@Setanta,
Democracy is the worst possible system with the exception of any other...
Yes, i believe that Winston Churchill said that . . . off to get a citation.
According to the Quotations Page-dot-com:
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
-- Winston Churchill
@Setanta,
Correct...I did n´t have present in my mind who was the author, so thanks for reminding me.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Well, we already know that democracy does work. It's in use all over the planet.
but its not a planet wide government. if all of the world were under a democracy (the same one) then it would definitely cause conflict. maybe not armed conflict, but definitly unrest.
@hamilton,
Conflict was the name of the game long before anyone came up with democracy.
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:but its not a planet wide government. if all of the world were under a democracy (the same one) then it would definitely cause conflict. maybe not armed conflict, but definitly unrest.
Jesus Christ . . . what do you want, eggs in your beer ? ! ? ! ? There's never been any form of human government which has not dissatisfied someone, and often a great many someone's. Once again, you still have not offered an alternative. This discussion seems to have no actual destination.
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:
OK. i think this should do it. if a straightforward democracy (everyone votes on two sides of a matter) were a world thing, then it would definitely give rise to conflict. however, as a smaller, more individualistic government, like, for a small town, it would probably work out. what i would propose as an alternative would be a blend between the two. think of an upside tree diagram. lots of little groups vote on a matter,and what ever side is passed moves up to a representative to vote on that side of it, and what ever that decides the representative of that group votes in favor of, and so on. sorry if this is a bit unclear. just ask what you dont understand, and il try to clarify.
and by the way, those are not things You said to me, they are things I said to me.
THIS is what i said my alternative is. its a blend between individualized democracy, and a straight forward, everyones votes count about as much as a fleas size compared to the area of china. the only difference is that a person's vote counts more.
That's no answer. This discussion has become pointless.
@Setanta,
once again, you simply comdem my reasoning (for I call it reasoning, though you may not) with out giving me a reason. obviously this is not pointless to some people (me) and because you lose your patience means nothing to that.
@Setanta,
wouldnt you at least have the curtesy to tell me why this is so?
I'm not going to keep going in circles with you--i've already explained more than once my objections to your propositions.
Democracy is the only way to go , otherwise people have no real say in anything, in about things that directly affect them
Democracy is about the people
@Setanta,
you losing patience with ignorance is no failure but your own. if you want to leave this discussion, its not because my stupidity caused this, but your inability to put up with it. besides, its not as though you haven't nit picked before. I HAVE changed my views, slightly. democracy is not a bad way to go. But nor is it the best, in my opinion.
@north,
if that is so, then why do other governments exist, and succeed?
@hamilton,
This is not a case of my seeking to succeed or fail. I am not your teacher, and it is not simply your ignorance which is your problem.
If democracy is not the best way to go, i ask you again what you would propose in place of it.
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:
OK. i think this should do it. if a straightforward democracy (everyone votes on two sides of a matter) were a world thing, then it would definitely give rise to conflict. however, as a smaller, more individualistic government, like, for a small town, it would probably work out. WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE AS AN ALTERNATIVE would be a blend between the two. think of an upsidedown tree diagram. lots of little groups vote on a matter,and what ever side is passed moves up to a representative to vote on that side of it, and what ever that decides the representative of that group votes in favor of, and so on. sorry if this is a bit unclear. just ask what you dont understand, and il try to clarify.
and by the way, those are not things You said to me, they are things I said to me.
again, THIS is what i said my alternative is. its a blend between individualized democracy, where your say actually matters and a straight forward one, where everyones votes count about as much as a fleas size compared to the area of china. the only difference is that a person's vote counts more. i guess this is not so much alternative as a variation, though. so while neither form is really what I think is a good one, this variation kind of takes the best of both worlds, in my opinion.
@hamilton,
That's not a blend of anything. You're deluding yourself. When i vote, i vote in the township, in the county, in the municipality, in the state and for national offices. You have no distinction in operation here. This sort of silliness is why i've said that mere ignorance is not your only problem.
@Setanta,
wait. what is silly about this? i honestly dont understand what you mean.
What is silly is that you have jumped to conclusions about democracy while not giving careful consideration to how democracy operates. It is silly to attempt to make a distinction between democracy at a local level and democracy at a national level. Of course your vote appears to be statistically less significant at the national level, because millions of people are voting. But that is an apparent difference and not a real difference. If there is a tax levy, for example, on the ballot for my township, it can fail or be passed by a single vote. The same applies when i vote for the senator in my state. In the first case, maybe a few thousand people are voting, while in the latter, several million are voting--but my vote matters in either case because it is possible for either matter to be resolved by a single vote.
You're attempting to construct a difference between local democracy and national democracy, but it's silly because there is no functional difference. The only objection one might make would be the election of a president in the United States, where the election is determined in the Electoral College, and minority presidents (i.e., presidents who did not win the popular vote) are possible--there have been fourteen minority presidents in American history. But that's intentional, it was an intentional compromise on the issue of state sovereignty designed to reconcile the interests of populous states with those of states with much smaller populations.
So your thesis doesn't suffer from ignornace so much as it does from sloppy thinking. You've decided what your position is and are now attempting to shoe-horn descriptions of democracy into your thesis, rather than examining whether or not the evidence confirms your thesis, or in fact denies it.
