Democracy does not work!!!

[Deleted]

Democracy is a cancer eating away at the heart of our society. Any action taken to stamp it out, however regrettable, is justified.
— Judge Dredd

[Raeph]

Would you vote for someone who's only message would be "I hate all the people" vote for me?

Which is why pure Democracy's don't exist anymore really except in small-ish groups.. Representative Democracy's do though, if you are talking about a Constitutional Republic or a Parliamentary Democracy.

If you try to have a pure democracy in a large group you will either have a plutocracy, those with money driving the system, or a mob, where fear drives the system.

With representatives you at least have the semblance of regional representation, granted though you will still have a large portion of the people group without a voice because their chosen representative was not elected. This does lead eventually to lowered voter turnout, but that is a separate discussion.

Honestly though it is the better alternative, I think.

Theocracy? How do you know if they guy who is the leader really is speaking the "word of God" and if you disagree what appeal do you have against the faithful (regardless of belief system)?

Plutocracy? If you don't have enough money to get into power or at least a certain amount of authority you will not progress and will be trampled under foot.

Technocracy? Knowledge drives political power, however instructional opportunities can be used to limit future portions of the society from accessing the upper echelons and they remain ignorant, living off the "magic" of the scientific masters.

Dictatorships? All lives are subservient to the rule of a single person, with no appeal process if you disagree with them.

Oligarchy? See dictatorship, just add a few more people at the top.

Monarchy? Leadership and political power determined by birthright. Very hit or miss. You could have a Caligula of Rome or you could have a George the VI of England by the roll of the genetic dice, with little input from the masses.

Caste System? Placement in society determined by family line with very little to no movement between the castes.

There are a number of others, of course, but in general terms a representative democracy at least gives the hope of the voice of an individual making a difference, whether consistently realized or not.

[Deleted]

"Democracy is two wolves & a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner."

"Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?"

A good constitution is more important than a good democracy. It helps to mitigate the self-imposed damage.

This. Democracy only works in very limited form where people can choose between a few reviewed and approved solutions. Otherwise it's just the majority praying on the minority.

But even then, democracy does not guarantee an informed choice. Most people just vote based on who put on a better show or from very narrow, selfish perspective. For example "this party will lower my taxes by 5% but will cut down all the rainforests and will probably start a war, meh.. not my problem, I have to pay less taxes". I think a better alternative would be like they had in ancient Rome. Only college educated citizens who have passed a test to prove that they are making informed choices can vote. It doesnt exclude anyone, if you want to vote, you can.. it would just make it so only those who care about it and want things to change for the better are allowed. Sort of like having a drivers license.

[belfpala]

I think a better alternative would be like they had in ancient Rome. Only college educated citizens who have passed a test to prove that they are making informed choices can vote. It doesnt exclude anyone, if you want to vote, you can.. it would just make it so only those who care about it and want things to change for the better are allowed. Sort of like having a drivers license.

Who decides what is taught at the college, and what is tested on the test?

[Deleted]

Who decides what is taught at the college, and what is tested on the test?

Political knowledge? I guess that test could work without the college requirement too. If you dont even know what youre voting for, why should you be allowed to vote in the first place?

[Deleted]

Political knowledge? I guess that test could work without the college requirement too. If you dont even know what youre voting for, why should you be allowed to vote in the first place?

Because i will kill you if you do always things i don't like.

[Tradewind]

Clearest samples that don't involve having to read through tons of text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...War_II#British
http://books.google.com/books?id=vNb...page&q&f=false (end of 241, beginning of 242)

Maybe I'm missing it but I don't see anything resembling that...and really despite what he said Dresden wasn't just terror bombing.

In any case, not sure how it invalidates the quote. "That quote has less meaning cuz Churchill was kind of a dick" or something?

[Badpaladin]

I'm not out to invalidate anything. I just love pointing out that he was kind of a racist dick and a terrorist any time someone quotes him about the merits (or not) of certain things.

And we're going to have to agree to disagree on Dresden not being just a terror bombing. I've got better things to do than argue a point that nobody will change their stance on, regardless of anything objective presented (not to mention the denial of evidence so prevalent on this message board).

[Tradewind]

I'm not out to invalidate anything. I just love pointing out that he was kind of a racist dick and a terrorist any time someone quotes him about the merits (or not) of certain things.

And we're going to have to agree to disagree on Dresden not being just a terror bombing. I've got better things to do than argue a point that nobody will change their stance on, regardless of anything objective presented (not to mention the denial of evidence so prevalent on this message board).

It's not like you have to go far for it, it's all explained in the very article you linked. The only person who ever made mention of it in that regard may have been Churchill...

But anyway, the same attributes could be given to quite a few people that get quoted often

[Frontenac]

Spot on The original Democracy that originated in Greece, politicians (polhths) meaning 'citizen' were Joe average people that were randomly selected to be politicians like national service and it was their duty to do the best they could in their tenures. Corruption and greed turned it into the bastardisation of democracy (plutocracy) that we see now.

Except that the citizen were only the free males born in the city of two free parents born in the city themselves. Usually, only the richest had the leisure to go to the assemblies and so the magistrates, members of the Boulè or the Heliè, etc. were not "average Joes". These days, such a system would not be considered a democracy anymore, I think.

[belfpala]

Political knowledge? I guess that test could work without the college requirement too. If you dont even know what youre voting for, why should you be allowed to vote in the first place?

Not going to happen, unless the Supreme Court goes insane.

Gerrymandering is a bigger issue than voter knowledge, imo.

[freakyduck]

I probably would! Seems like a straightforward guy, doesn't discriminate (hey, he does hate ALL the people equally) and he has a message that I can completely get behind.

He'd be the hero we deserve AND the hero we need!

So...he's Batman? Awesome, he's got my vote.

[Lumennon]

So...he's Batman? Awesome, he's got my vote.

That's what I thought!

[Deleted]

Would you vote for someone who's only message would be "I hate all the people" vote for me?

I'll vote you but you have to buy my vote, by buying i mean you make me your second highest ranking officer in military. After that, lets just say we could make Hitler,Stalin and Genghis Khan look like a total fucking noobs..

[Kalis]

I'm not out to invalidate anything. I just love pointing out that he was kind of a racist dick and a terrorist any time someone quotes him about the merits (or not) of certain things.

And we're going to have to agree to disagree on Dresden not being just a terror bombing. I've got better things to do than argue a point that nobody will change their stance on, regardless of anything objective presented (not to mention the denial of evidence so prevalent on this message board).

He wasn't a terrorist.

To be fair, he was racist.

He also inspired the British people to fight against the Nazis, which kept them fighting on two fronts and allowed the allies to have a platform to launch D-Day. So he is arguably the most important figure of the last 100 years, as far as the Western world (and therefore Democracy) is concerned.