Nonetheless more than 50% voted for a party which would allow Cameron to get into that position. Every compromise is made with the mandate of the people who have elected their legislative. That is the point of the whole system.
Actually - no - the point of 'first past the post' is to keep the big parties in power and prevent small parties from rising.
You can't say that those who did not want either party 'chose' Cameron. They had Cameron INFLICTED on them by a REALLY unfair 'democratic' system.
That is part of a societies contract: as a collective they are responsible for their government, since nobody else can be. Of course there can be a broken system, but then it would be their job to do something. It would be the job of the citizens of that country (for example press, church, interest groups) to point this out and to pressure the government to change that. If that kind of protest does not exist or just exists rudimentary, one can be safe to say: it is everybodies responsibility that things go wrong.
For as long as I have watched British politics there HAS been pressure to change the flawed system, but, the only people with the power to change the loaded system are those who rely on it to stay in power. They have, and will continue, to fight to hold on to their democratically illegitimate power.
And about the american system being broken: they have the schizophrenic situation that single states still exist, which is basically the same situation as in the EU. While the system is more streamlined, there are still the regional interests of each state, which gives the military with its high budget the power to pressure them into decisions, for example when it comes to cutting exactly that budget. The question is, whether avoiding that and muting the interests of the region really would allow a more democratic approach. In fact I remember some of the posters in this thread cheering how much better that system was to get things done than what we have currently in the EU...
If you are referring to posts by me, I was saying the US CURRENCY is better run than the Euro - I was not talking about how they run their democracy.
American democracy has all the flaws of British democracy - first past the post, with the added blight of rampant Gerrymandering because the power to draw district lines rests with elected officials in many states.
The fact that the Dollar is better run than the Euro does not change the fact that American democracy is very bad at translating the will of the people into law. The fact the EU is even worse at translating the will of the people into law is also a very bad thing.
So while it is easy to always compare a hypothetical and perfect situation to the reality and talk about the shortcomings, it leaves the impression of somebody wanting to have the cake but also to eat it...
Sorry, but that is totally wrong. How, exactly, is pointing out that many 'democratic' systems are really bad at translating the will of the people into the make-up of the government having my cake and eating it?
The measure of a democratic system is how well the popular vote translates into seats in the legislative assembly, and, how well the opinions of the citizens translate into law.
No system is perfect, but different systems result in bigger and smaller gaps between what a democratic system should do, and what it actually does. My point is that not all democracies are actually that democratic - many have really big gaps between the will of the people and the makeup of the government.
The UK & US are great examples of broken democratic systems. That is why it is unfair to blame all Brits, or all Americans for the actions of their governments. If Britain had a true democracy, the Tories would not be in sole power in the UK. If the US had a true democracy, the Democrats would control the house of representatives today.
B.
B.
