority, but at the end of the day, there is good cause that if a decision would benefit the majority, but negatively affect a minority, then it should be made.
I understand the problems with first past the post, but i still believe it to be the best system, as it helps create a strong government. It's not an illusion, it's still democracy, we're still voting as a people for the person in charge, it just gives the person with the most votes alot more power at the end (creating a stronger government).
Me
I agree a majorities best interests should be kept at heart in regards to politics, and without encroaching on human rights and such.
I don't understand how you can justify it based on strength? What do you base this way of voting on making a stronger government in comparison to proportional representation?
Our current system has had hung parliament/ coalition/ slim majority. And ensured that since the 1950's we've only really had two parties in power, till 2010 when the libdems managed to get in...
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Hong Kong pretty strong governments (stronger than our perhaps?) all with proportional representation...
I mean what is strength without fair representation? Is it not a borderline dictatorship created by the privileged few? I say illusion of democracy because of the points I already illustrated and the ones further explained in the video. Yes by definition we are freely able to elect our own representatives, however also by that same definition the overall power is not vested in the people and does not present a political or social equality.
o.o
Our current system has had hung parliament/ coalition/ slim majority. And ensured that since the 1950's we've only really had two parties in power, till 2010 when the libdems managed to get in...
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Hong Kong pretty strong governments (stronger than our perhaps?) all with proportional representation...
I mean what is strength without fair representation? Is it not a borderline dictatorship created by the privileged few? I say illusion of democracy because of the points I already illustrated and the ones further explained in the video. Yes by definition we are freely able to elect our own representatives, however also by that same definition the overall power is not vested in the people and does not present a political or social equality.
o.o
I'm not saying it's perfect, and overall it doesn't make much of a difference as chances are people in charge wouldn't vote it in as it wouldn't benefit them. And we of course are just two humans... Sadly...And it doesn't really include the internet within the actual governing which I think, if it was thought through enough and protected, could be a real asset in modern day democracy. But yeah o.o These are my thoughts...B* (to this comment reply)
That's exactly what I was saying, also there should be a blank box on every voting slip where you can write down any party you want as if they aren't represented in your area, you can't vote for them even if you'd want to, which would give smaller parties more of a chance
A
But if there isn't an MP for (for say's sake) the BNP in surrey, and we all voted BNP, and they won, then who is our MP in surrey? Let alone not having a representative in government (assuming this is also under PR) we don't even have a representative.
Me
Mmm true, local representation would be a problem... Perhaps lowering fees so that parties could afford to have a representative in each area o.o....
No comments:
Post a Comment