Boaty McBoatface and the False Promise of Democracy

There is not I'm afraid, you have to mark the ballot paper. So the way round it is to mark the paper outside of the boxes, thus making it an invalid vote.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the outcome".

Let's not kid ourselves... Democracy is no perfect ideal to aspire after. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Let's also consider what Bastiat had to say[1]:

    What, then, is law? It is the collective organization 
    of the individual right to lawful defense.

    Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend 
    his person, his liberty, and his property. These are 
    the three basic requirements of life, and the 
    preservation of any one of them is completely dependent 
    upon the preservation of the other two. For what are 
    our faculties but the extension of our individuality? 
    And what is property but an extension of our faculties? 
    If every person has the right to defend even by force — 
    his person, his liberty, and his property, then it 
    follows that a group of men have the right to organize 
    and support a common force to protect these rights 
    constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — 
    its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on 
    individual right. And the common force that protects 
    this collective right cannot logically have any other 
    purpose or any other mission than that for which it 
    acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot 
    lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or 
    property of another individual, then the common force — 
    for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to 
    destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals 
    or groups.

    Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, 
    contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to 
    defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say 
    that force has been given to us to destroy the equal 
    rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting 
    separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights 
    of others, does it not logically follow that the same 
    principle also applies to the common force that is 
    nothing more than the organized combination of the 
    individual forces?

    If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than 
    this: The law is the organization of the natural right 
    of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common 
    force for individual forces. And this common force is 
    to do only what the individual forces have a natural 
    and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, 
    and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to 
    cause justice to reign over us all.

Now I don't agree with his appeal to "God" as the justification for the inherent nature of the right to self-defense, but his basic argument is sound.

[1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G004

> You realise that those 4 year olds grow up right?

No, I didn't realize that 4 year olds grow up. Thank you for clearing that up.

> getting representatives which represents the great variety of voter opinions

The parties in the US don't control the opinions and seats of their elected members, which means you get a greater variety of political positions under the same label than you do in a lot of parliamentary systems. Republicans in California can easily be left of Democrats in Georgia.[0]

There are opinions held by small interest groups that are not reflected in the democratic process, to be sure.

On the other hand, performing artists have their own line in the tax code, so sometimes these groups do get their way.

> US elections are so dominated by advertisement, expensive campaigns and donations that there is no way a politician can actually do what they tell voters because at the end of the day they have to satisfy donors

A lot of studies have debunked the influence of money on campaigns.[1]

Jeb's massive war chest didn't keep him in the race.

Here are the richest individuals to ever launch a bid for the presidency[2]:

1) Ross Perot

2) Steve Forbes

3) John Kerry

4) Mitt Romney

5) Al Gore

The Clintons are next, but most of their money was made after Bill's Presidency.

Giuliani, Edwards, and Huntsman round out the list (before this election, I'm not sure if anyone really knows how much Trump is worth).

A lot of losers on that list for a system so influenced by money.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zell_Miller

[1] http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-sp...

[2] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ross-perot-tops-lis...

The UK Gov't really doesn't get it. Just imagine the marketing and sales opportunity for a Kids Television Show about Boaty McBoatface, the Research Vessel.

Or how about toys, educational videos, educational cartoons, educational books featuring Boaty McBoatface and friends.

This is a Scientific Research Vessel that people could really fall in love with, and instead of capitalizing on that possibility, they'll give it a name like the Hawking. Nothing against Hawking.