Boldmug running around like John Stuart Mill did representative democracy. Parliament: late 1600. Mill: 1800s. About that. Keynes-type.
Are you suggesting that 1600s Parliament is what anyone today would call "representative democracy"?
-
-
"Parliament was able to have the 1689 Bill of Rights enacted." They probably wouldn't, but they're wrong.
-
I was questioning the "democratic representativeness" of Parliament more than its power. But 1689 was not exactly a normal year.
-
Representation doesn't seem to change parliament's basic character. Apparently the house of commons dates to 1295?
-
and universal adult male suffrage dates to 1918. Why say it wouldn't change the character? I think I'm totally missing your point
-
If you're passing a bill of rights it's fundamentally a modern democracy. Mill was justifying stuff that was already happening.
-
Parliaments everywhere have the same pathologies. Expanding the franchise doesn't change them, merely exacerbates them.
-
Well, caveat, there was a 'parliament' in 1066, but it was just the king's advisors, so we wouldn't use that word for it today.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.