Supporters of American Democracy, defend yourselves.

finally Health Insurance for 70% of the people

Source.

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.

Pretty well mirrors exactly the OP, don't it?

Yes, Plato has traditionally been regarded as an opponent of democracy. Bloom offers a Straussian way of interpreting the Republic as a covert argument in favor of democracy. His view can be found in his translation of the Republic.

They already have heath insurance.

What is the actual %? In The Netherlands we are made by law to have an insurance. :detective:

I want to address a post a few posts back if you all don't mind. The reason I call Insty a pessimist is because his grounds for rejecting an ideal state are that it could not possibly be practically applied(and that's why I called him a pragmatist.). You were nay saying about something and seem unwilling to even give it a shot. Why? Probably for the same reasons I'm pointing out that the current system fails. I on the other hand, am not simply being pessimistic when I say the American system of government fails and has failed, I am simply stating facts. It has a well enough established track record of failing that to predict future failures is simply empiricial observation and not pessimism.

This country is a democratic republic, as contrasted with (say) the United Kingdom or Sweden which are democratic monarchies. The United States is a republic, and also, a representative democracy, as contrasted with a direct democracy. I think it is a direct democracy that Madison meant when he said that the United States is not a democracy, but a republic. He did not mean it was not a representative democracy, which is clearly is. Terms change their meaning during a span of 200 years. So, of course, the United States is not an example of a direct democracy (no country is (nowadays) buit it is, of course, a representative democracy, and also, a republic (as contrasted with a monarchy).

They are tested. They vote on a law, the law and vote are available for public reading. People can read both and and judge the man, and the talk about it publicly, spread the word if he did a bad job, and then vote for the other guy next time.

Of course, people don't really do that, including phd's and philosophers. So how would a meritocracy work any better? Since we do have a testing, meritocratic system, you have to look at why it doesn't work before proposing a different meritocratic system.

It's pretty damn easy. How many years have they dedicated to studying it? Do they understand what it is correctly and precisely? Then they are an expert. But then they would only seem as an expert to someone who wasn't an expert. Sadly only an expert can be a truly proper judge of who is and who is not an expert.

Sadly only an expert can be a truly proper judge of who is and who is not an expert. This administrative class would be an elite strata of society almost entirely removed from the rest. They would be able to understand that they are experts and explain to a non-expert how they know it, but they would not be able to prove it to them, such is the nature of expertise, it is esoteric.

I've responded to this already.

the opening of your post seemed to be in conflict with its ending.

Rome was a republic for 500 years and a dictatorship for 500 years. Rome actually flourished under its more competent dictators but eventually the position was filled by the incompetent and in some cases by the insane.

There's nothing pessimistic about it. I think American democracy runs quite well. The fact that it works so well is a powerful argument in its favor. I'm not sure what other kinds of arguments you're looking for, but they sound highly theoretical and more likely to lead to a discussion about an ideal state.

The US needs more parties. Having only 2 parties is stupid.

good dictators invariably give way to bad dictators either through the corruption of power or through succession not on the basis of merit and competence. Dictators are only a short term solution.

The Bill of rights was to protect the states against the powers of central government and the individual against both tyranny of the majority and the power of the central government. There has always been a debate if the Bill of rights also protects individuals against local and state governments as well. The initial vision was a central government of limited scope and specified powers. The central government has expanded it powers well beyond the original vision of the founding fathers. There are no true conservatives on the supreme court (justices who employ the notion of limited central government power) and have not been for some time, all the justices are willing to expand the role and power of the central government just in different ways and for different purposes.

American democracy works quite well? It's the worst democracy I know of! For one stupidity think of the one man states system. That's a retarded system if anything.