Slashdot Mirror
Even More Restriction For German Internet
tikurion writes "It's only been a few weeks since the law dubbed Zugangserschwerungsgesetz (access impediment law) was passed in the German Parliament despite over 140,000 signatures of people opposed to it. The law will go into effect in mid-October 2009. Now Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen implied in an interview that she is planning on extending the reach of the law, claiming '...or else the great Internet is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos, where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly.' More on golem.de via Google translate (here is the German original)."
where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly.
If this was their goal, there would only need to be one domain on the list.
And also to click the big X in the top right of the screen.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Heaven:
Where the police are British,
The cooks are Italian,
The mechanics are German,
The lovers are French and
It's all organized by the Swiss.
Hell is:
Where the police are German,
The cooks are British,
The Mechanics are French,
The lovers are Swiss and
It's all organized by the Italians.
THL phish sticks
"No Internet for you!"
Anybody want my mod points?
Now Minister for Family Affairs Ursula von der Leyen implied
There shouldn't even be a family affairs department. What families do is their own matter, unless they do something illegal.
Why are the most innocuous sounding positions in government, always the most malevolent?
Minister for Family Affairs
Home secretary
I will literally shit myself if my government appoints a minister of puppies, pink ponies and day old baby ducklings.
Citizens of the world, dark forces are at work in most of our democracies. They plans to get control of a power tool & medium: the internet. Their aim at restoring the "control on information and the oligopolies" of the previous millennium and extending it further any known limits.
Most of them claim, it is to restore "good old values". But the real reason behind all those bigotries is the money my friend!
The fight for freedom as started.
But, the force of the cipher is among us ;-)
Are you ready ?
Or else the great outdoors is in danger of turning into a lawless range of chaos, where you're allowed to bully, insult, and deceive limitlessly.
This german woman must be viewing the internet through some sort of time portal; it's already a piece of crap!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
We have around here in europe a lot of social politic. Not only in hand out, but also in infrastructure. This ministry shortened to family ministery (sorry german) actually do quite a bit more , senior, civil duty, family, kids etc... For example the previous ministry made law to enhance kindergarten infrastructure to allow much more (250K) young kids to have a kindergarten available. And I pass many other stuff. The problem is here they are doing stuff which displease us (censorship) and IMHO should not be in their porfolio. Mind you, at least they can show full breast or half breast on TV here around. Other culture, other taboo.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think their government might not only have an access impediment, but also a speech impediment with a name like "Zugangserschwerungsgesetz".
Heil, German lawmakers!!! Über Alles!!!
Everyone on 4chan understands 4chan. Don't worry about them.
the great Internet is in danger
Pity she can't see that the threat is from people like her.
turning into a lawless range of chaos
In other words, a free and uncensored global platform for communication
I am, and that is sufficient.
It's not already?
ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
TYPICAL GERMAN politics, come up with a screwy law, and make it even more screwy! So I guess what I can take from this is that child porn is ok to see at a university, but not a corporation or large ISP... Yeah that makes sense, really does...
I guess they introduced these exceptions because implementing the censorship infrastructure on the ISP side takes a great deal of time & money. Obviously only big ISPs can afford that ;)
The big parties of the German government once again proved that they're just doing what they want and not what the citizens want! That's why I'm going to vote for the Piratenpartei (Pirate party) on September 27.
Das computenmachine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Is easy schnappen der springwerk, blownfusen, und poppenoorken mit spittzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das rubbernecken signtseeren keepen hands in das pockets--relaxen und watch das blinkenlights.
I'm just reminding you to never move to Germany
If it rains in KÃln, it drops in Brussels. I hope this won't come over to our regions as so often is the case.
Just keep giving them some more free advertising.
Completely unrelated, I'd also see some legislation allowing the Federal Constitutional Courts to hand out savage beatings with the clue stick to everyone involved in drafting and passing unconstitutional laws. And they should broadcast it on TV, too.
She has been recently discovering the internet, before she was living happily in Barbieland playing with her Disney ponies.
The wakeup call was simply too hard for her.
Seriously, if you read interviews with her, that woman is the german equivalent to Sarah Palin. Stupid dangerous outrigt arrogant and does not even listen one second to anyone!
You are misinformed here. The law the scope of which von der Leyen wants to extend currently is about blocking child porn, and
certainly fits that description exactly.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I'm on OSX, you insensitive clod.
Oh, you mean the politicians should have paid more attention to that 0,17% of the population? They have a job to do, it's called democracy.
For the record, anything that limits, tracks, or controls public access to information and the Internet is Bad in my book.
If anything, I would lament that only a mere fraction of a percent give enough of a damn to sign their name against it.
"Good news, everyone!"
Is this that stupid bill where they wanted to display stop signs before you access pornographiic websites?
As if a stop sign would prevent anybody. This is so very, very brain dead.
Freedom means different to different people. To a lot of people in the world "freedom" is not a religion, but just something that is nice to have, sometimes. I don't expect the Freedom Fanatics to understand this, let alone accept it, but it is true none the less. I also expect to get modded down for saying so - by those very "Freedom Fighters".
So, to a majority of Germans it makes sense - it seems very clear that the internet has indeed already become a cesspit with a very few gems floating around in it. To a lot of people the rather abstract benefits of "freedom of speech" are simply not important enough to outweigh more mundane concerns, like not being harrassed by the idiots that seem to dominate everything on the internet.
The internet is indeed a powerful tool for communication and it can be used to promote freedom and bring valuable information to everybody and so on. But there is a huge difference between the freedom you enjoy in a society where people treat each other with respect and dignity, and the freedom you have in a lawless wilderness, where you can expect every person you meet to be an enemy. I know which one I'd choose.
In all honesty, I couldn't understand any of them (the germans) anyways.
Hell, Google can barely understand them...
The German government already banned a couple of small parties from taking part in the upcoming elections, thus impeding the right to vote. But people are still free to bitch about the results. Freedom enough, don't you think?
First of, it's not the government that banned those parties but the comitee overseeing the election.
And that's normal procedure.
A party needs a certain number of supporters before it is allowed to participate in an election. All parties where aware of that fact, all parties hat time to collect signatures from supporters.
Some didn't get enough signatures in time, so they are out.
Some didn't manage to provide the paperwork in time.
Some don't follow the rules there are for organising a party.
If I tell you that parties who get less than 5% of the votes won't enter the Bundestag (parlament) at all, you''' probably see that too as a sing of the government fixing the result of the election. Even though that is part of the laws for elections for some 60 years.
(And just in case you want to know why there is that 5% limit: Ever seen a parlament with lots of small parties in it? It's damn near impossible to get work done.)
If you are reading Slashdot from outside Germany in English, then don't come to live here. Well, okay you can live in Berlin but you are forbidden to travel any further south and stay off of my snowboard turf!
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Google translate on wiki page - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz
The law on obstruction of access to child pornographic content in communication networks (access aggravation Act - ZugErschwG) aims to provide access to Web sites with depictions of sexual activity by and against children...
- Dan
Absolutely! Actually, due to lack of experience, many new parties are not really aware of all regulations. For example, the Pirate Party in Northrhine-Westfalia had over 1,000 support signatures invalidated by the elections official (Wahlleiterin) because they modified the official PDF to include machine-fillable textfields, and many people downloaded and used those modified PDFs. Now, because support signatures are registered at the city hall of every supporter so a single individual doesn't support more than one party (don't worry: they don't register WHICH party you support, only THAT you support one), those signatures were effectively void, and the Pirates had to collect 1,000+ NEW signatures (i.e. from additional supporters) within 3-4 days after being notified by the Wahlleiterin. Well, they made it of course, even though it was hard to get those city-hall confirmed signatures in time. That's a typical example of what can get wrong when you're a rookie party. Let's hope the Pirates will make enough noise in the upcoming elections. Even if they won't reach the necessary 5% to get into the Bundestag (Parliament), if the press starts talking about them, that's already a good thing.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
> Nobody's forcing them to surf around the Internet at random
Spam is invasive though.
I'm fine with them jailing fraudsters.
Curiously, "von der Leyen" sounds surprisingly similar to "von den Laien", or "of the laymen". A trademark of incompetence!
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
It happens in most countries, though it's referred to as "libel". German laws are somewhat more stringent, but it's the same concept. Germans also have been bombarded with tales of cyber-bullying in the media, so the public perception is at the moment skewed.
I think the media conglomerates have played a major role, in first hyping tales of online child pornography to create a feeling of crisis, now in pushing stories of online addiction and cyber-bullying. I have a sneaking suspicion that they see the internet as competition, as breaking the grip they had on media, that they see censorship laws as helping them retain their role as gatekeepers.
I think most Germans haven't really considered what they are getting into by allowing the government decide what you can see or not. They don't realise how this places them in the same boat as the Iranians and the Chinese, trusting too much that the government won't accidentally block legitimate content. Others who don't have an online connection (like my in-laws) think the internet is a big scary threat anyways, so any sort of censorship is a Good Thing. They still have the "as long as it doesn't affect me" mentality.
If I tell you that parties who get less than 5% of the votes won't enter the Bundestag (parlament) at all, you''' probably see that too as a sing of the government fixing the result of the election. Even though that is part of the laws for elections for some 60 years.
The nature of it doesn't change just because it's been in place a long time. It's a way of silencing minority views.
(And just in case you want to know why there is that 5% limit: Ever seen a parlament with lots of small parties in it? It's damn near impossible to get work done.)
Government efficiency and liberty of the population could generally be considered mutually exclusive. Give me small inefficient governments any day.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Not Safe For Work?
Most of the time it falls under Not Safe For Home.... or anywhere.
Yes, yes, some people though 4chan was too restrictive and begat 7chan, which some people felt was too restrictive and begat 12chan. Think about what that says about 12chan...if you can't, let be straightforward. There is a line that if you cross, your servers get raided by assorted police forces and you get arrested. Anything that doesn't blatantly cross that line is permissible on 12chan.
The real question is this: Can you name worse than 12chan?
pichan. Now even more irrational.
This is exactly why I will vote for the Pirate Party at the next election.
I don't agree with some of the stuff the Pirate Party stands for but I absolutely don't agree with anything the CDU, SPD or any of the other major political parties stand for.
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
Umm... Germans technically gifted? Trains running on time? Cops respected by thugs?
Where's that magical land you're talking about and how comes it's named like that really existing country called Germany? Isn't it hard to keep those two apart when they have the same name?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Zugangserschwerungsgesetz
This eerily and shockingly reminds me of a poem about nazi regime I hears years ago (in german !!) that went something like this:
- when they came for the jews, I did not protest for I was no jew
- when they came for the gypsies, I did not protest for I was no gypsy
- when they came for the mentally diseased, I did not protest for I was not mentally diseased
- now they are coming for me, but there is no-one left to protest
let me try to adapt this to the current situation:
- when they closed down the child pornography sites, I did not bother for I did not care
- when they closed down the right wing extremists sites, I did not bother because I am not a right wing extremist
- when they closed down the web sites of the opposition, I did not bother, because I am not of the opposition
- when they closed down all my sites, the general public could not be bothered
we are quickly and frighteningly descending to an orwellian state where the gouvernment dictates what we are allowed to see.
note: I do not have any sites, but hat is irrelevant
Consistently separating words by spaces became a general custom about the tenth century A.D., and lasted until about 2009, when Germans abandoned the practice.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
An interesting book exploring this topic is Crabwalk (Im Krebsgang, in German) by Gunter Grass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crabwalk
While written in the early years of the internet, it revolves around an anti-semetic website and two chat room visiters arguing in the persona of Nazi and Jew. It's a very interesting examination into this haunting piece of their past that the Germans seem to be trapped in. No matter how much I have studied it, I don't think I'll ever be able to (as an American) understand how this cycle keeps repeating. However, there's no doubt that it's there, and that the German people will be haunted by it for some time, if not forever.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
Just make the Internet illegal or too expensive for the the regular folks. We all know it's only populated by consumers of child porn and pirates.
"The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
The internet is different than all information media we had until now (books, newspapers, tv):
1. the information remains there for a very long time
2. it's very easy to search and to share the the information
3. usually the information is not edited by a group with some social responsibilities
So, I think that we need some new rules for publishing information on the internet.
This is just summer theater. Other news of the day were a guy who's been put in a train while sleeping on his bed and the fact that Steve Jobs walks to work.
Many constitutional law experts, including some former Bundesverfassungsrichter (supreme court judges) have said on several occasions that this law will not pass the constitutional assessment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (supreme court), for many reasons (being not formally correct, being uneffective, abridging basic rights etc.) Everyone is waiting for the law to come into force, since only then everyone is allowed to appeal against it. At first, it should be August 1st, but then the government noticed they needed to show it to the EU commission first. Now it's November 1st. Funny thing is, that since the law did not pass the first of three required parliamentary readings, it most likely will never come into effect; right now, it hasn't even been signed by the president. If it will ever come into force, you can expect a mass legal dispute. Long story short: we got this one under control.
Hahaha, trains running on time. So funny!
Tell that to the citizen of Berlin, where 2/3 of the S-Bahn trains had to be pulled for safety concerns, because the company saved money on safety procedures in an effort to make the mother corporation ready for the stock market.
You should question your stereotypes.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
freenet
The disturbing and sad part is ... you might be on to something there. This time not with tanks, but with "good intented" laws.
(German citizen here)
So, for those who put great faith in government as the solution to just about anything, I submit to you that government needs to be in check all of the time. It needs to be restricted and it needs to submit to the people of a country, not the other way around. This type of censorship is just the opposite. Life without freedom is no life at all. As they say in the great state of New Hampshire, "Live free or die!"
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Don't forget 666chan.... I suppose the devil's in the details, though.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Read up on the guy and just WHY he is hosting his current show the way he is. BECAUSE HE WAS CENSORED OF THE AIRWAVES.
No country that throws a hissy fit over a nipple has the right to lecture anyone else on free speech.
American TV is the most bleeped tv in the western world and you critize others? Hypocrasy, you are doing it right.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
And I'm still shocked that they banned the APPD. Seriously.
Give it 500 years, and it will be.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
The real question is this: Can you name worse than 12chan?
Not4chan.
Not a sentence!
It is sad that you see Freedom of Expression, one of the Human Rights, as a privilege that can be taken away instead of an inalienable right.
But Freedom of Expression clearly can be taken away (or not conceded in the first place). Try going to China and publically advocating for the rights of Tibetans and Urghurs.
The very concept of an 'inalienable right' is an ahistorical fairytale. 'Rights' are concessions that, for the most part, have had to be pried out of the hands of those who hold power. To consider them natural and inaliable, though it can be inspiring, can also be to take them for granted and to invite complacency in holding power to account.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
The nature of it doesn't change just because it's been in place a long time. It's a way of silencing minority views.
I fail to see your point. Isn't democracy in it self a way of silencing minority views? If less than 5% of the population agree with you enough to vote for your party, you shouldn't really be allowed to control anything at all. You're representing a pretty insignificant minority, not the general public.
Government efficiency and liberty of the population could generally be considered mutually exclusive. Give me small inefficient governments any day.
I'll probably be modded -1 Flamebait or something for this, but it's got to be said. People like you are gravel in the gears. Do you seriously think everyone with an opinion should have the right to directly influence things? Democracy is (or should be) "majority rules", not "majority tries to rule but tiny minority interest groups keep pissing on their parades and preventing them from getting any work done".
Sorry if I completely failed to understand your point. I'd rather have a government that does it's very best to steer the country in the direction the general mass of the people is pushing, instead of a government that goes absolutely nowhere because it tries to cater to everyones needs at the same time!
Being that most of my descendants came from Europe and some of them came from Germany. All I have to say is that If my ancestors wanted to be European they would have stayed but laws like this remind me of why they left such a God Forsaken Land
Paul E. Bahre
Isn't democracy in it self a way of silencing minority views?
No. Minorities often don't get their way, which is ok. Only states aiming for totalitarianism require the minority view to be silenced.
If less than 5% of the population agree with you enough to vote for your party, you shouldn't really be allowed to control anything at all. You're representing a pretty insignificant minority, not the general public.
One person in every twenty probably don't consider themselves insignificant. The Bundestag has 611 members if wikipedia serves me well. If a party got 2% of the vote, why don't they get 12 seats? It's hardly putting them in control, what's the problem with hearing what they have got to say? Is a dissenting view really so threatening? If you don't allow any party with less than 5% to get a seat, you could have 10 minor parties at 4% and have 40% of your population unrepresented with that system.
People like you are gravel in the gears.
Well, I don't think that's flamebait, it's a pretty good representation of my intentions. Democracy itself as implemented was a bunch of people throwing gravel in the gears of the King. The whole system of government is based on making it difficult to get things done. So much quicker and more efficient when the King could just say "Off with his head" without need for those costly, time consuming trials and such. Getting a decision on a law? Used to be the King just issued an edict, if you spoke against it, the consequences were your own fault. None of this messy "parliamentary debate" and "media coverage of issues" that makes things so difficult now! What would Germany be like if Luther hadn't thrown gravel in the Catholic churches gears?
What is really more disturbing, that I want to throw gravel in the gears of a machine that I believe will inevitably work to transform itself into a totalitarian state, or that you see society as a machine, are quite happy with that and presumably realise you are a part in that machine? Who engineered you, friend, who convinced you that you had a purpose in the machine and bolted you in there?
Do you seriously think everyone with an opinion should have the right to directly influence things?
I believe everyone with an opinion has a right to voice it. Naturally those who are unable to convince the majority will have limited success influencing society.
Sorry if I completely failed to understand your point. I'd rather have a government that does it's very best to steer the country in the direction the general mass of the people is pushing, instead of a government that goes absolutely nowhere because it tries to cater to everyones needs at the same time!
I think perhaps you understood my point, but not the reasoning behind it. I've been given very few reasons to trust authority in my life. I don't want the government steering me, I'll steer myself, thanks very much. If the rest of society doesn't want to go that way, I guess they'll end up somewhere different to me, but how will they know if my opinion is silenced? Perhaps more people would agree with minority views if they heard them. As for the government catering to needs, I'm ok if they don't cater to my needs, just also don't get in the way as I cater to the needs of my family and myself.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
One person in every twenty probably don't consider themselves insignificant. The Bundestag has 611 members if wikipedia serves me well. If a party got 2% of the vote, why don't they get 12 seats? It's hardly putting them in control, what's the problem with hearing what they have got to say? Is a dissenting view really so threatening? If you don't allow any party with less than 5% to get a seat, you could have 10 minor parties at 4% and have 40% of your population unrepresented with that system.
You make my point for me quite elegantly! What is the point of any governing instance if it cannot agree with itself for 5 minutes and actually, you know.. govern things? Last election here in Norway, FrP (if memory serves me right) got more than 33% of the votes. That is pretty damn significant considering the number of big political parties we have here. Still, they were beat by a three-party union because FrP didn't want to comprimize their views to cooperate with someone with whom they don't really agree that much.
The result is that this last decade has seen Norway controlled by smaller parties, none of which represent the majority of us voters and who can't agree with each other enough to get anything done.
Of course, not every election can be a land slide with the winner crushing the stragglers by miles. If we follow your example (using my limited knowledge of smaller Norwegian parties), you'd have 40% of the government consisting of pot-heads who's only champaign is legalization, the reds who are (excuse my french) complete idiots who claim anarchy is a valid form of government, and people like the Norwegian Democrats who think children should be seen, not heard, women should wash and cook and anyone with a tan is automatically a criminal.
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want to live in a country where morons like the above are actually given a fist-full of gravel and pointed at the "machine". People who most likely will for the most part just vote the opposite of "The MAN!" because A) They only have their one champaign issue and B) They're not big enough to do what they want, so they'd use their votes to screw up whatever anyone else tried to do.
I believe everyone with an opinion has a right to voice it. Naturally those who are unable to convince the majority will have limited success influencing society.
I couldn't agree more, on your first point there at least. Everyone has their right to mean what they want and speak their minds freely. However! If you're "pro life", pro racism, pro anarchy or think religion has any place in science class or in the government... well, you can find yourself a box to stand on while you share your drunken rage-rants with the unsuspecting public just like all the other nut cases who will hopefully never rule my country! ;)
"Majority rules" means just that. If me and 9 friends are having a movie night and 6 of us want to watch The Matrix and the other 4 want to watch 4 other movies, what do you expect we'd end up watching, hm?
You make my point for me quite elegantly!
That's because we agree on the effects, but not the desirability of them, of allowing representative government even for minorities. You seem happy to be a part in the machine, manufactured by the state and bolted into place. Imagine for a moment that you are a living being instead of a part of a machine. That you grow in an environment rather than perform a function in a machine. How much greater are the possibilities?
What is the point of any governing instance if it cannot agree with itself for 5 minutes and actually, you know.. govern things?
There are a multitude of laws that no political party with any representation in my country disagrees on. Go wild then, government, prohibit murder, theft, etc. If it is hard to implement controversial laws, they are more likely to be thoroughly debated rather than forced through. That's a good thing, by the way, it is a way of killing bad ideas.
Last election here in Norway, FrP (if memory serves me right) got more than 33% of the votes. That is pretty damn significant considering the number of big political parties we have here. Still, they were beat by a three-party union because FrP didn't want to comprimize their views to cooperate with someone with whom they don't really agree that much.
So the truth emerges, you don't really want majority rule, you want your minority to rule. Yes, 33% is a minority, even if it is the biggest one.
The result is that this last decade has seen Norway controlled by smaller parties, none of which represent the majority of us voters and who can't agree with each other enough to get anything done.
Apparently none of your politicians has any ideas compelling enough in their logic and benefits to convince the majority. Why do you want a system that makes the implementation of mediocre ideas easier?
I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want to live in a country where morons like the above are actually given a fist-full of gravel and pointed at the "machine".
That's one reason to limit government: to lessen the impact the morons have on your life. That said, if you have enough morons to undo your government, your voting rules are probably the least of your problems.
"Majority rules" means just that. If me and 9 friends are having a movie night and 6 of us want to watch The Matrix and the other 4 want to watch 4 other movies, what do you expect we'd end up watching, hm?
Yet you don't want real majority rules, you want 33% to rule the rest. In any case, a group of friends choosing to watch a movie together is a voluntary activity. If the other 4 really don't want to watch the Matrix, I suppose they could do something else. In such a situation the majority are not "ruling" in a way comparable to having others political ideas forced on you.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
There are a multitude of laws that no political party with any representation in my country disagrees on. Go wild then, government, prohibit murder, theft, etc. If it is hard to implement controversial laws, they are more likely to be thoroughly debated rather than forced through. That's a good thing, by the way, it is a way of killing bad ideas.
Have you ever been anywhere where there are more than two more-or-less equal parties? Believe me, it's not just the more controversial issues they can't agree on. They can't agree on anything (well, except for the kinds of things you propose)! The result isn't just that bad ideas are killed, all ideas are, because noone has the weight to shift anything in any direction.
Apparently none of your politicians has any ideas compelling enough in their logic and benefits to convince the majority. Why do you want a system that makes the implementation of mediocre ideas easier?
Or, all of them have ideas that are compelling and provide benefints to some part of the majority. It is impossible to please everybody (unfortunate, but no less true), thus the point of democracy is to cater to as big a chunk of the population as possible. If everyone voted for whoever they felt would change the country for the better and one party got 33% of the votes, a few others got 10-20% and the rest was distributed pretty evenly across the smaller parties, I find it rather obvious who ought to be in charge that 4-year period. If they do a great job, chances are they will get even more votes next election. If not, someone else will step ut and try to do a better job.
Yet you don't want real majority rules, you want 33% to rule the rest. In any case, a group of friends choosing to watch a movie together is a voluntary activity. If the other 4 really don't want to watch the Matrix, I suppose they could do something else. In such a situation the majority are not "ruling" in a way comparable to having others political ideas forced on you.
You fail to see my point. Imagine then, that the 10 of us were at a remote cabin for easter and replace the movies with board games. No one could just up and leave, unless they wanted to sit in the neighbouring room and pout. Do we:
You will probably find some flaw in that metaphore but if the democracy is occupied with discussing how to please everyone (which is impossible) to the exclution of acting (because they can't agree how to act), then democracy is flawed. The only way to not have others political ideas "forced" on you is to live someplace where everyone agrees with you which, let's face it, means living alone on an island somewhere.
So the truth emerges, you don't really want majority rule, you want your minority to rule. Yes, 33% is a minority, even if it is the biggest one.
What, to you, constitutes a majority? You would be right that 33% isn't a majority in a 2 or 3 party system, but we are talking about 20 parties here. One party getting 33%, while of the remaining parties the biggest 6 share 55% and the rest get next to nothing.. I think that means the people have spoken, and done so quite clearly. That two or three lesser parties can freely form a coalition government, eventhough they mostly don't agree on anything, or the few things they do manage to agree on might not be what won either party the votes they got.. It's just wrong, that's what it is! The party that gets the most votes is the party that best represents the public, because it represents the biggest chunk of the public! Didn't win? QQ MOAR PLOX! Go door-to-door, start campaigns, win votes for your party so you can get a chance to rule and make things better.