Does Democracy Really Work?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Well, the point is that due to these issues, Democracy DOESN'T actually work all that well. It's a bit like saying "Well, the car works, but the transmission is shot".

[Benuty]

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?

Voter apathy, corruption, and corporations ensured their victories along with the smooth ability to lie through the teeth. Not to mention witchcraft...if people are to believe "campaign ads".

Besides the International ignorance zone (along with quite a bit of the world) cannot run things sensibly since they are in quarantine (for good reason).

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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?

Voter apathy, corruption, and corporations ensured their victories along with the smooth ability to lie through the teeth. Not to mention witchcraft...if people are to believe "campaign ads".

Besides the International ignorance zone (along with quite a bit of the world) cannot run things sensibly since they are in quarantine (for good reason).

How will direct democracy solve the issue of voter apathy? If anything, I suspect that the majority of the population voting on everything that usually gets taken care of by representatives, including incredibly complex matters, would lead to greater apathy and a sense of being overwhelmed. I'd address your last point, but I'm not sure what you're driving at.

[The Liberated Territories]

There is one. A Constitution.

Forgot that.

Since when has the constitution prevented the majority from walking all over the minority (or vice versa?) Considering that the Supreme Court (or President) can violate it any time they wish, I'd say it absolutely worthless in actually attempting to secure minority rights.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Forgot that.

Since when has the constitution prevented the majority from walking all over the minority (or vice versa?) Considering that the Supreme Court (or President) can violate it any time they wish, I'd say it absolutely worthless in actually attempting to secure minority rights.

Okay then. Personally I'm too tired (or ignorant) to come up with a new way to fight for minority rights short of periodic violence, which, on consideration, is actually counterproductive. Do you have any suggestions?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Forgot that.

Since when has the constitution prevented the majority from walking all over the minority (or vice versa?) Considering that the Supreme Court (or President) can violate it any time they wish, I'd say it absolutely worthless in actually attempting to secure minority rights.

It's not worthless at all. The Supreme Court may be an imperfect safeguard, but until a perfect one comes along, it'll have to do. Despite a few setbacks, they've been a huge part of civil rights advances since before Brown v. Board Of Education.

[The Liberated Territories]

Since when has the constitution prevented the majority from walking all over the minority (or vice versa?) Considering that the Supreme Court (or President) can violate it any time they wish, I'd say it absolutely worthless in actually attempting to secure minority rights.

Okay then. Personally I'm too tired (or ignorant) to come up with a new way to fight for minority rights short of periodic violence, which, on consideration, is actually counterproductive. Do you have any suggestions?

Reduce government? Overhaul the democratic system? Tea n biscuits?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Forgot that.

Since when has the constitution prevented the majority from walking all over the minority (or vice versa?) Considering that the Supreme Court (or President) can violate it any time they wish, I'd say it absolutely worthless in actually attempting to secure minority rights.

Yeah, this is what happens when you make the perfect the enemy of the merely workable.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay then. Personally I'm too tired (or ignorant) to come up with a new way to fight for minority rights short of periodic violence, which, on consideration, is actually counterproductive. Do you have any suggestions?

Reduce government? Overhaul the democratic system? Tea n biscuits?

How, realistically, will reducing government ensure the rights of minorities?

What overhaul or overhauls do you propose?

Thank you, I'll take a splash of milk with my tea.

[The New Sea Territory]

Majority of the population is too dumb for democracy, liberty, etc. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have it.

[The New Sea Territory]

Voter apathy, corruption, and corporations ensured their victories along with the smooth ability to lie through the teeth. Not to mention witchcraft...if people are to believe "campaign ads".

Besides the International ignorance zone (along with quite a bit of the world) cannot run things sensibly since they are in quarantine (for good reason).

How will direct democracy solve the issue of voter apathy? If anything, I suspect that the majority of the population voting on everything that usually gets taken care of by representatives, including incredibly complex matters, would lead to greater apathy and a sense of being overwhelmed. I'd address your last point, but I'm not sure what you're driving at.

Electronic-based direct democracy that requires voters to vote.

Obviously, they can still vote "abstain" or "fuck you", but they are at least required to say something.

[The Sotoan Union]

Does being allowed to pick our leaders mean we always choose stupid people? Because if we are inherently stupid then by that logic having a leader automatically assigned won't necessarily lead to any smarter leaders.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Okay then. Personally I'm too tired (or ignorant) to come up with a new way to fight for minority rights short of periodic violence, which, on consideration, is actually counterproductive. Do you have any suggestions?

Reduce government? Overhaul the democratic system? Tea n biscuits?

I guess we could remove governmental impediments. And yes, I'd love to see something done to the system once I identify the flaws.
I also like tea and biscuits!

[Right-Wing Anarchy of Egoism]

Any rule of anyone works really badly. It'd be better if people were allowed to just lead their own lives as they see fit.

[The New Age Empire]

Well, if you couldn't tell I'm not really a fan, but atm I like how my life is in the USA, however that could change at any time.

[Atlanticatia]

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.

Um, not really. In many countries with proportional representation, there are sometimes 7, 8, 9, 10 parties, none with even close to a majority. This forces parties to work together in coalitions. If one party wins 40% of the vote, it'll need support from small parties to reach a majority. This is a common result in a parliamentary system. This gives minority groups a big balance of power.
I'll use New Zealand's current Government as an example. The overall centre-right party was the largest party in Parliament, and wanted to form a government. So, it had to make a coalition with two small centrist parties, and a small right-libertarian party. As a result, they had to concede to the centrist parties a new healthcare program. They also introduced charter schools to gain confidence from the right-libertarian party. This results in a representative government: minority libertarian groups, minority centrist groups, and a large run-of-the mill centre-right group are all represented.

It's impossible to have a 2-party system with proportional representation. It just doesn't happen.

[Frankia]

It works in some countries and in others it doesn't. That's my take on it.

[The Liberated Territories]

Reduce government? Overhaul the democratic system? Tea n biscuits?

How, realistically, will reducing government ensure the rights of minorities?

What overhaul or overhauls do you propose?

Thank you, I'll take a splash of milk with my tea.

Well, I'd first get rid of all the bs laws preventing other parties than the Republicans or Democrats from gaining any success in the federal government.

Give more power back to the states politically. Choice ranked voting. Eliminate garrymandering locally through reform. Decrease the percentage required for referendum for laws.

Ultimately I'd prefer a system based on the drawing of lots, but it is unfeasible at the moment.

Make laws making the president more accountable to the people. Repeal the Patriot Act, drug laws, whatever. Establish a precedent for this.

[The Liberated Territories]

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.

Um, not really. In many countries with proportional representation, there are sometimes 7, 8, 9, 10 parties, none with even close to a majority. This forces parties to work together in coalitions. If one party wins 40% of the vote, it'll need support from small parties to reach a majority. This is a common result in a parliamentary system. This gives minority groups a big balance of power.
I'll use New Zealand's current Government as an example. The overall centre-right party was the largest party in Parliament, and wanted to form a government. So, it had to make a coalition with two small centrist parties, and a small right-libertarian party. As a result, they had to concede to the centrist parties a new healthcare program. They also introduced charter schools to gain confidence from the right-libertarian party. This results in a representative government: minority libertarian groups, minority centrist groups, and a large run-of-the mill centre-right group are all represented.

It's impossible to have a 2-party system with proportional representation. It just doesn't happen.

The average individual representation is very very small. One vote (or lack there of) hardly effects the outcome of a party. A minority can still very much have the short stick, even in a coalition government can decide to enact legislation, maybe increasing taxes (which affects everyone). The individual sacrifices some his principles in voting a party that best represents him, yet there is always a bias against him unless he shares 100% of the opinion with the majority government (impossible).

[Atlanticatia]

Um, not really. In many countries with proportional representation, there are sometimes 7, 8, 9, 10 parties, none with even close to a majority. This forces parties to work together in coalitions. If one party wins 40% of the vote, it'll need support from small parties to reach a majority. This is a common result in a parliamentary system. This gives minority groups a big balance of power.
I'll use New Zealand's current Government as an example. The overall centre-right party was the largest party in Parliament, and wanted to form a government. So, it had to make a coalition with two small centrist parties, and a small right-libertarian party. As a result, they had to concede to the centrist parties a new healthcare program. They also introduced charter schools to gain confidence from the right-libertarian party. This results in a representative government: minority libertarian groups, minority centrist groups, and a large run-of-the mill centre-right group are all represented.

It's impossible to have a 2-party system with proportional representation. It just doesn't happen.

The average individual representation is very very small. One vote (or lack there of) hardly effects the outcome of a party. A minority can still very much have the short stick, even in a coalition government can decide to enact legislation, maybe increasing taxes (which affects everyone). The individual sacrifices some his principles in voting a party that best represents him, yet there is always a bias against him unless he shares 100% of the opinion with the majority government (impossible).

Obviously, representative democracy isn't perfect because not everyone can be pleased at once. However, a representative proportionally elected democracy is the most ideal option that will provide the best representation of all groups.
I'm not sure how there could be an option that would allow everyone to find a party that represents them completely perfectly, nor is that really an important thing to achieve.

[Geilinor]

Even if humans are incapable of making rational decisions, rule by a million idiots is better than rule by one.

[Skeckoa]

Even if humans are incapable of making rational decisions, rule by a million idiots is better than rule by one.

Correction. Rule of Million people over you is better than rule by one over all. Both of which are inferior being able to rule yourself.

[Greed and Death]

I will cite this study when I overthrow democracy. Thank you OP.

[Grand Britannia]

Can we have Queen Elizabeth as head of the Empire again?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

There's actually something in economics called Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which states that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives to choose from, no rank order voting system - that is, a voting system where voters can order their preferences over canadiates - can convert these individual preference rankings into a community-wide ranking while also satisfying some set criteria, called unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency and independence of irrelevant alternatives. Unrestricted domain is a simple property of social welfare functions that states that the function must consider the preferences of all voters. Non-dictatorship is similar to unrestricted domain in that it states that the social welfare function cannot by construction mirror the preferences of any one voter. Pareto efficiency is a description of the efficiency of some allocation of resources, such that no individual can be made better off without making at least one individual worse off (here is means that if every voter preferences one alternative to the other, so must the community-wide ranking). Independence of irrelevant alternatives is a bit more technical. It might be better described by an example. Let's say there's an election with N candidates, {X₁, X₂, ..., X_N}. Suppose that candidate X₁ would win the election over this set. Then if we introduce another candidate X_N+1, the only possibilities are that X_N+1 or X₁ win the election. Basically, the other candidates {X₂, X₃, ..., X_N} are irrelevant to any permutations over the set of candidates, given that X₁ is the winner. So what Arrow's Impossibility Theorem states more precisely is the structure of elections (in particular, rank order elections) precludes the outcome of the election satisfying the following three "fairness" criteria:

Consider a set A of candidates, N number of voters, and the set of all full linear orderings of A by L(A). A social welfare function is defined as F: L(A)^N --> L(A). The N-tuple (R₁, ..., R_N) is a called a preference profile, and all combinations of preference profiles define L(A). Then when A contains 3 or more elements, the following three bullet points are mutually incompatible:

• If candidate a > b in all profiles (R₁, ..., R_N), then a > b in F(R₁, ..., R_N). (Pareto efficiency)
• Consider two preference profiles (R₁, ..., R_N) and (S₁, ..., S_N) and suppose that for all voters i, a > b in R_i and S_i. Then a > b in F(R₁, ..., R_N) and F(S₁, ..., S_N). (Independence of irrelevant alternatives)
• There is no voter i in the set of voters {1, ..., N} such that for all preference profiles (R₁, ..., R_N), F(R₁, ..., R_N) = R_i. (Non-dictatorship)

The theorem has a stronger consequence, too. Suppose that there are N voters each with a transitive ordering of preferences over at least 3 candidates {A, B, ..., C}. A consitution is a function which takes the N-tuple of transitive preferences to a single transitive preference, called the social or community preference. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem states that any constitution which satisfies transitivity, independence of irrelevant alternatives and Pareto efficiency (i.e. the three bullets points above) is a dictatorship . It's a big claim; that only a dictatorship can satisfy standard "fairness" criteria. There are some proofs here.