Supporters of American Democracy, defend yourselves.

What are the best answers to these questions?

Should we take a vote? Or should we wait to see who can get a brutal gang together first?

There is a difference and it needs to be noted, because if you want to talk about democracy then you can't use the US as your example.

There's a clear sense in which if the American form of goverment ever produces any competent, wise leaders, it is purely accidental. And I'm not entirely convinced that American democracy runs well (Iran Contra, Vietnam, Iraq, Spanish American war, Nuking people, Overthrowing the Chilean government, to name a few major missteps)

I'm fairly certain that it is entirely clear. What Plato were you reading?

You may not be convinced that American democracy runs well. If you want to take a pessimistic view of it, that's your prerogative.

My point was only that I'm not pessimistic about it. On the contrary. (And it would take a great deal more than the list of "missteps" you've mentioned to even begin to show that American democracy doesn't work well).

The Republic. I recommend taking a look at Alan Bloom's interpretation

I'm not taking a pessimistic view of it, my view is simply grounded in history and philosophy. The historical component simply backing up the philosophical one with examples of how badly the government fails at it's role.

Leaders in any country where you have a democratic election aren't chosen for their ability or competency, it's simply a popularity context.That is why it cannot work well except as an accident of competent people being more popular than others. Do you really want to call a government that works well only accidentally good?

I am almost 100% certain that Plato is on record innumerable times as being anti-democratic. I'll look into this Alan Bloom's interpretation though.

There's nothing pessimistic about it. I think American democracy runs quite well.

The Republic. I recommend taking a look at Alan Bloom's interpretation. Plato's actual views regarding democracy are very far from clear.

It's not entirely clear that Plato really thought democracy was a bad idea.

Just sayin'.

Democratic self-government does not work, according to Plato, because ordinary people have not learned how to run the ship of state. They are not familiar enough with such things as economics, military strategy, conditions in other countries, or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics. They are also not inclined to acquire such knowledge. The effort and self-discipline required for serious study is not something most people enjoy. In their ignorance they tend to vote for politicians who beguile them with appearances and nebulous talk, and they inevitably find themselves at the mercy of administrations and conditions over which they have no control because they do not understand what is happening around them. They are guided by unreliable emotions more than by careful analysis, and they are lured into adventurous wars and victimized by costly defeats that could have been entirely avoided.

Well first of all, the US is NOT a democracy, it is a republic. There is a difference and it needs to be noted, because if you want to talk about democracy then you can't use the US as your example.

Moot point.
I'm arguing against the concept of having representatives as leaders because those 'representatives' have to actually lead a country. And the masses who choose their representatives don't generally select for those qualities which are best in a statesmen.

By the way, in theory the "unqualified" voters split down the middle and the "qualified" voters end up deciding in favor of one candidate.

I could see where this may be a statistical fact, but what is the theory behind it?

For the sake of argument, let's assume this is correct and the unqualified(no quotation marks) voters are split 50/50 down the middle, is it this way necessarily? No matter what? Or is it because the candidates are generally selected so that they will get the most unqualified voters as possible, and it just winds up being the case that it is split 50/50. If this is the case, then is it not likely then, that the qualified voters are simply deciding the vast majority of the time between a lesser of two evils? And if this is not the case, and they are necessarily split 50/50 every time for some reason, why even have them vote at all, since we know their votes will be inconsequential and they are unqualified to decide?

We already have a meritocracy, except when we do referendums (and those are part of the checks and balances). To be senator or president you have to have years of experience in politics. Our politicians are tested on the pass/fail system.

Why should everyone be allowed to vote for their representative, not just those who pass a civil service exam? Because he is supposed to be a representative.

Maybe test the Representative better on knowledge, arts & economy, what is freedom? Let them write a epic about American Historie:lol: