Democracy. Whats the point?

[Sexydude01]

Democracy is one of the worst possible forms of government, because NOTHING GETS DONE!!! FOr the most part, there is never a majority government, and the parties can never agree, thus causing a stalemate in leadership and action. we need is one strong leader who has absolute power, but listens to the advice of otherse, and public opinion, but makes all final decisions. Then the problem would arise, what if the leader becomes power hungry, and tyranical, then we remove him. Have a system where the country is ruled by one man with absolute power, but theres a public opinion vote every say, 6 months for example. then if the public want a new leader, a new one is voted in, and he has complete power until he/she loses public opinion, and the cycle repeats. This way, things would get done, and we dont have to fear having an opressive, power-hungry, absolute tyrant as a leader.

[Cwagular]

If the leader had complete power, then he would never get removed. He would either a. abolish the law of public opinion b. threaten people with the army that he HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER c. Kill people with the army that he HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER.
Thats why your idea doesn't work.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 2/23/09 07:08 PM, Sexydude01 wrote: Democracy is one of the worst possible forms of government, because NOTHING GETS DONE!!!

Democracy does not have a monopoly on inefficient bureaucracy.

Huhm. I need to incorporate that into a rhyme.

[Nitroglys]

I think there is a Churchill quote that goes something like 'Democracy is the worst possible form of government, but its the only viable choice we have.' For some reason i have always founds solace in that quote when questioning the validity and worth-whileness of democracy. Im sure some race of super beings from another planet is looking at our governments like they are a zoo. But until every person's individual opinion is equally heard and acted on in a reasonable form, not to mention this must be done on every issue in any person's concern. Because ignoring that issue would render your "state" flawed like all the other forms of government. You see, until we all ascend out of stupidity and free ourselves from so many stereotypes, vices, and many other superficial problems; we are completely unable to cooperate in such a manor.

[vanillacrazycake]

When one says that the reason why democracy doesn't work because people disagree, I reply, "That's because one side is made up of people with common sense, and the other side is full of idiots or ignoramuses (ignorant people?)." The ideal form of government is one where everyone is educated and the most important decisions are left up to a highly intelligent and highly educated entity wholooks out for both the people and the sanctity and sustainability of the world as a whole.

[blackattackbitch]

At 2/23/09 07:08 PM, Sexydude01 wrote: Democracy is one of the worst possible forms of government, because NOTHING GETS DONE!!! FOr the most part, there is never a majority government, and the parties can never agree, thus causing a stalemate in leadership and action.

Debate over a certain issue does take precious time, but it also minimalizes the chance for mistake.

we need is one strong leader who has absolute power, but listens to the advice of otherse, and public opinion, but makes all final decisions.

1) Absolute power corrupts absolutely
2) Public opinion can be wrong sometimes.

Then the problem would arise, what if the leader becomes power hungry, and tyranical, then we remove him. Have a system where the country is ruled by one man with absolute power, but theres a public opinion vote every say, 6 months for example. then if the public want a new leader, a new one is voted in, and he has complete power until he/she loses public opinion, and the cycle repeats.

Until he either abolishes the public opinion vote, uses the military to threaten the public, or uses one of the other thousands of loopholes created in your description of this particular dictatorship.

This way, things would get done, and we dont have to fear having an opressive, power-hungry, absolute tyrant as a leader.

Fat chance. Considering that we elect a great number of our government officials, many of them still become corrupt, or are corrupt upon entering the office. Concentrating so much power into the hands of one man is a surefire way to self-destruction.

[Aughiris]

If the entire world would be ruled by a single person who knows exactly how to handle everything, we would have the perfect government.

However, no person can do that.

Therefor do I propose that we create a machine which will function as the world dictator.

Fuck yeah, robots taking over the world.

[TheladiesMan47]

At 2/23/09 10:32 PM, blackattackbitch wrote:

At 2/23/09 07:08 PM, Sexydude01 wrote: Democracy is one of the worst possible forms of government, because NOTHING GETS DONE!!! FOr the most part, there is never a majority government, and the parties can never agree, thus causing a stalemate in leadership and action.

Debate over a certain issue does take precious time, but it also minimalizes the chance for mistake.

we need is one strong leader who has absolute power, but listens to the advice of otherse, and public opinion, but makes all final decisions.

1) Absolute power corrupts absolutely
2) Public opinion can be wrong sometimes.

Then the problem would arise, what if the leader becomes power hungry, and tyranical, then we remove him. Have a system where the country is ruled by one man with absolute power, but theres a public opinion vote every say, 6 months for example. then if the public want a new leader, a new one is voted in, and he has complete power until he/she loses public opinion, and the cycle repeats.

Until he either abolishes the public opinion vote, uses the military to threaten the public, or uses one of the other thousands of loopholes created in your description of this particular dictatorship.

This way, things would get done, and we dont have to fear having an opressive, power-hungry, absolute tyrant as a leader.

Fat chance. Considering that we elect a great number of our government officials, many of them still become corrupt, or are corrupt upon entering the office. Concentrating so much power into the hands of one man is a surefire way to self-destruction.

I would like to comment on what you said about the majority opinion being wrong sometimes. That is absolutely true, in fact that is the paradox of our government. the tyranny of the majority over the civil right and liberties of all. the founding father did a danm good job creating our government, and then had the foresight to make it so we can change it, and different ways of interpreting it.

[Dawnslayer]

At 2/23/09 07:08 PM, Sexydude01 wrote: Democracy is one of the worst possible forms of government, because NOTHING GETS DONE!!! FOr the most part, there is never a majority government, and the parties can never agree, thus causing a stalemate in leadership and action.

That's actually kind of the point. To represent only the majority view is a danger to the country's people; cite "The Federalist," #10.

we need is one strong leader who has absolute power, but listens to the advice of otherse, and public opinion, but makes all final decisions. Then the problem would arise, what if the leader becomes power hungry, and tyranical, then we remove him. Have a system where the country is ruled by one man with absolute power, but theres a public opinion vote every say, 6 months for example. then if the public want a new leader, a new one is voted in, and he has complete power until he/she loses public opinion, and the cycle repeats. This way, things would get done, and we dont have to fear having an opressive, power-hungry, absolute tyrant as a leader.

Let's say I am said "strong leader" who's been doing a pretty crappy job lately. On election day, I have power to close the polls. If people protest, I send in the troops to silence them. Furthermore, I build a propaganda campaign to motivate my sympathizers against the "rebellion." That's the problem with centralized power, and the reason America split off in the first place.

[Stoicish]

You and Mark Twain have something in common.

Twain advocated a dictatorship because at least you knew what was coming.

Anyway, despite your frustration with Democracy there really isn't any perfect government out there. Every single one of them has their pro's and con's.

The fun thing about Democracy is that it comes in many different flavors unlike every other government system.

Except for Dictatorship, it comes in many forms, but is essentially the same damn thing.

[NeverHundred]

Most people are content with our fucked up system. Why can't you be?

[RubberTrucky]

At 2/23/09 07:08 PM, Sexydude01 wrote: Have a system where the country is ruled by one man with absolute power, but theres a public opinion vote every say, 6 months for example. then if the public want a new leader, a new one is voted in, and he has complete power until he/she loses public opinion, and the cycle repeats. This way, things would get done, and we dont have to fear having an opressive, power-hungry, absolute tyrant as a leader.

Isn't this basically what democracy is? Putting people in charge and replacing them by public vote every once in a while so they don't become absolute rulers over everything?

[Ericho]

At 2/23/09 07:08 PM, Sexydude01 wrote: . We need is one strong leader who has absolute power, but listens to the advice of otherse, and public opinion, but makes all final decisions. Then the problem would arise, what if the leader becomes power hungry, and tyranical, then we remove him. Have a system where the country is ruled by one man with absolute power, but theres a public opinion vote every say, 6 months for example. then if the public want a new leader, a new one is voted in, and he has complete power until he/she loses public opinion, and the cycle repeats. This way, things would get done, and we dont have to fear having an opressive, power-hungry, absolute tyrant as a leader.

Dude, I'm pretty sure that by definition a person with absolute power wouldn't be able to co-exist with a system that allows public opinion to vote him out of office. That sort of negates the power part. Unless you're thinking of making a brand new government. If so, you've got a lot of work to do, because the ideas are too contradictory.

[Dekagaru]

The only problem I have with a democracy is that it enables whats called, "Oppression by the majority." Prop 8 in California is a prime example of why democracy is so dangerous. It allows a large uneducated population to be swayed by a few charismatic leaders. I think in order to be allowed to vote you must earn the right through tests. You need a license to drive a car, you should need one to vote.

[aninjaman]

At 2/24/09 07:31 PM, Dekagaru wrote: I think in order to be allowed to vote you must earn the right through tests. You need a license to drive a car, you should need one to vote.

But that would be easy to exploit. The ruling party would pass legilsation that makes some of the questions on the test make sure that disagreeing with them makes you uneligable to vote.

[Dekagaru]

At 2/24/09 07:36 PM, aninjaman wrote:

But that would be easy to exploit. The ruling party would pass legilsation that makes some of the questions on the test make sure that disagreeing with them makes you uneligable to vote.

No no no, you misunderstand. The tests would not be based on political ideology. It would be more on basic intelligence. Ensuring people are smart enough to think for themselves will have the added benefit of making them think for themselves rather than be swayed by bigots behind pulpits. Also, making it so that people actually have to aquire a license to vote ensures that the people who do really care about the issue. Now this "voting license" wouldnt apply to presidential elections, this would only apply if laws are offered up to a popluation vote rather than a congressional one.

If somone is smart enough to think for themselves, and still votes against civil rights. Then as much as that pains me im ok with that.

[Aughiris]

How about we wipe out 99% of the entire world popularion and return to small communities and tribes? Like a big reset-button, starting all over again.

[blackattackbitch]

At 2/24/09 07:42 PM, Dekagaru wrote: No no no, you misunderstand. The tests would not be based on political ideology. It would be more on basic intelligence. Ensuring people are smart enough to think for themselves will have the added benefit of making them think for themselves rather than be swayed by bigots behind pulpits. Also, making it so that people actually have to aquire a license to vote ensures that the people who do really care about the issue. Now this "voting license" wouldnt apply to presidential elections, this would only apply if laws are offered up to a popluation vote rather than a congressional one.

If somone is smart enough to think for themselves, and still votes against civil rights. Then as much as that pains me im ok with that.

The problem then becomes who creates that test? If we leave it up to the politicians, they will most certainly alter it so that it benefits them and their beliefs. However, if you leave it up to neutral groups, either they will either turn out not to be so neutral after all or they will be influenced by political bribes because politicians can't help but try to influence things in their favor.

And how do you test whether someone is able to make a decision for themselves? Even if someone's IQ is low doesn't mean that they can't think for themselves, or that they're susceptible to manipulation. There's plenty of "dumb" people who are as stubborn as rocks when it comes to their beliefs.

And isn't your own advocation of such a system based on a bias? You yourself said that you advocate this system because of Proposition 8, and that you hope that this system will lead to a different outcome in that vote.

In summary, I do not think that this would be a good idea.

[Dawnslayer]

At 2/24/09 07:31 PM, Dekagaru wrote: The only problem I have with a democracy is that it enables whats called, "Oppression by the majority." Prop 8 in California is a prime example of why democracy is so dangerous. It allows a large uneducated population to be swayed by a few charismatic leaders. I think in order to be allowed to vote you must earn the right through tests. You need a license to drive a car, you should need one to vote.

Not entirely true. Laws can be overturned by a judicial court decision. Prop 8 was a public referendum, as opposed to a legislative decision; and the public, by a very slim margin, voted to ban gay marriage. I guarantee you this WILL go to the Supreme Court.

This government is built to give the minority a voice. The writers of the Constitution did their best to make it so; again, cite "The Federalist," #10. Madison had the same fears that you do - indeed, that all of us do.

[Ericho]

At 2/24/09 07:31 PM, Dekagaru wrote: The only problem I have with a democracy is that it enables whats called, "Oppression by the majority." Prop 8 in California is a prime example of why democracy is so dangerous. It allows a large uneducated population to be swayed by a few charismatic leaders.

What system are you talking about? Are you saying that in a socialist environment, charismatic leaders couldn't sway people? They could do that in any kind of government.

[Psil0]

At 2/24/09 08:07 PM, Aughiris wrote: How about we wipe out 99% of the entire world popularion and return to small communities and tribes? Like a big reset-button, starting all over again.

There is one, its at the bottom of the Paicific ocean and you've got to find it first.

[Ericho]

At 2/25/09 03:15 PM, Ershin2009 wrote: To finish off my previous post (if there was an edit button...), people may say: "But man, if the majority of people decide to believe in Lenin, to disregard the Holocaust, and to abolish property and currency, they would still be exercising their democratic right to do so."

That may be what the majority thinks, but one major part of democracy (or at least what should be a major part) is protecting the minority.

[fortdeath]

At 2/23/09 07:08 PM, Sexydude01 wrote: Democracy is one of the worst possible forms of government, because NOTHING GETS DONE!!! FOr the most part, there is never a majority government, and the parties can never agree, thus causing a stalemate in leadership and action. we need is one strong leader who has absolute power, but listens to the advice of otherse, and public opinion, but makes all final decisions. Then the problem would arise, what if the leader becomes power hungry, and tyranical, then we remove him. Have a system where the country is ruled by one man with absolute power, but theres a public opinion vote every say, 6 months for example. then if the public want a new leader, a new one is voted in, and he has complete power until he/she loses public opinion, and the cycle repeats. This way, things would get done, and we dont have to fear having an opressive, power-hungry, absolute tyrant as a leader.

I only have one thing to say. Bad fucking idea. Seriously, just no. Want a mroe effective government, try socialism. thats a system that has the potential to work, but america has its head up its ass to far to see that. We made our chioce a hundred years ago, and now we are stuck with capitalist dipshits holding the real power.

[dySWN]

At 2/23/09 07:08 PM, Sexydude01 wrote: Democracy is one of the best possible forms of government, because NOTHING GETS DONE!!!

Oh, hi. Just fixing your post so that it fits reality. kthxbai

[zoolrule]

Democracy isn't perfect and has many disadvantage, but it's definitely the best form of government out there, so until someone comes up with a better idea that's what we got.

The fact that it's hard to do things in Democracy, is not a negative thing but a positive thing, because i'm sure you saw what can too much power in the hands of the leaders do.
In my opinion, the main problem with Democracy is how easily it can be turned into dictatorship. (AKA Not stable).

Again, not perfect but definitely the best.