the social grants are evil: they encourage laziness, dependency, more babies, HIV/AIDS etc. BUT they buy votes.
Did an exercise with my domestic a little while back, she works 3 days a week for me, 2 days elsewhere (which includes her accommodation), receives 4 grants - 3 for children, 1 for old age (she’s 43 - dont ask), has a RDP house “back home” where the kids are deposited - she earns in excess of R9000 cash per month in total…
That’s way more than I earn, and I’m a school teacher with a degree and almost three decades of work experience. And tax free too! I think I should change careers… 
Maybe you think you’re on some other forum… 
But seriously, (wtf!!). My s/o doesn’t make nearly that, I want govt. housing! (So I too can be a slumlord)
I do not dispute this - if we must have government, than a democratic one is best. But it still does not help the individual voter at all to go cast his vote, except when the voter turnout drops below twenty voters or so.
And maybe not so much in this country as we hope but voting out one party and voting in another makes a big difference, and I've seen that chance around where I live.
Indeed, but with millions of voters, you cannot vote out the government. Your vote is lost in all those millions.
So the question is, what is it that individual voters get out of voting? Perhaps there is more than one answer.
With all this talk about democracy, we need to define what we mean by it. The uSA system of democracy is very different from ours. Our proportional representative system is iniquitous in my view. It means that every party that garners sufficient votes nominates its own reps…regardless of competence, criminal record, literacy, etc etc. No accountability is built in either as we have no clue who actually represents our particular constituency (area/ward/interest group etc). No feedback is given to those who voted so-and-so in and you are stuck with the list compiled in some dark smoke filled rooms.
Democracy is broadly defines as:a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Ours are not elected by us except in a roundabout/armslength manner.
If we were to move back to a ward based system, party reps would be held accountable, be recognisable and have local roots in most instances. They then win/lose an election on their own merits (not always so strong) linked to party policies etc. This would IMHO also mean that they work for the betterment of their constituencies and when a by-election becomes necessary, a new face is possibly nominated and needs to stand up to be measured.
So what you are saying is that it is still a minority ruled government.
HUH!
We do have a ward based system, which we vote for in two years time again.
If you in Cape town you can check who your ward councilor here https://www.capetown.gov.za/en/councilonline/Pages/ViewCouncillors.aspx?FirstSurnameInRange=A&LastSurnameInRange=A.
And yes 2 your second part take the time and hold your rep. accountable.
A drop in representation from 64.76% in 2009 to 54.92% in 2014 means a relative drop in the ANC’s Gauteng support base of 15.19%, or nearly one in six supporters defecting.
http://citizen.co.za/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2014/05/Cartoon5-300x215.jpg
Still, there are some who deny any connection to e-tolling…
'Luthon64
We do have a ward based system, which we vote for in two years time again.True but only in the municipal elections. Let's explain again: a national ward based system works very much like the municipal system currently but on a national scale. All ward reps are nominated by their respective political parties and are usually drawn from the local population party supporters. The total wards in the country correspond with the number of parliamentary seats in Cape Town ...say 500. The country is divided into 500 wards, normally based on population densities thus a rural ward in the kalahari would be big in geographic terms, while Sunnyside in Pta tiny...but both may have roughly the same no of voters. Thus assuming we have 5 political parties and each nominates 1 rep per ward we would have a total of 2500 possible MP candidates. You vote for the person/party in your ward and [u]the majority party in each ward[/u] carries the flag to parliament. Ultimately party A wins say 251 wards/seats and then sets up its cabinet and appoints its President. The big difference is that accountability is better and faces in parliament REALLY reflect the votes of their respective parties....so no Tweefo...majority wins and rules. A major assumption of course is that ward boundaries are fair...the old National party swung these wards to rural/farmers constituencies to suit themselves...the ANC is doing the same at the moment in municipal wards...that is a weakness but could be overcome by an independent body... A 54.92% vote would largely reflect 55% seats in parliament (based on the all's fair assumption above)
There is one problem with the ward system: what if, in virtually all wards, the ANC has, say, 55% support. The ANC then wins all the wards, and completely dominates parliament, despite not having remotely that kind of actual support. With the ward system it is in fact possible for a party with a minority of actual support to win an election.
Some years ago, a commission under the late Van Zyl Slabbert tried to address the problems with the current system by proposing a system that would combine the best elements of both the current system and the ward system. I don’t know the details. Suffice it to say that it was probably a good proposal, because the government paid it no heed.
It would be interesting to find out what Slabbert proposed…
We are ruled by politicians (that gets appointed by other politicians)and since they are in a minority, that means we are ruled by a minority government. Back to Adam’s Lizards. 
Google “slabbert commission report”. I haven’t read it; it’s probably long and boring.
OKOK: getit I wasn’t in that frame of mind or restaurant…