manored
 
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 09:20 am
I have been think about democracy lately, and I have came to a conclusion: it is flawed. The reason: everyone gets an equal amount of say on who is going to lead the country next, but not everyone has the necessary knowledge about the current state of the country and of the world, to make a wise decision. Actually, its probally safe to say that in some countries MOST people dont have. Consequently, people go for whoever transmits more confidence to them or just whoever is promising to benefit their class, instead of whoever has the best plan for the country, and, specially in less fortunate countries, it ends up being mostly random whenever we will have a good government or not since what decided werent the ideas, but the appearance.

I think we perhaps need another system where a person has to pass some kind of test before it can vote. I understand that this can be vulnerable to corruption by the higher classes to take the vote away from the lower classes, but I dont think it would be much worse than what we have today, where the lower classes are just manipulated.

What do you think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 2,559 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 09:26 am
@manored,
manored;171273 wrote:
I have been think about democracy lately, and I have came to a conclusion: it is flawed. The reason: everyone gets an equal amount of say on who is going to lead the country next, but not everyone has the necessary knowledge about the current state of the country and of the world, to make a wise decision. Actually, its probally safe to say that in some countries MOST people dont have. Consequently, people go for whoever transmits more confidence to them or just whoever is promising to benefit their class, instead of whoever has the best plan for the country, and, specially in less fortunate countries, it ends up being mostly random whenever we will have a good government or not since what decided werent the ideas, but the appearance.

I think we perhaps need another system where a person has to pass some kind of test before it can vote. I understand that this can be vulnerable to corruption by the higher classes to take the vote away from the lower classes, but I dont think it would be much worse than what we have today, where the lower classes are just manipulated.

What do you think?


People have the right to be stupid. If they don't learn anything and vote for ignorant fools then they get what they deserve. I'm really tired of hearing schemes by people that think they can circumvent human stupidity. It's better if we just face it head-on and deal with the downsides. People are stupid but as long as we limit how much their stupidity can affect us, it doesn't matter.
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 10:47 am
@manored,
Democracy they say is inherently unstable but not because people are stupid.
Democracy is unstable because the majority learns they can vote themselves current benefits at the expense of the minority and future generations. Politicians then learn to pander to this sort of unsustainable populism to get elected. This results in annual deficits, rising national debts, stifling innovation and industry and eventual collapse of the economy and the society. Does this sound familiar? Like any country you know?

Nations which lose their vision, their sense of purpose in the world, also lose their energy, their vitality and eventually suffer collapse, dissolution and/or revolution. What is your nations vision?
kennethamy
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 10:49 am
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;171277 wrote:
People have the right to be stupid. If they don't learn anything and vote for ignorant fools then they get what they deserve. I'm really tired of hearing schemes by people that think they can circumvent human stupidity. It's better if we just face it head-on and deal with the downsides. People are stupid but as long as we limit how much their stupidity can effect us, it doesn't matter.


In a democracy people do have the right to be stupid or ignorant. But it isn't right for them to be stupid. Having a right is one thing, but exercising that right is a very different thing, so the question always come up, even if someone has a right, is it right for them to exercise that right? For example, everyone may have the right to vote. But is it right for those who are completely ignorant of the issues to vote? Just because someone has a right to do X, it does not follow they are right to do X. Or is that being pedantic? By the way, is insisting on the distinction between stupidity and ignorance pedantic. We pedants need to know. After all, ignorance is at least as great a threat to Democracy as stupidity. Perhaps even more so. Of course, that supposes that making the distinction between stupidity and ignorance is not pedantry.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 11:04 am
@manored,
manored;171273 wrote:
I have been think about democracy lately, and I have came to a conclusion: it is flawed. The reason: everyone gets an equal amount of say on who is going to lead the country next, but not everyone has the necessary knowledge about the current state of the country and of the world, to make a wise decision. Actually, its probally safe to say that in some countries MOST people dont have. Consequently, people go for whoever transmits more confidence to them or just whoever is promising to benefit their class, instead of whoever has the best plan for the country, and, specially in less fortunate countries, it ends up being mostly random whenever we will have a good government or not since what decided werent the ideas, but the appearance.

I think we perhaps need another system where a person has to pass some kind of test before it can vote. I understand that this can be vulnerable to corruption by the higher classes to take the vote away from the lower classes, but I dont think it would be much worse than what we have today, where the lower classes are just manipulated.

What do you think?


You are absolutely correct about your outlook on democracy, however there are no democracies in the world. They are usually a branched form of democracy. Like the US is not a democracy it is a republic. We typically do not vote directly for what we want, but instead we vote for representatives who then vote for us. Most people don't like this system because you can basically quiet large groups because the representative doesn't even need to vote according to what party they represent.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 11:17 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;171323 wrote:
You are absolutely correct about your outlook on democracy, however there are no democracies in the world. They are usually a branched form of democracy. Like the US is not a democracy it is a republic. We typically do not vote directly for what we want, but instead we vote for representatives who then vote for us. Most people don't like this system because you can basically quiet large groups because the representative doesn't even need to vote according to what party they represent.


Yes, the United States is a democratic republic. Democracy and Republic are not exclusive concepts. It is a democracy because the those who govern do so with the consent of the governed. And yes, it is a representative democratic republic, but why would that mean it was not a democracy? That would mean only that it is no a direct democracy. Democracies need not be direct democracies, and nowadays, direct democracies on a national scale would not merely be impracticable, but impossible. The philosophy of representation is a vexed issue, and requires a lot of thinking about. Representatives have different philosophies of representation. Some, for example, think that except in cases when their constituents are overwhelmingly in favor (or against) some measure, their job is to use their best judgment after consulting with their constituents. A republic does not contrast with democracy. It contrasts with monarchy. The United Kingdom, after all, is a democracy, but it is a monarchy, not a republic. But the Democratic Republic of North Korea, is not a democracy by any stretch, but it is a republic.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 11:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171326 wrote:
Yes, the United States is a democratic republic. Democracy and Republic are not exclusive concepts. It is a democracy because the those who govern do so with the consent of the governed. And yes, it is a representative democratic republic, but why would that mean it was not a democracy? That would mean only that it is no a direct democracy. Democracies need not be direct democracies, and nowadays, direct democracies on a national scale would not merely be impracticable, but impossible. The philosophy of representation is a vexed issue, and requires a lot of thinking about. Representatives have different philosophies of representation. Some, for example, think that except in cases when their constituents are overwhelmingly in favor (or against) some measure, their job is to use their best judgment after consulting with their constituents. A republic does not contrast with democracy. It contrasts with monarchy. The United Kingdom, after all, is a democracy, but it is a monarchy, not a republic. But the Democratic Republic of North Korea, is not a democracy by any stretch, but it is a republic.


Yes you are right, however we have a strange occurrence that happens. Even if people choose not to vote, the representative still does. So in some cases even if millions of people don't vote, when the rep does vote it is as if those millions did vote. These reps are not chosen out of voting they are chosen via population densities.

So it really does not matter how educated the public is when determining voting. What matters is that the representative will vote according to what those people within that district actually want. So if you really want to effect a voting outcome, you need to educate the representative not the people. This is what has been happening and people are realizing that in reality it is these representatives who actually hold the power within the election, not the voters.

So trying to solve the problem through insisting that the voter be educated or pass some kind of exam before they vote will actually not solve anything. It will just add another level of bureaucracy to the system which inevitably will be abused and corruptible. Think about all they would have to do?

Let's say that you have to pass some kind of exam before you can vote. What they will do is charge an exam fee or require that you receive some kind of voting license. Charging a fee for these things will ultimately create corruption and you know damn well if there is an exam their argument won't be that they are charging you a fee to vote, but instead they are charging you a processing fee for the exam. Which in reality is both the same thing. This is how they will just limit voters just like they do with drivers licenses and fishing licenses and what not. They will instill some kind of voting data base which logs who you voted for, how often you vote and all that stuff. Or they could ban your right to vote all together if they wanted to by not allowing you to take the exam or allow you to receive a voting license.

The list goes on and on how bad and corruptible that sort of system would be and it wouldn't solve a single thing to make politicians better. It would only make the system worse and we would still have lousy politicians.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 01:50 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;171332 wrote:
Yes you are right, however we have a strange occurrence that happens. Even if people choose not to vote, the representative still does. So in some cases even if millions of people don't vote, when the rep does vote it is as if those millions did vote. These reps are not chosen out of voting they are chosen via population densities.

So it really does not matter how educated the public is when determining voting. What matters is that the representative will vote according to what those people within that district actually want. So if you really want to effect a voting outcome, you need to educate the representative not the people. This is what has been happening and people are realizing that in reality it is these representatives who actually hold the power within the election, not the voters.

So trying to solve the problem through insisting that the voter be educated or pass some kind of exam before they vote will actually not solve anything. It will just add another level of bureaucracy to the system which inevitably will be abused and corruptible. Think about all they would have to do?

Let's say that you have to pass some kind of exam before you can vote. What they will do is charge an exam fee or require that you receive some kind of voting license. Charging a fee for these things will ultimately create corruption and you know damn well if there is an exam their argument won't be that they are charging you a fee to vote, but instead they are charging you a processing fee for the exam. Which in reality is both the same thing. This is how they will just limit voters just like they do with drivers licenses and fishing licenses and what not. They will instill some kind of voting data base which logs who you voted for, how often you vote and all that stuff. Or they could ban your right to vote all together if they wanted to by not allowing you to take the exam or allow you to receive a voting license.

The list goes on and on how bad and corruptible that sort of system would be and it wouldn't solve a single thing to make politicians better. It would only make the system worse and we would still have lousy politicians.


There are certainly problems with democracy. However I will remind you of that old Chuchillian saying, "Democracy is the the worst form of government. Except, of course, for all the others". As we used to say when I was a child, "The Hindoo does the best he kindoo".
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 04:21 pm
@kennethamy,
Noam says that it is all an Illusion and that your vote is not making much of a difference.Smile YouTube - Noam Chomsky: Necessary Illusions - Thought Control in a Democratic Society Part 1 (1989)
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 04:32 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;171408 wrote:
Noam says that it is all an Illusion and that your vote is not making much of a difference.Smile YouTube - Noam Chomsky: Necessary Illusions - Thought Control in a Democratic Society Part 1 (1989)


Now, why would it matter what Chomsky says about political issues? He has said idiotic things thoughout his life about politics. He is a Trotskyite. And Trotsky died with an axe through his skull.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 05:02 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171411 wrote:
Now, why would it matter what Chomsky says about political issues? He has said idiotic things thoughout his life about politics. He is a Trotskyite. And Trotsky died with an axe through is skull.

Yes I do see your point of view, I am sure that he has been wrong many of times throughout his life, haven't we all?

Would you be kind enough to point out where he is wrong in this video with something to backup up your claim? so that some of us simple minded people will not believe that what he speaks of has some truth to it.Smile
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 06:31 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;171420 wrote:
Yes I do see your point of view, I am sure that he has been wrong many of times throughout his life, haven't we all?

Would you be kind enough to point out where he is wrong in this video with something to backup up your claim? so that some of us simple minded people will not believe that what he speaks of has some truth to it.Smile


I really do not want to discuss Chomsky at length. Personally he is a prince of a guy, but his views on politics are too crazy to spend much time on. Of course, his work in linguistics is a work of genius. That cannot be taken from him.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:02 pm
@manored,
The basic flaw, I think, is really one of logistics. It is extremely difficult to govern anything fairly and efficiently at the level of 300 million people scattered over an area as diverse as the United States.

Our local governments seem to work quite well when left to decide the needs and wants of thier particular population. We have every opportunity to be involved in our local government if we so choose, and yes, we have the right to be stupid, in front of our neighbors.

The flaw has arisen with the growth of our monstrous federal body, creating increasing blanket legislation over an increasingly diverse population. This was never the intention of our forefathers when they created the system that evolved to become what we have today.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:09 pm
@wayne,
wayne;171473 wrote:
The basic flaw, I think, is really one of logistics. It is extremely difficult to govern anything fairly and efficiently at the level of 300 million people scattered over an area as diverse as the United States.

Our local governments seem to work quite well when left to decide the needs and wants of thier particular population. We have every opportunity to be involved in our local government if we so choose, and yes, we have the right to be stupid, in front of our neighbors.

The flaw has arisen with the growth of our monstrous federal body, creating increasing blanket legislation over an increasingly diverse population. This was never the intention of our forefathers when they created the system that evolved to become what we have today.


Oh I think the country is governable all right. But when the government attempts to force its ideology down the country's throat, the country revolts. What was never the intention of the founders was for a government to govern contrary to the will of the people.
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:18 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171479 wrote:
Oh I think the country is governable all right. But when the government attempts to force its ideology down the country's throat, the country revolts. What was never the intention of the founders was for a government to govern contrary to the will of the people.


I think it can be done, but the logistics involved in doing it correctly are enormously complex. So many issues that must be fairly governed over such a diverse country.
Big business has taken full advantage of this problem over the centuries and is a major contributor to the complexity of the situation.
A couple of past examples might be Carnegie Steel and The Anaconda Mining corporation.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:54 pm
@wayne,
wayne;171486 wrote:
Big business has taken full advantage of this problem over the centuries and is a major contributor to the complexity of the situation.
A couple of past examples might be Carnegie Steel and The Anaconda Mining corporation.
Which is a good point: When 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, you have a hidden oligarchy. I'm sure the super-wealthy are fairly well educated. It would be logical that their primary goal is to reinforce their position of power.

Since wealth in capitalist societies is occasionally redistributed during depressions, it would appear there's something missing from their strategies.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:09 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;171504 wrote:


Since wealth in capitalist societies is occasionally redistributed during depressions, it would appear there's something missing from their strategies.


Well, thank God for depressions! And the deeper the better. I cannot imagine why people who are out of work during depressions complain. After all, they are much better off out of work when the capitalists are suffering than they are when they had a decent job, and the capitalists were making money, but wealth was unfairly distributed. You know what the trouble is with working people? They don't know when they are well off. They are much better off without a job than they are with a job because when they are without a job all those greedy capitalists are suffering too. Go figure!
0 Replies
 
Maud Dib
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 08:23 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171454 wrote:
I really do not want to discuss Chomsky at length. Personally he is a prince of a guy, but his views on politics are too crazy to spend much time on. Of course, his work in linguistics is a work of genius. That cannot be taken from him.



That sounds really fimiliar.:shifty:
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 08:14 am
@prothero,
Night Ripper;171277 wrote:
People are stupid but as long as we limit how much their stupidity can affect us, it doesn't matter.
But this is what I was suggesting =)

prothero;171318 wrote:
Democracy they say is inherently unstable but not because people are stupid.
Democracy is unstable because the majority learns they can vote themselves current benefits at the expense of the minority and future generations. Politicians then learn to pander to this sort of unsustainable populism to get elected. This results in annual deficits, rising national debts, stifling innovation and industry and eventual collapse of the economy and the society. Does this sound familiar? Like any country you know?
True enough. Democracy seens to be based on the idea of that if there are 90% reds and 10% blues, then the reds will win 90% of the stuff they try for and the blues 10%. That would be fair. But that really makes no sense because we know what will happen is that reds will win ever time and blues wont ever win.

prothero;171318 wrote:

Nations which lose their vision, their sense of purpose in the world, also lose their energy, their vitality and eventually suffer collapse, dissolution and/or revolution. What is your nations vision?
Im not sure what you mean with this, as, as far as I know, a nation's purpose is its own survival.

Krumple;171332 wrote:
Yes you are right, however we have a strange occurrence that happens. Even if people choose not to vote, the representative still does. So in some cases even if millions of people don't vote, when the rep does vote it is as if those millions did vote. These reps are not chosen out of voting they are chosen via population densities.

So it really does not matter how educated the public is when determining voting. What matters is that the representative will vote according to what those people within that district actually want. So if you really want to effect a voting outcome, you need to educate the representative not the people. This is what has been happening and people are realizing that in reality it is these representatives who actually hold the power within the election, not the voters.
But who is chosen to be the representative DOES matter, unless the system has gotten so corrupt that who is chosen doesnt matters anymore, at witch point an revolution is recommendable. And, on Brazil at least, elections are direct, that is, you dont vote in the voter, you vote on the actual guy who will govern, all the way up to the presidential level.

Krumple;171332 wrote:

So trying to solve the problem through insisting that the voter be educated or pass some kind of exam before they vote will actually not solve anything. It will just add another level of bureaucracy to the system which inevitably will be abused and corruptible. Think about all they would have to do?

Let's say that you have to pass some kind of exam before you can vote. What they will do is charge an exam fee or require that you receive some kind of voting license. Charging a fee for these things will ultimately create corruption and you know damn well if there is an exam their argument won't be that they are charging you a fee to vote, but instead they are charging you a processing fee for the exam. Which in reality is both the same thing. This is how they will just limit voters just like they do with drivers licenses and fishing licenses and what not. They will instill some kind of voting data base which logs who you voted for, how often you vote and all that stuff. Or they could ban your right to vote all together if they wanted to by not allowing you to take the exam or allow you to receive a voting license.

The list goes on and on how bad and corruptible that sort of system would be and it wouldn't solve a single thing to make politicians better. It would only make the system worse and we would still have lousy politicians.
But all of that corruption you mentioned (except, I give in, for the monetary one, but then again there wouldnt be any reasonable excuse to ask for an high fee) would require the current government to have no opposition, nobody to point out and saw: Look: they are blocking out voters who voted in other parties in the last elections!

If the government has no opposition like that, then they can just manipulate votes. They are the ones who do the counting, after all.

Arjuna;171504 wrote:
Which is a good point: When 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth, you have a hidden oligarchy. I'm sure the super-wealthy are fairly well educated. It would be logical that their primary goal is to reinforce their position of power.

Since wealth in capitalist societies is occasionally redistributed during depressions, it would appear there's something missing from their strategies.
While wealthy people certainly, in most cases, seek even more wealthy, I dont think they cooperate that much. Their main obstacles are each other, after all.
ImMachiavellian
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 08:40 am
@manored,
Hello everyone, I'm new btw.

I have recently started a Political Sciences Course. And as of now I am a sponge and my opinions on topics such as this one are influenced by the books I read in this course. So I apologize in advance if my opinions offend anyone.

I have so far been reading up on the subject of government and people relationship. I have read Plato's Republic, Machiavelli's The Prince and Hobbe's Leviathan and it seems that these authors have come to a common conclusion:

:a-thought:That democracy is flawed in the sense that "too" much political freedom is given to the people. The people are "overloaded" with too much political responsibility and this brings instability to debates on decisive action. In conclusion, people just don't know what do with their freedom of political expression becuase they have too much of it.

Well, at least this is my interpretation. What do you guys think?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The flaw of democracy
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/20/2019 at 11:41:50