4 ms·

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin) Either if the elections are rigged or not, 49% of the population

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin) Either if the elections are rigged or not, 49% of the population can not be subdued to the will of the ruling 51% We need to change electoral systems, specially "winner takes all" ideologies, the tyranny of the majority. We need to learn to live together and share power together. And to separate if we can not. Nothing should be imposed.

quizbiz 17y ago
I think calling electoral systems, a tyranny of the majority, is a gross exaggeration. A multiparty system, one with an empowered opposition where bills require 2/3s not merely 1/2, encourages this within an electoral system. In Iran, trust in the system was lost. This is much about Iran's supreme leader as it is about the election for president.
bilbo0s 17y ago
This is the first sensible statement on political systems I have heard in a long time. You are absolutely correct, the problem in Iran is not a lack of democracy, it is tyranny through democratic means. Just because you win an election, does that mean you should be able to do something that the other 49% of the people find intolerable? It depends on whether you believe in democracy as a guiding principle, or in democracy as the letter of the law. The belief in democracy as the letter of the law, is, in my opinion, democracy taken to the extreme. It is the definition proffered by those who would use democracy as a cover for wanting, winning, and wielding power over those who may, legitimately, disagree with them. Democracy is a beautiful idea. Now, thanks to the efforts of politicians in democracies of all stripes, not just those in Iran, it has become the principle endorser of divisiveness in the world of ideas. It is being used to give violently divisive ideas an air of legitimacy that they do not deserve.
mixmax 17y ago
In Denmark we have a multi party system, and the government is a coalition of the parties that are represented in parlaiment. Often the government is a minority government and relies upon one or more of the other parties to get laws passed. Sometimes coalitions with similar interests appear, and as long as they have a majority they can pass laws. This system has the advantage that minority views are not only heard but also have votes. And since politics is a game of agreements, coalitions and I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine even small parties have a chance of getting legislation passed if they are willing to compromise on something else. It equates to more consensus seeking legislation, and an often vocal minority that actually has political influence.

quizbiz 17y ago

I think calling electoral systems, a tyranny of the majority, is a gross exaggeration. A multiparty system, one with an empowered opposition where bills require 2/3s not merely 1/2, encourages this within an electoral system. In Iran, trust in the system was lost. This is much about Iran's supreme leader as it is about the election for president.

bilbo0s 17y ago

This is the first sensible statement on political systems I have heard in a long time. You are absolutely correct, the problem in Iran is not a lack of democracy, it is tyranny through democratic means. Just because you win an election, does that mean you should be able to do something that the other 49% of the people find intolerable? It depends on whether you believe in democracy as a guiding principle, or in democracy as the letter of the law. The belief in democracy as the letter of the law, is, in my opinion, democracy taken to the extreme. It is the definition proffered by those who would use democracy as a cover for wanting, winning, and wielding power over those who may, legitimately, disagree with them. Democracy is a beautiful idea. Now, thanks to the efforts of politicians in democracies of all stripes, not just those in Iran, it has become the principle endorser of divisiveness in the world of ideas. It is being used to give violently divisive ideas an air of legitimacy that they do not deserve.

mixmax 17y ago

In Denmark we have a multi party system, and the government is a coalition of the parties that are represented in parlaiment. Often the government is a minority government and relies upon one or more of the other parties to get laws passed. Sometimes coalitions with similar interests appear, and as long as they have a majority they can pass laws. This system has the advantage that minority views are not only heard but also have votes. And since politics is a game of agreements, coalitions and I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine even small parties have a chance of getting legislation passed if they are willing to compromise on something else. It equates to more consensus seeking legislation, and an often vocal minority that actually has political influence.