[Someone1234]

> Unless this is an argument for literally direct democracy why do we need to vote separately for the prime minister? Do you want to vote for every minister individually? There are more than a hundred so it may take a while.

This is a textbook example of a "False Dilemma"-type fallacy. Either don't vote for the PM or vote for "more than a hundred" ministers. Those aren't the only two options and you know that.

A vote for a PM could, implicitly, be a vote for the ministers that the PM would select. You select the PM, the PM selects their ministers and cabinet, that gives the public more Democratic power.

> I think in UK politics talking about apathy and ignorance is often a nice way to talk about other people's ignorance of your better opinions, and their apathy for your better ideas.

Three quarters of people 'cannot name their local MP'[0].

[0] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22555659

[chrisseaton]

Well I didn't actually present any dilemma - you're imagining that. I just asked if you thought we should also vote for all other ministers to see how many votes you thought we should have. I didn't say those were the only two options.

I'm in favour of regularly electing a representative and then letting them get on with it. I favour simplicity and I think too many votes on different issues gets in the way of a coherent government.

If people can't name their MP then that's their business. Perhaps they're focusing their time and energy on something they believe is more important. Maybe they're curing cancer while we argue politics. Who knows.

[thomasfoster96]

> A vote for a PM could, implicitly, be a vote for the ministers that the PM would select. You select the PM, the PM selects their ministers and cabinet, that gives the public more Democratic power.

That's called a 'presidential system'.