Shorbe,

Your attempt to refute my position using logic fails because you start with a false premise, which is that our existing system depends on voters being "responsible enough to assess a representative's stance or performance who will vote on the issue."

Whether voters are actually responsible enough to do that is a moot point. In reality, assessing the stance or performance of prospective representives is not something that the vast majority of voters do. Indeed, attempting to do so would be a waste of time because most of the time our representatives just do what their parties tell them to.

So voters by and large vote for which ever candidate is a member of their favoured party, and real power is accorded to a handful of people based on a combination of a popularity contest and a meritocracy.

Hmmm ... "agree with democracy in principle." Not sure what you mean, shorbe. Democracy exists, in many different forms, irrespective of whether or not I agree with it.

Do I regard it as a higher principle? Not sure what you mean by this, either. Democracy is one of the ways in which we respect and accommodate individual human rights. However it’s not the only way.

As you’ve pointed out, in a democracy there’s always a danger that the majority will exercise its will to the disadvantage of a minority. Fortunately, all modern democracies have protections against this: separation of powers, bills of rights, bi-cameral parliaments, proportional representation, freedom of the press, constitutional protections ... no doubt you could name a whole lot more.

Government by elected representatives is itself a protection against the tyranny of the majority, though less so when one party holds a majority in both houses of parliament.

Technology is enabling voters to become much better informed. At the same time, voters’ opinions on any given issue are being revealed with greater accuracy than ever before, and our elected representatives are following voters’ opinions more and more closely. It can’t be long before pressure to cut out the middleman (politicians) starts to mount, at least on social issues.

As democracy becomes more direct (as I suspect it inevitably will), I fear that some of the protections could be diluted, especially where there is no Bill of Rights. However this is a reason to fortify the protections, not to condemn democracy.

I’d still much rather face the danger of a majority overriding a minority, than the danger of a despot riding roughshod over everyone.

Sylvia: So you're saying the system is a bit of a charade? Have I interpreted you correctly?

w: You made some interesting comments.

I was asking you whether, regardless of if your personal beliefs are out of line with those of others or the practical reality, you think it's a just or fair system in principle, people being able to decide how others should run their lives.

I don't agree that democracy inherently respects and accomodates human rights. I think a Bill of Rights or any other protection can be tacked on to a democracy and co-exist fairly well, but it's not fundamental to it. Democracy is essentially a numbers game that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with absolutes such as human rights. Singapore is a democracy, yet I think it lacks all sorts of individual rights.

It's interesting that you think that democracy will eventually become more direct. What about misinformation? How do people know the information they're getting via the technology is true? How do you know that both this information, and the voting process, isn't manipulated? Maybe you're more optimistic than I am.

Also, I'm interested in how you think people will eventually cut the middlemen of politicians from running their lives. Do you think people might move even beyond that and cut the middlemen of each other from running their own lives? If so, why? If not, why not?

Also, what would make a Bill of Rights be set in stone? Why would it necessarily stand up against public opinion? It's not like it's the law of gravity. If enough people wanted to ignore a Bill of Rights, it would effectively be irrelevant. Whilst it might be a nice idea to have one, it doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.

What about instead of an individual or a group of people telling another what to do (because ultimately, if someone tells me what to do, it doesn't make a difference how many people are doing it), no one has any sway over anyone else?

'A democracy which makes or even effectively prepares for modern, scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic', quotes Mr Manton.

Does anyone see the lineal progression of the Rise of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat -or is it the Rise of National Socialism- ? Either way, the Bomber (Heir Leader) looks like being in-charge after the 2007 election!

The old and the grey have really done it now with their assertions of 'attitude'. What next grandma, lessons in how to eat dirt and grow grass? Talk about un-natural selection and devolution.

Perhaps Bomber will throw a state or two, or am i just being conceited? No matter really, for i fear the party will have all the answers i will ever need.

Darwin.