The world is not democratic. I apologise if I shock you but I have just seen the figures, that globally there are 52% females to 48% males (respectfully ignoring the imbetweens). This means that technically, the world should be ruled by women. We all know it is, on the whole, not. Perhaps the news today that gender equality is expected in 217 years time will not make women feel empowered by their majority status.

Democracy has brought so much peace and cooperation to countries that have adopted it, that it should not be mocked. And I think most of us are aware that it is one of those systems that although flawed, it’s hard to think of anything better. But how flawed has it become?

Most democratic countries in the world have a two party system, like the democrats and republicans in the United States. First you vote for one party, who mess up in their term of office, so next time you vote for the others. So it swings and each time, ‘the government gets in’ as they say. Sometimes their policies are so similar, you wonder what is the point anyway. And all the policies are short term, designed to cajole the voter to ‘vote for us’ next time. Few policies are designed for the benefit of the grand children of the voters, like global issues of over population and climate change.

Introduce the power of today’s social media sites to influence voters with information that may or may not be correct and Socrates worst fears about the ignorance of voters materialise. Introduce the potential for foreign governments to influence elections in another country to futher their preferred candidate, and the world is in a whirl.

After all the fuss, it is strange to think that not all voters vote, except in those countries where they are obliged to by law. If you are a prisoner in the UK you are not allowed to vote (except if you at the extreme low end of offending and in for a short term). So how does that serve to rehabilitate prisoners into society? Not much of a withdrawal of privilege to those who prefer not to vote anyway.

And then there are the rules. Fundamentally, the majority wins. But what is a majority? A majority of voters with strong feelings drives a coach and horses over the feelings of those who don’t vote. Surely, the views of a person not voting are just the views that need to be heard? The often quoted ‘silent majority’ lacks the ‘get up and go’ of political activists. Active voting favours the activist. In extreme circumstances where people are frightened to vote because of intimidation at the polling stations, such as recently seen in Barcelona, democracy is not being represented. May the system of voting from the comfort of your living room come quickly. If it’s good enough for Strictly Come Dancing contestants, it must be good enough to more important matters.

Then, do we really believe that a majority of one, is a majority? Is not the logic of the arithmetic leading us astray from common sense? Think of a majority more as a substantial quorum, a large proportion who wholly over shadow the few with opposite views. That, it seems to me, is what a majority should be. Enter the concept of the ‘double majority’. In order for a vote to be passed, there must firstly be a majority of voters turning out to vote. Then the question is asked, ‘did votes in favour outnumber votes against by a required margin?’

And there is yet another rub. What is a required margin? For issues of national importance you would like to think that it would be substantial, at least 66%. Anything less and you risk the dissenters having too strong a voice in the following years. This is called a ‘super majority’ and varies between 66%, 60% and 55% depending on the country, parliamentary system and processes of law. My point here is the super majority is an arbitrary figure but clearly intends to require a substantial majority in order to carry dissenters after the vote.

I cannot discuss this subject without a sideways look at the United Kingdom referendum in June 2016.

Once a referendum has taken place in the UK, does parliament have to take notice?

I am going to use a qoute from Wikipedia here; ‘Legally, Parliament at any point in future could reverse legislation approved by referendum, because the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means no Parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing legislation. However, reversing legislation approved by referendum would be unprecedented.’

And then there are two types of referendum. Those before legislation is passed and those after. Historically there have been three referendums in the UK in 1975, 2011 and 2016. The first two were post-legislative. The most recent in 2016 had no ‘deal on the table’ for voters to consider so now some commentators are demanding a second referendum after a deal has been brokered with the European Union. This would at least bring some clarity and detail, which we know is where the devil often resides!

Interestingly, and lastly, the British, historically, had an aversion to referendums. Mrs Thatcher quoted Clement Atlee when she said referendums were “a device of dictators and demagogues” as Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler had exploited their use in the past. And in the present times when nationalism is raising it’s flags in many parts of Europe and the United States of America, should we not be worried of the power of the misuse of the democractic rules which predetermine who is going to win, before the election or referendum even takes place?