Democracy is not truly democracy - here's why

[Deleted]

You got millions of people just voting for the guy who is endorsed by the fucking NRA without knowing anything about politics whatsoever. That's why I think ignorant people have way too much say.

True. But that's the reason why you have to educate the masses so those rednecks can make informed decisions in future elections. An informed voter will more clearly distinguish the better candidate (better, as in for the advancement of his/her country).

A candidate's seriousness and competence almost always reflects the education level of the people they represent.

[Stormspark]

True. But that's the reason why you have to educate the masses so those rednecks can make informed decisions in future elections. An informed voter will more clearly distinguish the better candidate (better, as in for the advancement of his/her country).

A candidate's seriousness and competence almost always reflects the education level of the people they represent.

The government doesn't want the masses to be educated. An ignorant public serves the interests of the rich elite, an educated public would not. As George Carlin once said, the government wants obedient workers, not educated voters.

[Reeve]

You totally misunderstood me. That's ok. I also never said anything about 'lucky accidents,' that's all you. Also, Presidents don't really count, do they? They're part of a system that specifically encourages power seekers to grab power. Monarchies, on the other hand, are full of people just born into it. Which is not to say I think monarchies are better systems, either.

I can also think of quite a few folks who don't have very high opinions of Hannibal, Churchill, Roosevelt, or Alexander.

Augustus Caesar, the dictator so beloved that his name became synonymous with "ruler" (kaiser, csar, caesar), was absolutely seeking power. He fought a major war to secure it and essentially destroyed the Roman Republic to do it.

[Stormdash]

Oh there are far too many stupid people voting, but ultimately that's on them and their communities to take responsibility for wanting to actually know more and doing some critical thinking before feeling ready to vote. Nor is it contrary to a constitutional republic; we are free to try to introduce some qualifying test or something to vote, but it would be extraordinarily difficult to make one that would satisfy strict scrutiny when challenged as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

[Reeve]

Also, depending on how much stock you put into ancient Mesopotomian folklore, Sargon the Great counts for what I'm talking about. From farmer to cupbearer to soldier to general to king, a king who cared more for established culture in the form of writing and history and trade with the entirety of the known world then he did about dynasties or ruling with an iron fist, as there are pretty much no records of him every treating the people of his empire cruelly. Is he valid? He ruled for around 60 years and did a pretty good job of making sure humanity would flourish for... well, I suppose all the way up to the present day.

A guy who wrapped his biography in messianic rags to riches claptrap so that no one could question his right to rule?

[Belisarius565]

Actually, it was up to the state legislatures to determine how the Senators were selected -- i.e. the legislature itself, or the Governor, or a direct election, etc. The 17th Amendment was probably well-intentioned, but I think it created a problem far bigger than it solved; a century later and there is barely any public understanding of why we even have a bicameral legislature in the first place. Or why the states are sovereign, for that matter. A dire breakdown in civics, if nothing else. I'd happily see the 17th repealed and trust that public scrutiny and the wide availability of information could preclude graft.

As I said, it was up to the legislature how it was handled, they had the power, and could change it. One of the biggest mistakes was the 17th amendment. It made the election of state officials not as relevant in the overall federal system of government.

[Annoying]

I'll name 2 examples of historical political systems that worked better for the people they governed than democracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty

In both states, sovereignty was governed by two unique ideologies that were not subject to change, and sovereignty was ultimately only possessed by those ideologies. The average person in the Qing dynasty was far more wealthy than even the average American during the late 19th century.

I'm sorry, but a theocracy? You'd have to kill me before I'd follow religious laws, much less a caliphate.

[Shelly]

Also, depending on how much stock you put into ancient Mesopotomian folklore, Sargon the Great counts for what I'm talking about. From farmer to cupbearer to soldier to general to king, a king who cared more for established culture in the form of writing and history and trade with the entirety of the known world then he did about dynasties or ruling with an iron fist, as there are pretty much no records of him every treating the people of his empire cruelly. Is he valid? He ruled for around 60 years and did a pretty good job of making sure humanity would flourish for... well, I suppose all the way up to the present day.

So you're saying a farmer, sought out a decent job, upgraded that job further and further until he was a king.

Yeah, you're right. He totally wasn't seeking power AT ALL ....

History is full of those guys, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, but a job requirement to become someone in power all starts with being someone ambitious enough to seek that power.

I think the closest thing we have in modern history would have been Pope Benedictus - you know, the guy just prior to our current super pope. While I'm sure he sought out the power to rule the papacy he was and is a biblical scholar having written multiple volumes on the life of Jesus. When it became abundantly clear that he was incapable of properly leading the church he gave up his rights and allowed the vote in of a new successor.

Which is kind of my point.

If you just throw someone with no experience or ambition into a job under the assumption that they are the best person for the job since they don't want it then they tend to do a pretty shitty job of it.

You don't just make a grandmaster at chess into a general because the two things are similar. Neither do you make a farmer a king - but with ambition and training that farmer can become a king as in your example.

You stated earlier that you can't find any examples of people rising without ambition and grooming because there aren't any. Which is precisely my point.

Your original point stated that the best person for the job is the one who doesn't want it and frankly that's a very flawed view because if you don't want a job you aren't going to do very good at it.

Want examples of that?

Call Comcast customer service.

[Deleted]

There is no such thing as a perfect political system because humanity itself will never be perfect. All we can do is try our best and Democracy has proven to be the lesser of evils.