the faillure of democracy

[AloneInTheDark]

I know americans love to believe in the greatness of democracy, but i think it is a very dangerous system. Recent example of this is the reelection of George W. Bush who was chosen by the majority of usa citizens and who is the cause of the war right now.

Democracy involves everybody. Every dumb fucknut can cast a vote to what he/she thinks is best for the country. Is this fair? Maybe. But is this best for the population and country itself? no, definately not. Sometimes people have to be protected from themselves and it would be much better to let the voting and politics to people who actually have knowledge of it and know what's best.

Democracy is based on: 'What the people want is what the people get'. That this can go terribly wrong has been proven in the past with Germany and the second World War. Afterall, Hitler himself was elected by the people.

Ofcourse dictature is even worse, but that doesnt mean there are other, better ways in controlling a country.

[jonthomson]

At 1/18/05 09:11 AM, AloneInTheDark wrote:

stuff

That could have been summarised by "OMG KERRY LOST"

[BeFell]

Did you ever consider that since you you are in the minority as far as way of thinking you may be the dumb fucknut?

[poxpower]

When the greeks thought up democracy, they were like a couple hundreds to have to vote, they were all philosophers and smart dudes and they all debated every issue in a public forum.

democracy at a level of the U.S. does not work properly. At all. Its impossible to keep so many people interested and informed of politics at all times.

Plus, democracy with selfish assholes brings us to exactly what we have now on earth. I.e. total waste of all ressources, and everyone in their little corner, being really happy that they are allowed to smoke cigarettes, because in their heads, that representes freedom of "choice", which is great, as long as it implies you don't MAKE THE STUPID CHOICES. >: (

anyways, I don't believe this thread has necessarely anything to do with Bushy. And I'm all for the earth being controlled by super-smart robots, because the way we're going now, we won't pull together in time to save ourselves from the people who like to have the "choice" to do every stupid thing they can come up with.

[specimen56]

I have one question for you- if not democracy, then what?
A proportional representation? You've ruled out a democracy, but other than a democracy, what is there? A dicatorship would work if the ruler acted in the intrest of the people. It is possible to have a 'good' dictatorship...
But my question is the over-rulling idea in this post- if not a democracy, then what?

[commanderkai]

At 1/18/05 09:11 AM, AloneInTheDark wrote:

Ofcourse dictature is even worse, but that doesnt mean there are other, better ways in controlling a country.

......Better ways? Can you name one?

[nafs]

At 1/18/05 09:25 AM, jonthomson wrote:

At 1/18/05 09:11 AM, AloneInTheDark wrote:

stuff

That could have been summarised by "OMG KERRY LOST"

And thank god that he did. I would not care for such a heathen for president.

[poxpower]

At 1/18/05 10:30 AM, Quare wrote:

But my question is the over-rulling idea in this post- if not a democracy, then what?

the problem is not the leader, but the people who can influence the leader. You see, no matter how good a man the leader is, the people who surround him, i.e. fund him and represent important political and economical interests in his kingdom/country or whatever. Actualy, this is EXACTLY how the world is ruled now anyways.

in this instance, the power comes back to the individual. You have to boycott the economical influences that are too strong, to weaken their hold on your central power.

basicaly, what I'm saying, is no matter what kind of leader you have, its never anything more than one guy surrounded by a bunch of lobbyists who make more choices than the guy himself or the people he rules.

which means either we make it so that a single man controls EVERYTHING, which is impossible, because there are too many things to govern, or GIANT ROBOTS.

giant robots = awesome.

but for now, a democracy, because people are stupid and they are pretty certain that it insures "freedom", which is overrated anyways :oPlus its not like we can go back to anything else -.-

so yeah, GIANT ROBOTS. Or possibly aliens. Aliens would be ok. As long as we don't have to be sex slaves to them, I'm ok with that. Or maybe like mutants. Like the X-Men. They should rule.

[the-niratcire]

At 1/18/05 10:30 AM, Quare wrote: I have one question for you- if not democracy, then what?
A proportional representation? You've ruled out a democracy, but other than a democracy, what is there? A dicatorship would work if the ruler acted in the intrest of the people. It is possible to have a 'good' dictatorship...
But my question is the over-rulling idea in this post- if not a democracy, then what?

i would suggest a republic, the type of government the united states has. the people vote on the lawmakers and then the lawmakers decide (not the people) on the laws. it is because we live in a republic that al gore didnt win the 2000 election even though he had the majority of votes. why because the usa isnt a democracy.

[AloneInTheDark]

I personally would think a semi democratic state would work best. A state in which people need to complete a study in politics to be able to vote. Leave the control of the country to a select and smart group of people

[AloneInTheDark]

At 1/18/05 10:20 AM, -poxpower- wrote: stuff

You make some very valid points. The reason why i am also not really happy with democracy, is because of its egoistical nature. Every person who votes, votes on what he/she thinks would be best for him/herself. The average person doesnt give a flying fuck about environment, natural energy scources and inequality in other countries. Democracy will cause more individualism.

[poxpower]

At 1/18/05 07:43 PM, AloneInTheDark wrote: A state in which people need to complete a study in politics

it would be a start, but you must also ensure that those people FOLLOW current politics, and get all their facts straight, without being partisan.

truth be told, NO HUMAN system can be perfect, for the very simple reason that a person in power will always join his interest with the people around him/her before serving the interest of millions upon millions of people he/she doesn't know or give a crap about.

first off, the leader shouldn't even be in a party! That makes no sense at all right off the bat! Its saying "this leader likes a certain clique of people already har har biasville here we come".
The one leader should make all desicions while being informed, and disinterested from fame, fortune, acceptance, money and eveything else that makes a human, a human.

in short: GIANT MOTHERFUCKIN' ROBOTS PLEASE
:)
or nuke India.

[BAWLS]

At 1/18/05 07:43 PM, AloneInTheDark wrote: I personally would think a semi democratic state would work best. A state in which people need to complete a study in politics to be able to vote. Leave the control of the country to a select and smart group of people

If you let only a select few vote you aren't truly letting the demands of all people be heard. And who's to say the people that you speak of won't vote for whatever benefits them anyway? Intelligence doesn’t necessarily make you a good person.

The reason we've been getting such crappy presidents recently is because the city folk get fed up with traffic and long lines, so they leave, thinking that their one vote wouldn't make much of a difference. Out in the country, the lines aren't as long and the traffic isn't so bad, so more people vote.

Since one group votes more often than the other (I don’t have statistics, I’m just trying to use common sense here) the election isn’t truly democratic, in that it didn’t really represent the people as a whole.

What I'd really like is mandatory voting, or something close to it. Maybe make Election Day a national holiday, so people won't leave out of worry of being late to work or school.

But I guess what I’m trying to say is that we need more people voting, not less.

[Apathetic-Tragedy]

you cant really win in politics. its sad but its true.

[PretzelLogic88]

At 1/18/05 09:11 AM, AloneInTheDark wrote: Democracy involves everybody. Every dumb fucknut can cast a vote to what he/she thinks is best for the country.

Whose to say that you aren't the dumb fucknut???

[CountPoopoo]

Democracy is the only way it works, because most other forms of government will involve a revolution, or some other country coming to "free" us. If the majority voted for Bush, let it be, they probably have their reason. I'm not going to let that get in the way of my vote.

[AloneInTheDark]

At 1/18/05 10:35 PM, PretzelLogic88 wrote:

At 1/18/05 09:11 AM, AloneInTheDark wrote: Democracy involves everybody. Every dumb fucknut can cast a vote to what he/she thinks is best for the country.

Whose to say that you aren't the dumb fucknut???

I never denied that i am one, fool. I just see that the world has to change in order to make it more livable.

I couldnt care less about politics, i dont even vote.

[AloneInTheDark]

At 1/18/05 10:58 PM, CountPoopoo wrote: Democracy is the only way it works, because most other forms of government will involve a revolution, or some other country coming to "free" us. If the majority voted for Bush, let it be, they probably have their reason. I'm not going to let that get in the way of my vote.

You know why the majority voted on Bush? Because the majority of USA consists of hardline christian followers who vote on the sole reason on Bush because of his christian background. There is nothing wrong with christianity, but to make that the sole reason to vote for a world leader without looking at his program is ignorant.

[Draconias]

Har har har, what crap I see here today.

A. You fools can't say why everyone voted for Bush because they had a list of reasons that were their own and they can NOT be stereotyped into one major group. Any attempt at that shows that you voted for Kerry or you are foolish.

B. The USA does not have a democracy. We have a republic. A true democracy requires more manageable numbers, so we settled for a republic with democratic foundations. The system has worked and will work for centuries more. Lobbyists don't control anything, they can only try to convince our leaders. Bush's election isn't an example of the "failure of democracy," it's an example of exactly how democracy is SUPPOSED to work. No matter what the "dumb fucknuts" say, everyone else said Bush is the best choice. Who cares if only 1/4 of the total eligible population voted, a majority of that 1/4 voted Bush. Or in other words, Bush has the backing of 7/8 of the US population (if you didnt vote you will support either). The true difference is that the "dumb fucknuts" talk a lot more and a lot louder than the happy people.

C. Democracy sucks, but every other system sucks worse. There is no better system than Democracy or a Democratic Republic. Every other system relies on the luck of the draw to get appropriate leaders that will save it from chaos.

D. Giant robots would suck. The required distances between segments for the robots to be giant would slow their thought proccesses down to the point that they become "retard" computers. Besides the fact that most of their body mass would be supports to keep them from crushing themselves, they wouldn't know any better because they would have everlasting preconceptions which no one could break because we programmed them to be that way.

[AloneInTheDark]

At 1/19/05 08:11 AM, Draconias wrote: Har har har, what crap I see here today.

A. You fools can't say why everyone voted for Bush because they had a list of reasons that were their own and they can NOT be stereotyped into one major group. Any attempt at that shows that you voted for Kerry or you are foolish.

You really are naive and underestimate the influence religion has on the voting behavior of the public. America has alot of smaller cities/villages where people know each other all by name. Religion is still very important in these type of places and influences the political thoughts of the public heavily.

B. The USA does not have a democracy. We have a republic. A true democracy requires more manageable numbers, so we settled for a republic with democratic foundations. The system has worked and will work for centuries more. Lobbyists don't control anything, they can only try to convince our leaders. Bush's election isn't an example of the "failure of democracy," it's an example of exactly how democracy is SUPPOSED to work. No matter what the "dumb fucknuts" say, everyone else said Bush is the best choice. Who cares if only 1/4 of the total eligible population voted, a majority of that 1/4 voted Bush. Or in other words, Bush has the backing of 7/8 of the US population (if you didnt vote you will support either). The true difference is that the "dumb fucknuts" talk a lot more and a lot louder than the happy people.

Well it's still a democracy. Just listen to one of the warspeeches of Bush. 'We are doing the right thing cause we are bringing freedom and democracy to the people'. It doesnt matter which word you choose, the idea of everyone having an equal say is still the same.
And how can you guarrantee that this type of control will work in the future? You definately can't. Even when you look at the past, the main reason for the Vietnam/Cold/Iraq war is democracy. Iv stated numerous arguements why it will fail and you just say 'it is supposed to work and it will work'.

C. Democracy sucks, but every other system sucks worse. There is no better system than Democracy or a Democratic Republic. Every other system relies on the luck of the draw to get appropriate leaders that will save it from chaos.

Every other system? There is only democracy, communism and dictature today. They all suck. Democracy has some good points but the system can be improved alot by making some major adjustments.

[poxpower]

At 1/19/05 08:11 AM, Draconias wrote: D. Giant robots would suck. The required distances between segments for the robots to be giant would slow their thought proccesses down to the point that they become "retard" computers. Besides the fact that most of their body mass would be supports to keep them from crushing themselves, they wouldn't know any better because they would have everlasting preconceptions which no one could break because we programmed them to be that way.

of course not puny cretin! They would be made out of a super-allow, like Goldrake, MazingerZ and OPTIMUS PRIME. OPTIMUS PRIME = great leader.
Plus the real brain of the operation would be a mother computer, located at the center of a giant volcano ( possibly on mars, because its way cooler) and would control all the giant robots on earth ( except Optimus Prime, he's his own man, he's just that awesome).

everlasting preconceptions are the best thing ever 8-) All you have to do is program the right ones in, and everyone is happy.
BUt we could always launch an attack on the motherbrain or something, which would work, but then my best friend would die during the movie, as would my female friend's husband, and we would have sex at the end.
The score would be written by John Williams.

[poxpower]

At 1/19/05 08:38 AM, AloneInTheDark wrote:

It doesnt matter which word you choose, the idea of everyone having an equal say is still the same.

well sadly its not so, because your vote in a red state, for blue, does not count at all towards the end result, which makes it NOT a democracy and AN INSTANT RETARDED SYSTEM.

the current system in Canada and the U.S. is stupid, its not even a democracy, and it makes no sense, and no one wants to vote because they are pissed that their votes are going to be worth NOTHING in the end result depending on WHERE THEY LIVE. Total bullshit.

anyways, they will always suck because governement usualy serve economical interested of giant asshole companies before anything else, because they're always strapin' for cash because they waste all their money on their own fuckin' salaries and giant boats and Air Force ones and military budget.
The only difference between a Monarchy and a Democracy is that we THINK we can pick someone, when in fact we have the choice between like 2-3 people instead of none. WOW, GREAT improvement.

in the end, men are men, and our systems don't work, and everyone knows how to make it better, but as soon as a party comes in power, they don't want to change it for the better, they want to stay there and hog the power.

[Ravens-Grin]

Ahh the wonders of a limited democracy. Why do I say limited? Everyones votes are generally limited to choosing 2 candidates, one from each party. I find that culprit here. Not enough diversity, which causes people to think they are wasting their vote.

"Better of the two evils"; that is one of the quotes I am beginning to dislike strongly. In a truly democratic system we would not be limited to such chooses. Is it a failure of the system that we have in place right now? I believe so.

There's a law called Duverger's Law . Basically it states that in an election in which the person who receives the most votes wins the election, there will be in result only two parties. What if this person only received 40% of the votes, and the other 60% truly dislikes him but voted for different candidates? Would this truly be fair to the majority of the population?

What I have in mind is changing the system to allow freedom of choice. This system which could possibly improve the current situation that we are in right now is called IRV, or instant runoff voting. If you vote for a candidate, and he loses the "first round", then your second choice becomes your vote. So in all actuality you never waste your vote on a 3rd party.

[BAWLS]

At 1/19/05 05:24 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: If you vote for a candidate, and he loses the "first round", then your second choice becomes your vote. So in all actuality you never waste your vote on a 3rd party.

So people would get to choose who they really want without fear their least favorite candidate will win because of a split in the opposition. Sounds good. I think Belgium's got something like that.

[Z17]

We don't live in a pure democracy. Ever heard of the electoral college?

~Z~

[specimen56]

At 1/18/05 11:17 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

You know, I don't think I have seen you actually give a straight answer to a question to date, or at least take a side...

the problem is not the leader, but the people who can influence the leader. You see, no matter how good a man the leader is, the people who surround him, i.e. fund him and represent important political and economical interests in his kingdom/country or whatever. Actualy, this is EXACTLY how the world is ruled now anyways.

Then surely we should have some other form of governing system? If the people effectively have no power (and it is questionable as to how much power a vote has, though this is not to say that it should not be used), and if the governing body is not ruled by the people, then shouldn't one be in place? [insert protests here]

basicaly, what I'm saying, is no matter what kind of leader you have, its never anything more than one guy surrounded by a bunch of lobbyists who make more choices than the guy himself or the people he rules.

How about Plato's Philosopher King? Some clever dude or dudette in control of everything, who is not swayed by money or power... Bugger, I spent the whole of two years hating Plato's ideas, and now I'm using them...

which means either we make it so that a single man controls EVERYTHING, which is impossible, because there are too many things to govern, or GIANT ROBOTS.

See above, but as for the robots, see below..

giant robots = awesome.

Giant robots=scarey.. There are no good giant robots in existance- Matrix- evil robots... That little dancing thing robot (ok, not a giant, but hey)=evil, Robots are EVIL! And they all know Martial arts... Which is dangerous..

but for now, a democracy, because people are stupid and they are pretty certain that it insures "freedom", which is overrated anyways :oPlus its not like we can go back to anything else -.-

We can, if we start a revolution. All we need to do is become immortal, and then we can take over the world.

so yeah, GIANT ROBOTS. Or possibly aliens. Aliens would be ok. As long as we don't have to be sex slaves to them, I'm ok with that. Or maybe like mutants. Like the X-Men. They should rule.

Mutants would lead to me being in control, and would you like that? Could you live in a world where I controlled everything?
And aliens might be good, but what kind of Aliens?

[Ravens-Grin]

At 1/19/05 05:45 PM, Z17 wrote: We don't live in a pure democracy. Ever heard of the electoral college?

~Z~

Let me ask you, what determines the electors vote? The people. It is a winner-take-all for each individual state.

[alex-the-greater]

if i made a country

you would have to take compidincy tests to vote or run for office
if a polatition runs a defict the system would impech him

the problem whith ploaticks is humanity

humans lie and cheat
satatisticks dount

[Z17]

At 1/19/05 08:05 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Let me ask you, what determines the electors vote? The people. It is a winner-take-all for each individual state.

And yet those votes are filtered into a certain number of electoral votes based on the population of that state, effectively removing the idea of a pure democracy on elections.

~Z~

[BAWLS]

At 1/19/05 08:05 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Let me ask you, what determines the electors vote? The people. It is a winner-take-all for each individual state.

But that system is stupid. It makes no sense.

Since we are ONE country and not fifty, I say we should elect the president as ONE country.