Liadnan

>and at what point are the leaders assumed to have a mandate - as opposed to remaining in power simply because no-one has held them to task?<

I don't quite get your point - our government are held to task every day by constitutional procedures that have worked for centuries. The government has a mandate to govern, derived from their election, the leader of the government has a mandate to lead their party, derived from their party's own procedures.

>This would be a free and democratic election decided in fair part by the size of the respective campaign chests?<

Cerainly influenced by their war-chests, else why spend the money? But how does advertising spend lessen the freedom of every voter to cast their vote, or of the democratic nature of a first past the post system? There are sound arguments for different systems of proportional representation, or to restrict advertising spend, but I can't see how these would change an elected governement's propensity to disagree with you.

>When my support for any given political party counts to the same extent as, say, Bill Gates' then we have a free and democratic system.<

By your definition, certainly. Can you name any system of government in the history of the world which meets that definition?

>And at what point can a government be said to have forfeited their right to a position? - by your contention, a government would be free to institute a policy of compulsory child mortality tomorrow on the basis of a vote last year - and any attempt to overthrow them or void the policy would be illegitimate.<

Sorry, but I never contended that it is illegitimate to attempt to change a government's policy or to change a goverment - I did say that their legitimacy wasn't tied to your opinion. We have a range of legitimate tools to change government policy, and to change governments. In theory Parliament can indeed legislate in any way it desires - although that is limited by their ability to command a majority in the Commons, a majority that might be dificult to gather for the Herod (Children) Bill. Even if the bill passed, there are a range of safeguards on implementing it.

>Furthermore; if an allegedly democratic government<

There is no "allegedly" here. The governemnt was democratically elected.

>does things that damage local and national democracy, then it is acting against the interests of the country it is nominally in charge of; and should be accountable as such.

Not simply to the parties of opposition, but to the people as a whole and the judicial system in particular.<

OK, accepting for a moment that you will decide what is harming local and national democracy, not the people we've elected to represent us. What practical sanctions do you advocate for behavior running counter to your opinions, who specifically do you see these sanctions being applied to, and what mechanisms do you intend to employ to apply the sanctions?

I realise you may have no answer for these questions, or feel that it is not your responsibility to suggest alternatives, only to point out flaws. There's an honourable tradition of Anarchy, which I'm very sympathetic to, but I don't think that's what you're advocating.

It's easy (and fun) to poke holes, harder, and less fun, to suggest improvements.