Democracy

[Bozo Erectus]

Why is it good?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Because holding power over people without their consent is bad.

 

[Communisto]

Because holding power over people without their consent is bad.

What if you didn't vote for the elected official and laws are passed which you do not consent to but must still adhere to.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Because holding power over people without their consent is bad.

Why?



xcxcxcx

 

[Norseone]

Its not inherintly good, its just what people in America (and many other countries) wanted when coming up with governments.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Why did they want it?

And, did they really want it, or did those already in power want to promote it?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

What if you didn't vote for the elected official and laws are passed which you do not consent to but must still adhere to.

Got a better idea? I just said that acting on others behalfs without consent is bad. Democracy minimises this.

Why?

Empathy.

 

[DNK]

Good because it is a stronger framework in that it is less prone to corruption and unrepresentative authority than other frameworks in existence.

The framework is only as good as what's tacked onto it, if you catch my drift, though.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

It reassures people that they're in control (among other things).

 

[Norseone]

Why did they want it?

And, did they really want it, or did those already in power want to promote it?

Well ya know...it sounded good at the time so they thought theyd give it a go.

 

[Bill3000]

Democracy isn't good. Liberal Democracy is.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Good because it is a stronger framework in that it is less prone to corruption and unrepresentative authority than other frameworks in existence.

Why?

The framework is only as good as what's tacked onto it, if you catch my drift, though.

I think I do. In a democracy, if the people are stupid, so is the government.

 

[DNK]

I think I do. In a democracy, if the people are stupid, so is the government.

Yup, pretty much. A corrupt system will be corrupt regardless of governing style. Just one makes this easier than another. Certain institutional frameworks make the forces of corruption and authoritarianism relatively less powerful than the will of the people, as these forces are always in dynamic tension.

Direct election by the people in a majority voting system forces accountability on the government leaders, and all those selected by them transitively. In a system that does not involve direct election, this accountability is lost and the people have less control over affairs, and must result to strikes, revolts, riots, etc, to affect change. But to do so requires significant cost to them, as any such act would take time from them, and at times damage their community, and at other times physical sacrifice. It therefore increases the power of corrupting and authoritarian forces because they need not worry about such impediments to further their agendas, save protecting against riots, etc.

The projection of the will of the people has less impediments in electoral democracies because accountability can be had through voting, and the positions of those in power are constantly threatened by public furor. The fear to them is more real since non-violent, regulated, frequent institutional means are available to the people, and are in fact expected of those people.

Of course, there is more to a democracy than just the system of voting and power. It requires other institutions, such as a free press, the respect for law (willingness to abide by the system and see it as rational/authoritative), and an appreciation of transparency.

 

[obliterate]

Democracy, techncally, only means you vote for your leaders.
Technically North Korea is a democracy. The people get to vote vote for their leader. In the last election Kim Jong Il received 100% of the vote. I wonder why?

 

[Swedishguy]

Why is it good?

You assume it is good? Why?

 

[Demetrias]

It is good because more power rest with the people and if some one is infringing on your human rights you have a system that lets you change this see the Black civil rights movement. The women's sufferage movement and the annoyingness of the ACLU in trying to do away with anything even remotely religious even the most the symbolic stuff.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

You assume it is good? Why?

We Westerners tell people its good. Why?

It is good because more power rest with the people and if some one is infringing on your human rights you have a system that lets you change this see the Black civil rights movement. The women's sufferage movement and the annoyingness of the ACLU in trying to do away with anything even remotely religious even the most the symbolic stuff.

Why is that good? You know why, so explain it to me.

 

[Arwon]

You can use the word to mean anything you want really. It is as beautiful and abused a word as "feminist" or "liberal".

 

[Tee Kay]

Democracy gives some political power to the people, which gives the government more legitimacy. Even if it does not, it gives the illusion of the people holding political power. So it's a win-win situation either way.

 

[GinandTonic]

The key issue of democracy is that it allows constant and peaceful revoloution.

If the people dont like the gov there is less call for all that bloody revoloution business.