A Problem with Democracy

[Jars458]

I have a problem with democracy that has been troubling me for some time and was wondering what people thought about this.

In a democracy such as ours, people vote for candidates who are more often than not affiliated to one political party or another. The party with the majority of seats in Parliament has the honour of forming Government or if they don’t have a majority of seats, a coalition can be formed whereby different parties vote together on important issue to enable the “coalition” to form a Government.

My issue relates to what extent the Government of the day have a responsibility pass laws that are wanted by the majority of the population. The gut reaction to that is of course they should as the Government is elected by the people. However, do the Government have a responsibility to pass “sensible” laws which are contrary to the opinion of the majority if they hurt the minority too much.

The examples I use in this regard are the Death Penalty and Euthanasia.

The overwhelming majority of the voters in this country support both the Death Penalty and Euthanasia, yet neither of these things are legal in Australia. In both cases it is the Government deciding that they know better than the people (putting aside the possibility that United Nation treaties that would be broken if such laws were passed) and therefore not introducing such legislation.

Personally I am vehemently against the death penalty and am glad the Government have not brought it back even though most people want it.

However I do support Euthanasia and have used the argument in the past that the majority of people are in favour of it, so therefore the Government should legalise it.

Hence my problem, as I really can’t have my cake and eat it, where I expect the Government not to pass the death penalty and then expect them to legalise euthanasia.

Can a distinction be made between the two?

Does the Government have an overriding moral obligation to curb the excesses of the masses? I would be interested in what people have to say about this issue.

 

[Fred]

It's a conundrum for sure. I'd have no problem if both were brought in. It's always struck me as strange that in a democracy the majority decide the government and most things that the government then does but the minority groups have special treatment that the majority miss out on.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Fred
It's a conundrum for sure. I'd have no problem if both were brought in. It's always struck me as strange that in a democracy the majority decide the government and most things that the government then does but the minority groups have special treatment that the majority miss out on.

But in a majority of the cases you are talking about, most people ahven't even turned their mind to the issues properly and its better that people who are infomred about such things make the deicsions.

Clearly the Government have a responsibility to protect the minority, that can't be denied. Its a question of how much.

 

[Captain Random]

To paraphrase the bald eagle on the Muppet Show - and now it's time to raaaaise the intellectual tone of Bigfooty ...

The Government shouldn't do what is popular, they should do what is right. The trouble is, that takes guts and vision.

As for your personal dilemma - does the majority of the population really support euthanasia?

 

[jefffff34]

For such things such as wars, etc, you are allowed to have a crossing of the floor vote where the members of Parliament vote for what THEY think is best for the country. Not what is best for the party. Perhaps this should be used more often because most candidates just follow party policy.

 

[Pessimistic]

Is the death penalty much different from euthanasia. In either case we are making a judgement that someone is not 'fit' to live, albeit for different reasons.

I think the real worry on a government level is when they try to pass laws designed to cause political harm to the opposition rather than being good law. It stinks and we know who we are talking about.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by carneagles
To paraphrase the bald eagle on the Muppet Show - and now it's time to raaaaise the intellectual tone of Bigfooty ...

The Government shouldn't do what is popular, they should do what is right. The trouble is, that takes guts and vision.

As for your personal dilemma - does the majority of the population really support euthanasia?

According to opnion polls yes

I was only using that example to illustrate a point.

But if the Governmet do what is right, who decides what is right?

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Hoggy
For such things such as wars, etc, you are allowed to have a crossing of the floor vote where the members of Parliament vote for what THEY think is best for the country. Not what is best for the party. Perhaps this should be used more often because most candidates just follow party policy.

I don't recall a vote ever being taken about whether we go to war or not.

 

[jefffff34]

Originally posted by Fred


I don't recall a vote ever being taken about whether we go to war or not.

no no no you didn't understand. These type of votes are used in cases such as this. The war was just an example.

 

[Fred]

Conscience votes are very rare.

 

[Fat Red]

Conscience votes are also very problematic. In general (plenty of exceptions I know), I didn't vote for my local member because of his or her individual qualities: I chose the party. Therefore I want them to vote by party policy, not their conscience, which I know nothing about.

 

[happy_in_hell]

i haven't been asked whether i support Euthanasia and/or the Death Penalty and i would like to think i am part of the Aus. Population.

Going on to your question i agree with Pessimistic. And also say that with the death penalty and Euthanasia, the Government can't be seen to be playing God - that is, decreeing who can live or die. I know its an old cliche but its bad enough trying to get Ausstudy, can you imagine the paperwork associated with Euthanasia!

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Pessimistic
Is the death penalty much different from euthanasia. In either case we are making a judgement that someone is not 'fit' to live, albeit for different reasons.

I would have thought it was the teriminally ill person chosing whehter they want to die or not

The Government would have no say in it.

 

[NYMets]

It could be argued that euthanasia,abortion and to a lesser degree smoking and child rearing issues are more personal, ethical rather than public administration issues. How much do you want the government to take control of your everyday life? Do you want it just to fix the roads, run the hospitals and schools and prosecute violent and property crime or do you want it to have a say in your morals decisions too?

 

[happy_in_hell]

Originally posted by Jars458


I would have thought it was the teriminally ill person chosing whehter they want to die or not

The Government would have no say in it.

The person would most probably be in a gov't hospital hooked up to gov't funded life-support machines so somewhere the gov't would have to intervene. Oh, and the coroner would have to get involved.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Fat Red
Conscience votes are also very problematic. In general (plenty of exceptions I know), I didn't vote for my local member because of his or her individual qualities: I chose the party. Therefore I want them to vote by party policy, not their conscience, which I know nothing about.

I agree to an extent

Conscience votes are often a cop outfor the Party on a controversial issue - eg legalisation of prostitution.

But a party cant have a position on every issue and so if a private members bill is introduced, sometimes a conscience vote is the best way to go

The MP should consult with his constituents before excercising this vote however.

I think you vote for a balance of the party and the person, but certainly more of the former.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

Like Fat Red said, most of us vote for a party rather than the individual candidate. That's why party-endorsed candidates tend to be elected rather than independents.
The parties will tend to put out the policies they think will be most likely to get them elected, so in that way they'll try to produce what they think the population would want.
But conscience votes are a bit of a lottery. I wouldn't have a clue what my local member thinks of capital punishment, euthenasia, abortion or anything else. But I know how he's going to vote in any parliamentary vote. And because he'll vote that way is the reason why the majority of people in my area voted for him.

 

[Jars458]

My attempt to start a serious topic got 16 replies

This board is full of peanuts.

I hate you all

Goodbye