Why does everyone think democracy is so great?

[Engleberg]

Because none of those people have truly learnt about monarchism.

[Kubra]

Because none of those people have truly learnt about monarchism.

Ich bin der Kaiser und ich will Knödel

[Genivaria]

Because none of those people have truly learnt about monarchism.

What an absurd assumption to make.

[UniversalCommons]

People who can vote don't keep people who starve them or don't provide basic food in office. Tyranny is far more prone to starvation. Food is used as a control mechanism in tyrannies. Democracy tends to at least vote people who are in the general interest. When you have a pure elite, they often only look after their own interest and everyone else is in trouble. They have no reason to support other people except for their class. The question is not whether you have elites or democrats, they both can be terrible. The question is how do you guarantee good leadership? It is probably through a mix of a meritocracratic testing before you can be put on the ballot and basic qualifications. It is probably some form of mixed government which people have not come up with yet. Maybe you put some limits on citizenship as well and have a highly demanding educational system.

[Heyliges Teutsches Reich]

Because they've been indoctrinated into democracy and don't question it, they want personal power. That corrupts them.

[Sovaal]

Because they've been indoctrinated into democracy and don't question it, they want personal power. That corrupts them.

And what alternative to you suggest?

[Heyliges Teutsches Reich]

Because they've been indoctrinated into democracy and don't question it, they want personal power. That corrupts them.

And what alternative to you suggest?

The autocracy of course: the only legitimate reign is that of a monarch, his steadholder or a priest. As these are the only legitimate, there's no "alternative".

[Alvecia]

And what alternative to you suggest?

The autocracy of course: the only legitimate reign is that of a monarch, his steadholder or a priest. As these are the only legitimate, there's no "alternative".

Because there's no chance of corruption there, no siree.

[Vassenor]

And what alternative to you suggest?

The autocracy of course: the only legitimate reign is that of a monarch, his steadholder or a priest. As these are the only legitimate, there's no "alternative".

Based upon what logic?

[Sovaal]

And what alternative to you suggest?

The autocracy of course: the only legitimate reign is that of a monarch, his steadholder or a priest. As these are the only legitimate, there's no "alternative".

My god, really?

What happened to

... they want personal power. That corrupts them.

Because never has a priest or monarch ever been corrupt.

[Plzen]

Because there's no chance of corruption there, no siree.

Priests and absolute monarchs have always been paragons of virtue, of course. Their moral record is absolutely impeccable.

</sarcasm>

I trust my leaders about as far as I can throw them, and in any kind of autocracy that's not very far at all. At least in an electoral democracy I have some small, theoretical control over whether my leaders stay leaders.

[Tekeristan]

Because they've been indoctrinated into democracy and don't question it, they want personal power. That corrupts them.

Wha.
Yea better super concentrate it. That's the right awnser.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Because none of those people have truly learnt about monarchism.

4.000 + years of experience with monarchical rule has indeed not been enough. Better slap on anther 2.000 just to be sure.

[Kramania]

But in all seriousness, I'm not sure. I've though about having some of them selected by the top universities in the nation, and others selected by the military. Maybe some selected by trade unions. I toy around with such ideas in my head because democracy sucks.

Woo! Military dictatorships!
Anyway, how is your system better then a democracy? Infact, it seems that it would combine the worse parts of both democratic and authoritarian governments.

Military dictatorship? No. Just stratocracy. There's a difference.

[Sovaal]

Woo! Military dictatorships!
Anyway, how is your system better then a democracy? Infact, it seems that it would combine the worse parts of both democratic and authoritarian governments.

Military dictatorship? No. Just stratocracy. There's a difference.

All I know is that at the end of the day I'm having armed thugs storming my house, dragging me off to some unknown blacksite.

[Lalaki]

This whole "two wolves and a sheep" argument breaks down if you live in a constitutional democracy. There is a such thing as "protecting the minority." AKA...pretty much every representative government in the western world.

Democracy allows you a chance to voice your opinions in government by voting, running for office, or getting involved in general governance. That sounds a lot better than having rules imposed on you by unelected leaders who are completely unaccountable to the public. Even if you disagree with a law passed in a democracy, you have the chance to convince other people why we should elect politicians who would repeal said law. Imagine not having that opportunity at all.

I'd challenge anyone who says that democracy is a bad system to live in an undemocratic country and try expressing themselves politically. If they still oppose democracy, I respect that. Something tells me that most wouldn't.