Why does everyone think democracy is so great?

[New Rogernomics]

Because it is better than having a guy with temper tantrums running a whole country.

Wait...slash that.

Because it is better having a guy with temper tantrums running the country, than a guy that demands everyone have the same temper tantrums, and imprisons people if they don't.

[Tekeristan]

Economic courses as well.

I should probably mention that both Government and Economics were required classes at my HS.

The key to democracy is a well educated and aware population.

[San Lumen]

I should probably mention that both Government and Economics were required classes at my HS.

The key to democracy is a well educated and aware population.

i agree

[Soyouso]

I don't understand why people hold it to be so holy. Even if you're not like me and you actually enjoy it, you should at least admit it's not perfect and it certainly has good reasons for people to be turned off by it. They're not doing it because of not wanting justice or idiocy, they just have a different idea of political justice from you.

I'll give some of the thoughts I was having when I was losing faith in democracy, but way before my ideology changed to fascism, to give examples of why someone would turn away from democracy.

For one thing, I was stressed because while I was and still am too young to vote, it would be my vote against everyone else's. If my vote were unpopular, it wouldn't matter because the mainstream narrative, whether it was a good idea or a bad idea, would win. This is something the Democrats learned upon the victory of President Donald Trump, even more considering we almost ended up with another Clinton. I, for one, was happy about that, but can see even to this day a lot of Democrats are STILL questioning whether he legitimately won, blaming everything except Hillary Clinton's shitty campaign skills and trail of scandals that made people not trust her. It seems some people only like democracy when they get their way, an interesting observation I made. This mentality causes 'us vs them', which is very bad for our society. Why do you think America is so politically divided? Because that kind of divide is inevitable in a democratic nation. Altogether it holds back progress because everyone is too busy fucking with what ever the 'other side' is in their situation, that the way we handle common threats becomes weaker.

Just because the majority wants something doesn't make it good. I don't like the idea of the government being run like a high school prom queen election. Popularity does not mean you are worthy of the privilege of being the beacon of hope, protection, uniting force, and in a way a representative of your country. I cannot stand many politicians nowadays, a lot of them are a fucking joke to me. I don't trust some schmuck who knows how to throw sweet sounding lies and money at people to be involved in government. People generally don't pick someone because they want to give them what they need, but what they want even if it's bad for them. There is also the possibility of people only voting for someone because they're not the other guy. I admit this is one of the reasons I rooted for Donny. Clinton was a wreck. But it sure ain't the only reason.

Imagine you live in a direct democractic system, where any preexisting laws can be changed. A candidate comes along, and let's say she wants to abolish the mental health budget and shoot anyone with a mental illness to put them out of their misery. She also has a long history of hating one of the races living in the country, and would hold extreme bias against them if in office. Her opponent is a bumbling idiot who doesn't understand anything about her own country's people, and got into the final stages because she doesn't hate that minorty the first woman hates. Whether the general public likes the first candidate or the second, does that mean she should be allowed to be into power? Even in systems where there are limits for ethical and moral reasons so no one can vote for genocide or some other crazy shit, smaller things can happen that are like this situation. Just because they don't have absolute power doesn't mean oppression and suffering can't happen. For people who do not support either of the final United States candidates, this is exactly what happened.

I also don't like switching leaders so often. I understand this is done to try to more accurately represent the popular opinion of the people, but this can lead to unnecessary sudden policy changes, like when someone undoes things the previous candidate did just to spite them, like Donald Trump undoing certain things because Obama.

Even if you don't agree with me, it's not a flawless system just because you like it, and there are legitimate reasons people don't like it.

So how would you change the system?

I am going to fucking cry I just finished my response and I fucking refreshed.

A fascist dictatorship. The leader would either be the leader of the movement where they live or a past politician chosen as regent if after the first. There will be strict standards to be a possible regent, such as judgement, education, experience, mental health, and devotion to fascist doctrine. They must have a basic grip on how corporations and economy work. The dictator is a manager of the country, and thus needs advisors to keep them thinking straight.

Fascist society is about uniting and becoming an unbreakable force. No matter your class, race (my kind of nationalism isn't racial), age or sex, YOU are important to fascist society. Together, under a common goal, all using their individual strengths and talents for a collective goal, little is impossible anymore. The farmer is just as essential as the businessman, the child just as precious as the adult, the man as essential as the woman. All law-abing citizens deserve the right to safety and opportunity.
Inb4 "bu-bu-but Hitler killed Jews"
First off, not a Nazi. Second. Any group that is not by definition harmful should not be deprived the right to be a part of society, I say. Pointless discrimination is bad for progress, and leaders should be able to provide good reasons for their laws. The government has no good reason to care what genitals you like if they're not underage and they consent, for example.

[Colorado-Kansas]

That's i'm an AnCap.
You vote everyday with your wallet.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I should probably mention that both Government and Economics were required classes at my HS.

The key to democracy is a well educated and aware population.

A well educated and aware population and government doesn't necessarily equate to a functioning democracy. Russia, at least up until recently, had one of the most educated, if not the most educated population, yet most people in the West refuse to admit that their democracy functions (mostly because they don't like the results of said democracy).

[San Lumen]

The key to democracy is a well educated and aware population.

A well educated and aware population and government doesn't necessarily equate to a functioning democracy. Russia, at least up until recently, had one of the most educated, if not the most educated population, yet most people in the West refuse to admit that their democracy functions (mostly because they don't like the results of said democracy).

Russia no longer has free and fair elections or a free press. A certain political party in the US doesn't believe in that either.

[Krasny-Volny]

Grass is always greener on the other side.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

A well educated and aware population and government doesn't necessarily equate to a functioning democracy. Russia, at least up until recently, had one of the most educated, if not the most educated population, yet most people in the West refuse to admit that their democracy functions (mostly because they don't like the results of said democracy).

Russia no longer has free and fair elections or a free press. A certain political party in the US doesn't believe in that either.

The Democrats?

[Len Hyet]

So how would you change the system?

I am going to fucking cry I just finished my response and I fucking refreshed.

A fascist dictatorship. The leader would either be the leader of the movement where they live or a past politician chosen as regent if after the first. There will be strict standards to be a possible regent, such as judgement, education, experience, mental health, and devotion to fascist doctrine. They must have a basic grip on how corporations and economy work. The dictator is a manager of the country, and thus needs advisors to keep them thinking straight.

Fascist society is about uniting and becoming an unbreakable force. No matter your class, race (my kind of nationalism isn't racial), age or sex, YOU are important to fascist society. Together, under a common goal, all using their individual strengths and talents for a collective goal, little is impossible anymore. The farmer is just as essential as the businessman, the child just as precious as the adult, the man as essential as the woman. All law-abing citizens deserve the right to safety and opportunity.
Inb4 "bu-bu-but Hitler killed Jews"
First off, not a Nazi. Second. Any group that is not by definition harmful should not be deprived the right to be a part of society, I say. Pointless discrimination is bad for progress, and leaders should be able to provide good reasons for their laws. The government has no good reason to care what genitals you like if they're not underage and they consent, for example.

Openly calling for a fascist dictatorship

I suppose the honesty is refreshing at least

[Sovaal]

A well educated and aware population and government doesn't necessarily equate to a functioning democracy. Russia, at least up until recently, had one of the most educated, if not the most educated population, yet most people in the West refuse to admit that their democracy functions (mostly because they don't like the results of said democracy).

Russia no longer has free and fair elections or a free press. A certain political party in the US doesn't believe in that either.

Neither of them do, really.

[San Lumen]

Russia no longer has free and fair elections or a free press. A certain political party in the US doesn't believe in that either.

Neither of them do, really.

The Republicans have passed laws in many states making it harder to vote. Voter ID laws for example to combat a problem that doesn't exist and purging voter rolls. They'd love to have elections be like in Russia where they are guaranteed of always winning.

[San Lumen]

So how would you change the system?

I am going to fucking cry I just finished my response and I fucking refreshed.

A fascist dictatorship. The leader would either be the leader of the movement where they live or a past politician chosen as regent if after the first. There will be strict standards to be a possible regent, such as judgement, education, experience, mental health, and devotion to fascist doctrine. They must have a basic grip on how corporations and economy work. The dictator is a manager of the country, and thus needs advisors to keep them thinking straight.

Fascist society is about uniting and becoming an unbreakable force. No matter your class, race (my kind of nationalism isn't racial), age or sex, YOU are important to fascist society. Together, under a common goal, all using their individual strengths and talents for a collective goal, little is impossible anymore. The farmer is just as essential as the businessman, the child just as precious as the adult, the man as essential as the woman. All law-abing citizens deserve the right to safety and opportunity.
Inb4 "bu-bu-but Hitler killed Jews"
First off, not a Nazi. Second. Any group that is not by definition harmful should not be deprived the right to be a part of society, I say. Pointless discrimination is bad for progress, and leaders should be able to provide good reasons for their laws. The government has no good reason to care what genitals you like if they're not underage and they consent, for example.

So basically you want a dictatorship. Go look at Uzbekistan, Eritrea, Belarus, Turkmenistan and get back to me on how great dictatorships are.

[Mike the Progressive]

cuz demos means people and m peoples are peopls

[Galloism]

cuz demos means people and m peoples are peopls

Go home Mike, you're drunk.

[Mike the Progressive]

cuz demos means people and m peoples are peopls

Go home Mike, you're drunk.

Gallo you arkasnsa frenchman i want my note 9 now not sept 15th fuck that shit. fucking preorders

[Galloism]

Go home Mike, you're drunk.

Gallo you arkasnsa frenchman i want my note 9 now not sept 15th fuck that shit. fucking preorders

Go home Nixon.

[Infected Mushroom]

I am going to fucking cry I just finished my response and I fucking refreshed.

A fascist dictatorship. The leader would either be the leader of the movement where they live or a past politician chosen as regent if after the first. There will be strict standards to be a possible regent, such as judgement, education, experience, mental health, and devotion to fascist doctrine. They must have a basic grip on how corporations and economy work. The dictator is a manager of the country, and thus needs advisors to keep them thinking straight.

Fascist society is about uniting and becoming an unbreakable force. No matter your class, race (my kind of nationalism isn't racial), age or sex, YOU are important to fascist society. Together, under a common goal, all using their individual strengths and talents for a collective goal, little is impossible anymore. The farmer is just as essential as the businessman, the child just as precious as the adult, the man as essential as the woman. All law-abing citizens deserve the right to safety and opportunity.
Inb4 "bu-bu-but Hitler killed Jews"
First off, not a Nazi. Second. Any group that is not by definition harmful should not be deprived the right to be a part of society, I say. Pointless discrimination is bad for progress, and leaders should be able to provide good reasons for their laws. The government has no good reason to care what genitals you like if they're not underage and they consent, for example.

Openly calling for a fascist dictatorship

I suppose the honesty is refreshing at least

What's wrong with fascist dictatorship?

It promotes unity and progress (rather than partisan hatred). Politicians can focus on how to improve the country and not on how to win the next election through false promises.

[Mike the Progressive]

Gallo you arkasnsa frenchman i want my note 9 now not sept 15th fuck that shit. fucking preorders

Go home Nixon.

never allog never

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Openly calling for a fascist dictatorship

I suppose the honesty is refreshing at least

What's wrong with fascist dictatorship?

It promotes unity and progress

Italy and Germany promoted neither unity nor progress.

(rather than partisan hatred).

Partisan hatred built the Nazi Party.

Politicians can focus on how to improve the country and not on how to win the next election through false promises.

Fascist dictatorships are built on false promises.

[Genivaria]

Openly calling for a fascist dictatorship

I suppose the honesty is refreshing at least

What's wrong with fascist dictatorship?

It promotes unity and progress (rather than partisan hatred). Politicians can focus on how to improve the country and not on how to win the next election through false promises.

Pfffft hahahahaha! No.

[Len Hyet]

Openly calling for a fascist dictatorship

I suppose the honesty is refreshing at least

What's wrong with fascist dictatorship?

It promotes unity and progress (rather than partisan hatred). Politicians can focus on how to improve the country and not on how to win the next election through false promises.

Hm. What's wrong with a fascist dictatorship. Hm.

Hmmm.

Gosh IM you've got me there. As a Jew I obviously have no reason to dislike the idea of a fascist dictatorship.

[Lady of Loquacity]

The fascists who like the political ideal without the racism, invasions, etc. really need a new name for it....

My opinion, the beauty of a democracy is that you get what you ask for. And the danger of a democracy is that you get what you ask for.

[Estonland]

Democracy and republicanism are two different concepts. The earlier is the masses deciding the solution to every possible problem while the latter is the masses electing people who will lead them. Democracy is a threat because while the masses are trustable enough to select leaders, they are not educated enough to be the leaders themselves. That is why democracy should ever be tried in the most educated countries.

[Kistan]

Democracy allows everyone to be heard, and helps prevent some types of systemic corruption and abuse of power. On the other hand... everyone (involved, let's not forget oligarchic 'democracies') has a voice, which means it doesn't work well in a group with many nuanced opinions, and the larger the group is, the more burdensome the system becomes. It's a trade-off than many people are willing to take -- especially the majorities that would otherwise lack a say in national policy.

Generally speaking, dictatorial or monarchic nations rely on the merit of a few individuals, and can be run into the dirt quickly or succeed spectacularly based on what basically counts as luck. Democratic nations are more robust, but once something does break, it's usually a lot harder to fix than replacing one bad leader, because corruption in a democracy/republic seeps into society and can become systemic very quickly.