The flaw of democracy

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 effect us, it doesn't matter.

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.

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.

Noam says that it is all an Illusion and that your vote is not making much of a difference. 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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

People are stupid but as long as we limit how much their stupidity can affect us, it doesn't matter.

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?

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.

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.