Does Democracy Really Work?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes, I am, and for all of the reasons mentioned in the O.P. It's why I consider representative democracy, while flawed, to be superior to direct democracy.

Thats certainly subjective.

Um...yes. Yes, it is. Again, I'm not certain that complete objectivity is possible in a discussion like this, since so much will center around both the process that one finds desirable, and the end result that one finds desirable. My concern about direct democracy is tyranny by majority. Imagine what would happen if, for instance, different states got to vote on whether or not people should be accorded basic rights based upon superficial characteristics such as skin tone. Those with the dominant skin tone could easily strip rights from those of the minority skin tone, and then could easily make new laws making it more difficult for those with the undesirable skin tone to organize or vote to regain their rights. Or, if your imagination fails, you could just look at when we actually did that in the American South.

[Ouldale]

Plato once said, "Democracy falls into despotism."

I've been thinking about meritocracies quite a bit lately. I don't necessarily disagree with Plato, but for now I'll stick to democracy...

[Benuty]

Thats certainly subjective.

Um...yes. Yes, it is. Again, I'm not certain that complete objectivity is possible in a discussion like this, since so much will center around both the process that one finds desirable, and the end result that one finds desirable. My concern about direct democracy is tyranny by majority. Imagine what would happen if, for instance, different states got to vote on whether or not people should be accorded basic rights based upon superficial characteristics such as skin tone. Those with the dominant skin tone could easily strip rights from those of the minority skin tone, and then could easily make new laws making it more difficult for those with the undesirable skin tone to organize or vote to regain their rights. Or, if your imagination fails, you could just look at when we actually did that in the American South.

Phenotype has no place in direct democracy.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Um...yes. Yes, it is. Again, I'm not certain that complete objectivity is possible in a discussion like this, since so much will center around both the process that one finds desirable, and the end result that one finds desirable. My concern about direct democracy is tyranny by majority. Imagine what would happen if, for instance, different states got to vote on whether or not people should be accorded basic rights based upon superficial characteristics such as skin tone. Those with the dominant skin tone could easily strip rights from those of the minority skin tone, and then could easily make new laws making it more difficult for those with the undesirable skin tone to organize or vote to regain their rights. Or, if your imagination fails, you could just look at when we actually did that in the American South.

Phenotype has no place in direct democracy.

Unless, of course, a majority of people decide that it does.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Phenotype has no place in direct democracy.

Unless, of course, a majority of people decide that it does.

ninja'd...
True. That is a big concern for direct democracy...

[Ouldale]

Aside from Greek philosophy and all, but isn't democracy, at times, nothing more than the mob rule of 51% oppressing the 49?

[Shaggai]

Aside from Greek philosophy and all, but isn't democracy, at times, nothing more than the mob rule of 51% oppressing the 49?

Unless it's representative democracy.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Aside from Greek philosophy and all, but isn't democracy, at times, nothing more than the mob rule of 51% oppressing the 49?

Yeah, it can turn out to be like that sometimes. I don't know what to say to that, however, other than what I've got.

[Benuty]

Phenotype has no place in direct democracy.

Unless, of course, a majority of people decide that it does.

Which is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is race is humbug.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Unless, of course, a majority of people decide that it does.

Which is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is race is humbug.

That's obvious, but if, in a direct democracy, voters of the majority race oppressed minority races and see no wrong in it...that's kind of the point Yumyumsuppertime was getting at, from what I read. Or I'm completely wrong.

[Shaggai]

Unless, of course, a majority of people decide that it does.

Which is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is race is humbug.

But in a direct democracy, if the majority believes it does, then it still has an effect.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Unless, of course, a majority of people decide that it does.

Which is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is race is humbug.

Except that it's not irrelevant, because despite race being a humbug, it's entirely possible for a majority of people to see it as something other than a humbug. You're assuming rational action on the part of the majority, which I believe is a huge mistake. Majorities can believe and have believed all sorts of ridiculous, counterproductive, and flat-out nasty things.

EDIT: Double ninja'ed.

[The Liberated Territories]

Voting fails because you have a lot of people pursuing their self interest, and the most popular interest wins with a winner-takes-all type of system. A monarch fails since it gives one person an absurd amount of power that makes it easy to walk all over the majority with their self interest. Neither respect the minority interest unless it benefits them, too.

Obviously those are just characteristics of political systems. For example, in a proportional representation system, any party that gets atleast ~2-3% of the vote, will be representing, giving minorities significant representation.

Just because you have representation doesn't mean your voice is heard. A smaller party could never have their voices heard if they are kept from speaking, organizing, or even getting their name on the ballot by majority vote. It eventually all leads to a two party state, or one similar to one, as all you have to do is vote out the competition.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Which is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is race is humbug.

That's obvious, but if, in a direct democracy, voters of the majority race oppressed minority races and see no wrong in it...that's kind of the point Yumyumsuppertime was getting at, from what I read. Or I'm completely wrong.

No, that's pretty much what I was trying to say.

[Ethel mermania]

Sometimes it will happen, but I suspect it mostly does not. There will always be outlier variables. If we were to tally up all state governors right now, I suspect we would have a multitude of above average individuals with many skills leading their respective states.

Let's take a look at the past several Presidents, starting in 1970:

Nixon: VERY manipulative and intelligent, not so charming. Multitude of other skills in place. Until resignation, a decent President.

Carter: Charming, not at all manipulative. Despite not being that bad a President, got creamed by....

Reagan: Charm and manipulation in spades. Outsourced intelligence to his advisers. Hugely effective, but his policies continue to have negative repercussions on the economy.

Bush I: Not that charming, left manipulation up to Atwater. Definitely intelligent. Serviceable President, not spectacular, a bit behind the curve on economy.

Clinton: Charm, manipulation, and intelligence. Reagan for the Democrats, with added brains (and, sadly, libido). Enormously effective.

Bush II: Charm, manipulation, and....cunning, I suppose? Rove had all of the smarts. Absolute disaster.

Obama: A certain charm, smarts, hugely ineffective at manipulation. Too soon to state the legacy.

So I'd say that out of the two who had all of the qualities you mentioned, one was excellent for the nation, and the other caused long-term damage but is still seen as a hero by many. Not a convincing argument.

Here is the thing, nixon was a crook all along, nixon destroyed the peoples trust in the presidency. Nixon is hte reason why Obama is accused of sending the IRS after people, because Nixon DID. The war could have ended years before it did, and the only reason nixon could go go china is that if any other politician had tried it, Nixon would have denounced him as a communist. Since nixon no president has had a good relationship with the press, The best since kennedy is obama. Oddly enough the only positive of the Nixon presidency was the EPA

what happened to ford? Ford did nothing, when nothing needed to be done, for all the hue and cry about pardoning nixon, it was the right thing to do, a trial would have torn the country apart.

and seriously carter? any democrat not named ted kennedy was going to win that election. Carter was a buffoon who lead the country into double digit inflation, and who's only good quality is that he did not lie to the american people. He couldnt keep his own party from shutting down the government. (The lone positive of the carter administration was pushing through the return of the panama canal).

[Benuty]

Which is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is race is humbug.

That's obvious, but if, in a direct democracy, voters of the majority race oppressed minority races and see no wrong in it...that's kind of the point Yumyumsuppertime was getting at, from what I read. Or I'm completely wrong.

The only serious race issue is that of humanity, and other sapients.

While I am aware of certain issues regarding pseudoscientific cuntage, the campaigns towards whats actually the truth would be an effective countermeasure on the long term basis.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Which is irrelevant because the fact of the matter is race is humbug.

Except that it's not irrelevant, because despite race being a humbug, it's entirely possible for a majority of people to see it as something other than a humbug. You're assuming rational action on the part of the majority, which I believe is a huge mistake. Majorities can believe and have believed all sorts of ridiculous, counterproductive, and flat-out nasty things.

EDIT: Double ninja'ed.

Sorry about that. But it's true, people believe all sorts of silly things. For instance, I believe neoreactionaries to be nihilistic.

That's obvious, but if, in a direct democracy, voters of the majority race oppressed minority races and see no wrong in it...that's kind of the point Yumyumsuppertime was getting at, from what I read. Or I'm completely wrong.

No, that's pretty much what I was trying to say.

Thank you for confirming that. I'm being more critical, trying to be more, well...I dunno, correct in what I'm saying and avoiding misunderstanding.

Obviously those are just characteristics of political systems. For example, in a proportional representation system, any party that gets atleast ~2-3% of the vote, will be representing, giving minorities significant representation.

Just because you have representation doesn't mean your voice is heard. A smaller party could never have their voices heard if they are kept from speaking, organizing, or even getting their name on the ballot by majority vote. It eventually all leads to a two party state, or one similar to one, as all you have to do is vote out the competition.

That's disappointing. I wish there were countermeasures against that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Except that it's not irrelevant, because despite race being a humbug, it's entirely possible for a majority of people to see it as something other than a humbug. You're assuming rational action on the part of the majority, which I believe is a huge mistake. Majorities can believe and have believed all sorts of ridiculous, counterproductive, and flat-out nasty things.

EDIT: Double ninja'ed.

Sorry about that. But it's true, people believe all sorts of silly things. For instance, I believe neoreactionaries to be nihilistic.

No, that's pretty much what I was trying to say.

Thank you for confirming that. I'm being more critical, trying to be more, well...I dunno, correct in what I'm saying and avoiding misunderstanding.

Just because you have representation doesn't mean your voice is heard. A smaller party could never have their voices heard if they are kept from speaking, organizing, or even getting their name on the ballot by majority vote. It eventually all leads to a two party state, or one similar to one, as all you have to do is vote out the competition.

That's disappointing. I wish there were countermeasures against that.

There is one. A Constitution.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That's obvious, but if, in a direct democracy, voters of the majority race oppressed minority races and see no wrong in it...that's kind of the point Yumyumsuppertime was getting at, from what I read. Or I'm completely wrong.

The only serious race issue is that of humanity, and other sapients.

While I am aware of certain issues regarding pseudoscientific cuntage, the campaigns towards whats actually the truth would be an effective countermeasure on the long term basis.

Irrelevant. Most people will believe their prejudices over scientific evidence, especially when their prejudices are played to by those in power.

[Benuty]

Sorry about that. But it's true, people believe all sorts of silly things. For instance, I believe neoreactionaries to be nihilistic.

Thank you for confirming that. I'm being more critical, trying to be more, well...I dunno, correct in what I'm saying and avoiding misunderstanding.

That's disappointing. I wish there were countermeasures against that.

There is one. A Constitution.

I believe you mean TCOTUS .

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There is one. A Constitution.

I believe you mean TCOTUS .

I believe you mean SCOTUS

[Benuty]

The only serious race issue is that of humanity, and other sapients.

While I am aware of certain issues regarding pseudoscientific cuntage, the campaigns towards whats actually the truth would be an effective countermeasure on the long term basis.

Irrelevant. Most people will believe their prejudices over scientific evidence, especially when their prejudices are played to by those in power.

Hardly given you just described the exact situation of the "cannot sanely do anything congress" of the past term (if not more).

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Sorry about that. But it's true, people believe all sorts of silly things. For instance, I believe neoreactionaries to be nihilistic.

Thank you for confirming that. I'm being more critical, trying to be more, well...I dunno, correct in what I'm saying and avoiding misunderstanding.

That's disappointing. I wish there were countermeasures against that.

There is one. A Constitution.

Forgot that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Irrelevant. Most people will believe their prejudices over scientific evidence, especially when their prejudices are played to by those in power.

Hardly given you just described the exact situation of the "cannot sanely do anything congress" of the past term (if not more).

So what makes you think that it would be more effective to put the power in the hands of the people who elected these corrupt, venal idiots in the first place?

[ODMS Babel]

I am not seeing any actual issues with Democracy in the article. I am seeing issues with human cognition, I am seeing issues with society, and I am seeing issues with media. All of these issues would be many times worse in a non-Democratic system.

So yes, even with all that baggage, Democracy generally works. Removing those issues would make it even better though.