Democracy - Does it have a chance?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Democracy - Does it have a chance?

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:15 pm

The idea for me to make this post came when I watched this video by Oliver Thorn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr-ZeToI4R8

I would definitely recommend that you watch that video. Thorn only briefly touches on what I'm going to be talking about, but it's a brilliant video and very interesting, informative and important.

In that video, Thorn, amongst other things, discusses ways in which democracy can become more representative, and whether this ought to in fact happen. Because he focuses on the Brexit referendum as his example of how democracy functions today, he doesn't really talk that much about how democracy functions in elections specifically, and thus doesn't talk about methods of making the results of elections more representative (e.g. by enacting Proportional Representation).

Now, in talking about democracy, Thorn is using a definition which I think most people use. Wikipedia describes it as "a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting". However, there is another definition of democracy. The literal Greek meaning of democracy is "rule by the people", and democracy has sometimes been referred to as "mob rule". Some libertarians and conservatives have therefore argued that democracy leads to a "tyranny of the majority" and countries like Britain and the United States, therefore, are not and should not be democracies. I personally believe that a tyranny of the majority is just as likely to form with democracy as a tyranny of the minority is without it, and although neither are particularly pleasant, it's preferable that a small amount of people is tyrannised than a large amount. Regardless, there is a crucial difference between these two definitions. Under the first, Britain and the U.S. are democracies. Under the second, they are not, as the United States is headed by a President who has not received the most votes, and the United Kingdom has a right-wing government despite more people voting for left-wing parties than right-wing parties. To avoid confusion, I wish to state that from hereon out when I say "democracy", I will be using the second definition.

The question I wish to ask is this: Is there a chance that a democratic system like proportional representation could be implemented in countries without it like Britain and the U.S. or does the political climate in these countries make democracy, by its very nature, impossible to implement?

So let's begin:

In Britain, when David Cameron was Prime Minister, a referendum was held, the results of which I believe to have been disastrous. The majority of the British people appear to have been hoodwinked into voting against their own best interests, and we are still suffering the consequences of their decision to this day. Nevertheless the people spoke, as it seems that we are obliged to abide by their will.

I am, as you might have guessed, talking about the 2011 referendum on whether the UK ought to switch from its First-Past-The-Post electoral system to an Alternative Vote system.

So, what the UK currently has is First-Past-The-Post (FPTP). In constituencies, whoever gets the most votes becomes the MP. The trouble with FPTP is that it leads to situations where an MP can be elected despite the majority of people not voting for them. If three candidates are running to be MP, a candidate only needs to win 33.333...% of the vote to become an MP. If four are running, they only need 25%. If five are running, they only need 20%. And so on and so forth. The more candidates that run, the less votes they need to receive, which leads to situations like a left-wing MP being elected when most people voted for right-wing candidates, or a right-wing MP being elected when most people voted for left-wing candidates. The problem with FPTP is that can lead to MPs representing constituencies where the majority of the people who live there hate their flipping guts.

Under an Alternative Vote (AV) system, this is resolved. You can rank your preferences for MP from best to worst. So let's imagine we live in a constituency with four candidates running for MP: Gary (Conservative Party), Harry (Labour Party), Larry (Green Party) and Barry (Socialist Workers' Party). In this race between one right-wing candidate and three left-wing candidates, Gary the right-winger receives 30% of the vote, with Harry, Larry and Barry receiving 29%, 27%, and 14% respectively. Under a FPTP system, a right-winger would represent a constituency which is 70% left-wing. However, under an AV system, the votes from Barry would be transferred to whichever candidates received the second place spot on those ballot papers, and whoever got the least votes then would have their votes transferred to their next preference votes. This process would lead to this left-wing constituency being adequately represented by having a left-wing MP. Likewise, in a right-wing constituency with four candidates running for MP: Ben (Labour Party), Ken (Conservative Party), Len (Brexit Party) and Helen (UKIP), Ben only has to receive 25% of the vote to win under FPTP. Under AV, even if this happens, a left-winger like him isn't going to represent a right-wing constituency.

Now, I'm not a particularly big fan of either of these systems. I prefer AV due to the fact that it allows for more majoritarianism in individual constituencies, however, neither system adequately allows for the representation of the country as a whole, like the far sexier electoral system of Proportional Representation does. Nevertheless, there is clearly much more representation under AV than under FPTP.

So here is why the idea of democracy could potentially be self-defeating: it is based on the idea of majority rule, and the majority of people may be against majority rule. This was certainly the case in the AV referendum. The views of the people were represented, and they used that opportunity to vote against more representation. The majority of people did not want AV. A much larger amount of people wanted FPTP, and an even larger amount did not vote at all (which, excluding those who wanted to vote but couldn't, is a consent to not be represented).

This turns the idea of "tyranny of the majority" on its head. Rather than democracy typically leading to the majority voting against the interests of the minority, it could be the case that it typically leads to the majority voting against their own interests. Rather than democracy being two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner, it could be turkeys voting to celebrate Christmas with a meat-eating family.

This leads to the underlying problem of democracy: It only works if the majority of people know what is in their best interests.

In a discussion I had not too long ago with @brimstoneSalad, we debated over whether people generally know what is best for them. In retrospect, my viewpoint that "people generally know what is best for them" would have been better advocated as "people in a particular group are generally more likely to know what is good for that group than people outside that group". There are, of course, exceptions for this. As brimstoneSalad pointed out, an individual with cancer who wants homeopathy clearly doesn't know better than an oncologist without cancer does. However, this doesn't negate the fact that those with cancer will probably be more likely to know what will treat their cancers than those without cancer, and they will have had to undergo much more treatment procedures than people without cancer. However, the point I want to make here is that even though people in a particular group may on average know better than those outside that group about issues affecting their group, they still may not know what is in that group's best interests. I just don't know, and I don't know whether we can ever know for sure (maybe we can).

Whether people in general know what is best for them is something which I am not sure of. It certainly wasn't that way in the 2011 AV referendum, and it doesn't look that way now. There are a whole bunch of examples which I could use to illustrate this, but I want to focus on democracy here, so we're gonna use that.

In Britain, even though AV failed, many people support proportional representation. Most parties other than the Conservative Party appear to support it. It's difficult to know whether, despite most people favouring FPTP over AV in 2011, the situation has changed since. Many people viewed the 2016 Brexit referendum in terms of change and continuity, with "Leave" being seen as the "change" option. The 2011 AV referendum could be seen in the same way, and so if an electoral reform referendum was held today, electoral reform could get voted through by virtue of being viewed as the "change" option. Nevertheless, because of the fact that so much attention is being focused on Brexit, it seems unlikely that electoral reform could happen in Britain in the near future.

In the United States, because of the election of President Trump without the consent of the majority, many people are now supporting the abolition of the electoral college. It's unlikely that this could happen without the election of a Democratic President in 2020. Even if it did happen, this would not necessarily lead to majoritarianism in the United States. If the President was elected using the national popular vote in 2016, Hillary Clinton would have been President. However, like Trump, she would have also been elected despite the majority of Americans voting for another candidate. Whether democracy can succeed in America is uncertain as there doesn't seem to be more people pushing for a more radical alternative than the national popular vote. There doesn't seem to be any major figures pushing for proportional representation and I've only seen one person (Jill Stein) advocating for an AV system. Then again, having the national popular vote instead of the electoral college could pave the way for one of these systems to be implemented.

In France, Emmanuel Macron was elected President under a system that is kinda sorta not really like AV as the two candidates with the most votes in the first round move on to the second round and the candidate with the most votes in that round wins. However, like FPTP, this still leads to an unrepresentative outcome if people don't vote tactically in the first round. Although the combined vote of left-wingers Melenchon and Hamon was 26%, and Macron only received 24%, because the left-wing vote was split with the radical socialist Melenchon receiving 19.6% and the more moderate Corbyn/Sanders-style socialist Hamon receiving 6.4%. I had endorsed Hamon in that election, but in retrospect that seems to have been a mistake. If Hamon voters had voted tactically, Melenchon might have been the French President now. Instead it's Macron who, in my opinion, is buggering things up with his neoliberal policies. I fear that instead of the people of France turning their anger on the electoral system that got him into power this may lead to them electing Le Pen in 2022.

In these countries at least, the situation doesn't look particularly pretty.

There is an argument to be made that if people are more educated, then a system such as proportional representation or AV might have more of a chance. Most of the propaganda produced by the "No to AV" campaign in 2011 seemed to rely on the fact that voters are fucking idiots. For instance, one of their adverts depicted a ballot paper with the choices ranked being inserted into a ballot box that looked like a Rubik's cube. This had the caption "Voting should not be this complicated". The message of this advert? That the average voter is thick as pig shit and too stupid to figure out how to rank their candidates from best to worst and insert their ballot paper into a ballot box that looks like a Rubik's cube.

I don't even think that the people who made this advert believed it themselves. No matter how negative your view on the general intelligence of humanity is, I'm sure you'll agree that most people wouldn't find voting in an AV system "complicated". And if you're not convinced, let me inform you that the voting system used on shows such as The X Factor is essentially an AV system, with the contestant with the least votes being voted off of the show, enabling those who voted for them to vote for somebody else afterwards. AV is so simple that even a fan of reality TV can understand it.

Nevertheless the education system has, in my opinion, failed a lot of people. A lot of people, including myself, want the government to improve education. I know that this is an issue which @Red in particular is very passionate about. However, this seems to not have happened due to a vicious cycle where a poor education system produces uninformed voters, and uninformed voters vote for a poor education system. Because of this, when talking about education, we may need to focus on education coming from the bottom up rather than the top down, and to use our own initiative to educate people rather than relying on change coming from above. However, it remains to be seen whether an educated populace could bring a change to the electoral system.

To conclude, I asked the question "Does democracy have a chance?" and I think I've succeeded in using over 1,000 words to express this answer: "Idk lol". Anyway, if you reckon you have an idea of what the answer might be, let me know.

In all seriousness, having ballot boxes that look like Rubik's cubes would be pretty cool.
Join my Democratic People's Republic: https://discord.gg/N2Uqehc
Follow my Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgentBl65800546

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:23 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:15 pm
Is there a chance that a democratic system like proportional representation could be implemented in countries without it like Britain and the U.S. or does the political climate in these countries make democracy, by its very nature, impossible to implement?
Proportional representation has already been established in the form of a democratic republic. i.g., [eligible] citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests in the government.

Pure democracy is unlikely to work in a diverse country like the U.S., where, as you mention, select groups could utilize their majoritarian status to impose its own interests on minority out-groups (or impose its will against its own interests). Ironically, such a reform would need to be introduced, reviewed, voted in, and signed by a republic-style Executive branch of government.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 12:15 pm
To conclude, I asked the question "Does democracy have a chance?" and I think I've succeeded in using over 1,000 words to express this answer: "Idk lol". Anyway, if you reckon you have an idea of what the answer might be, let me know.
Unlikely, unless well over 50% of the population were comprised of scientists/academics who could vote in the best interests of the group. No, most people do not know what is in their best interests, and the notion that they do is demonstrably false. What with the rise of lunatic parents refusing to vaccinate their children against preventable disease. https://www.livescience.com/64728-measl ... ation.html

I’d argue that some decidedly un-democratic policies could be made to reflect that of a more fair system. The best example is the U.S. presidential elections, which is both unfair and un-democratic. The electoral college could either be abolished or reformed to evenly distribute all 538 electoral votes across the states, with every 605,390 people per state being equal to 1 electoral vote.

325.7 US pop.
_____________ = 605,390 people (unit per vote)

538 electoral votes


12.81 mil. PA pop.

_____________ = 21 electoral votes

605,390 people (unit per vote)

This means that while Pennsylvania is currently only allotted 20 electoral votes, they would receive 21. That extra 1 vote they should receive goes to a much less populated Alaska, sitting at 3 electoral votes (a more fair system would allot it 1 vote). That means each Alaskan shares a single electoral vote with about 246,000 other Alaskans, while each Pennsylvannian shares a single vote with about 640,000 other Pennslyvanians. i.e., an Alaska resident’s vote is worth 2.6x as much as a PA resident’s vote.

Would such a system be un-democratic? Yes.

Would it be fair? Yes. 


Fixable without mandating absolute democracy? Yes. In fact, I wouldn’t want to give anti-vax loonies direct power to elect other anti-vax loonies into their state/federal offices.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:53 am

Lay Vegan wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 2:23 pm
Proportional representation has already been established in the form of a democratic republic. i.g., [eligible] citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests in the government.
By proportional representation, I mean a system in which the percentage of politicians that are elected representing particular political parties is roughly the same as the percentage of the vote that those political parties got in the election.
Pure democracy is unlikely to work in a diverse country like the U.S., where, as you mention, select groups could utilize their majoritarian status to impose its own interests on minority out-groups
I haven't actually got a problem on this in some situations. For instance, if the majority support mandatory vaccinations, I would be entirely in favour of them forcing their will onto the minority.

Of course, there are situations where the will of the majority will be unfair, but I think that this is hardly any worse than the will of the minority unfairly affecting the majority.
Unlikely, unless well over 50% of the population were comprised of scientists/academics who could vote in the best interests of the group.
If most people don't know what's in their best interests, would it be necessary for them to be a scientist or academic in order to know, or is it possible for them to simply be educated enough to know what is in their best interests without being one?
No, most people do not know what is in their best interests, and the notion that they do is demonstrably false. What with the rise of lunatic parents refusing to vaccinate their children against preventable disease. https://www.livescience.com/64728-measl ... ation.html
This doesn't demonstrate that the notion that most people know what is in their best interests is false. There may be a rise in anti-vax movements in the U.S. but the majority of Americans still support vaccination, with 90% saying that parents put their children at risk when they don't vaccinate them:

https://www.immunizeusa.org/blog/2018/m ... cine-poll/

In this particular case, it seems that most people do know what is in their best interests, but there is a growing number of people who don't. This is also only one example. There are almost definitely plenty of other cases where most people don't know what is in their best interests, and others where they do know what is in their best interests and the number of people who don't is shrinking. I'd like to know how it is in general.

The notion that most people know what is in their best interests may be demonstrably false, but I'd need to see more evidence for that.
I’d argue that some decidedly un-democratic policies could be made to reflect that of a more fair system. The best example is the U.S. presidential elections, which is both unfair and un-democratic. The electoral college could either be abolished or reformed to evenly distribute all 538 electoral votes across the states, with every 605,390 people per state being equal to 1 electoral vote.

325.7 US pop.
_____________ = 605,390 people (unit per vote)

538 electoral votes


12.81 mil. PA pop.

_____________ = 21 electoral votes

605,390 people (unit per vote)

This means that while Pennsylvania is currently only allotted 20 electoral votes, they would receive 21. That extra 1 vote they should receive goes to a much less populated Alaska, sitting at 3 electoral votes (a more fair system would allot it 1 vote). That means each Alaskan shares a single electoral vote with about 246,000 other Alaskans, while each Pennsylvannian shares a single vote with about 640,000 other Pennslyvanians. i.e., an Alaska resident’s vote is worth 2.6x as much as a PA resident’s vote.

Would such a system be un-democratic? Yes.

Would it be fair? Yes. 

What makes you say it would be fair?
Fixable without mandating absolute democracy? Yes. In fact, I wouldn’t want to give anti-vax loonies direct power to elect other anti-vax loonies into their state/federal offices.
If you're concerned about anti-vaccine viewpoints spreading in that sense, it may be more effective to ban anti-vaxxers from voting. Even more effective may be to criminalise anti-vaccine viewpoints.
Join my Democratic People's Republic: https://discord.gg/N2Uqehc
Follow my Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgentBl65800546

User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Lay Vegan » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:39 pm

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:53 am
I mean a system in which the percentage of politicians that are elected representing particular political parties is roughly the same as the percentage of the vote that those political parties got in the election.
I wouldn’t be against that (I am not a proponent of the electoral college as is). Though that doesn’t sound like a direct democracy.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:53 am
This doesn't demonstrate that the notion that most people know what is in their best interests is false. There may be a rise in anti-vax movements in the U.S. but the majority of Americans still support vaccination, with 90% saying that parents put their children at risk when they don't vaccinate them.
Interesting info. I’d like to see the breakdown across state/county lines (I come from an area with growing skepticism toward vaccines). Regardless, public support has declined, and it is a direct result of public misconception/ misinformation of vaccines. Most people may trust the general public’s opinion on any given scientific issue, but that does not mean they are capable of interpreting and extrapolating on scientific research.

The vast majority of Americans (85%) favor increased federal spending on research to “improve” vaccines. Yet scientific consensus remains that vaccines are safe, effective, and low-risk. Direct democracy would demand the government pour more funds into “strengthening” area of research that has already established as safe and effective. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/index.html
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:53 am
I haven't actually got a problem on this in some situations. For instance, if the majority support mandatory vaccinations, I would be entirely in favour of them forcing their will onto the minority.
The reality is that decisions enacted by majoritarian-rule are not necessarily correct decisions. The more educated a public becomes, the more likely popular opinion may fall in the line with the truth, but direct democracy assumes that is the case. And there is evidence that it not the case.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:53 am
but I'd need to see more evidence for that.
I'll retract that statement to say that most people do not always know what it in their best interest of the group, and direct democracy is the vehicle that permits them to pass harmful laws.

Public opinion contradicts the science on GMO’s among other issues.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/201 ... d-society/
Pew Research Center wrote:A majority of the general public (57%) says that genetically modified (GM) foods are generally unsafe to eat, while 37% says such foods are safe; by contrast, 88% of AAAS scientists say GM foods are generally safe.


GMO’s are safe and have a number of benefits: Increased nutrient absorption, better taste, bigger size, pesticide / drought resistance etc.

https://www.nap.edu/resource/23395/GE-c ... -brief.pdf
While recognizing the inherent difficulty of detecting subtle or long-term effects in health or the environment, the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops. GE crops have generally had favorable economic outcomes for producers in early years of adoption, but enduring and widespread gains will depend on institutional support and access to profitable local and global markets, especially for resource-poor farmers.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:53 am
What makes you say it would be fair?
I would argue it’s more fair than the current U.S. system, which is designed the consider the votes of states, not individual citizens. The system I’ve proposed would distribute all 538 electoral votes evenly across the population, so that one’s vote does not hold more weight in any state.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:53 am
If you're concerned about anti-vaccine viewpoints spreading in that sense, it may be more effective to ban anti-vaxxers from voting. Even more effective may be to criminalise anti-vaccine viewpoints.
I don’t see that as realistic (too much politics).

There’s a fine line between censoring the proliferation of objectively false and harmful ideas, and criminalizing people who simply believe false information.

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:46 pm

Lay Vegan wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:39 pm
I wouldn’t be against that (I am not a proponent of the electoral college as is). Though that doesn’t sound like a direct democracy.
It isn’t a direct democracy. I’m not in favour of direct democracy either (at least not at the moment). That being said, I do think that the question of how likely it is that direct democracy could be implemented in countries that don’t have it is an interesting one.
The vast majority of Americans (85%) favor increased federal spending on research to “improve” vaccines. Yet scientific consensus remains that vaccines are safe, effective, and low-risk. Direct democracy would demand the government pour more funds into “strengthening” area of research that has already established as safe and effective. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/index.html
That is a definite possibility. What I’d like to know is whether most Americans consider improving vaccines a major priority and whether most of them would favour increased federal spending on research to improve other things. It could just be that most of them aren’t aware that vaccines are already fine as they are, and/or would favour increased funds to improve anything (even if they don’t view that thing as being particularly problematic).
The reality is that decisions enacted by majoritarian-rule are not necessarily correct decisions. The more educated a public becomes, the more likely popular opinion may fall in the line with the truth, but direct democracy assumes that is the case. And there is evidence that it not the case.
Definitely, and this could be a criticism of proportional representation as well as direct democracy. However, it’s just as much of a fact that decisions enacted by minoritarian-rule are also not necessarily correct. If the majority have to fall into a grave, I’d rather that they were the ones who dug it.
I'll retract that statement to say that most people do not always know what it in their best interest of the group, and direct democracy is the vehicle that permits them to pass harmful laws.
I’d agree with that. Would you say that a system of proportional representation would also be able to allow for harmful laws more often than another system might?

As well as that, do you think direct democracy could allow for its own destruction by allowing people to vote against it, and if so, what do you think the chances of this could be?
I would argue it’s more fair than the current U.S. system, which is designed the consider the votes of states, not individual citizens. The system I’ve proposed would distribute all 538 electoral votes evenly across the population, so that one’s vote does not hold more weight in any state.
I’d definitely support it over the current system, but I think it would make more sense to abolish the electoral college altogether. I’m not sure that your system could work as a compromise between keeping electoral college as it is and abolishing it altogether. Those who want to keep it, for instance, do so on the basis of believing that it is necessary for some people’s votes to hold more weight in certain states.
I don’t see that as realistic (too much politics).

There’s a fine line between censoring the proliferation of objectively false and harmful ideas, and criminalizing people who simply believe false information.
You’re right. I’d pick another word instead of “censoring” though (even though I think it’s accurate) simply because there’s too much politics surrounding that word also.
Join my Democratic People's Republic: https://discord.gg/N2Uqehc
Follow my Twitter: https://twitter.com/AgentBl65800546

Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:09 pm

I am from the UK. I voted for AV. I lived in the UK at the time of the vote. I think it was a bit better.

Electoral reform clearly isn't going to be on the agenda any time soon, given the margin for defeat in 2011, and the current preoccupation with Brexit and perhaps also climate change. No-one's talking about it.

In the US, I find it interesting how little the Democrats are calling for electoral college reform. The electoral college system really is a nonsense. At least when you are electing MPs (UK) to represent towns and regions you can understand avoiding proportional representation in order to link MPs to their town etc. But in a Presidential election it makes no sense at all.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests