Does True Democracy work?

[bobgote]

Democracy itself in a pure sense is a dictatorship of the majority. That is why most people who advocate it usually only do so in connection with a set of basic rights and freedoms, things that are inalienable, that can't be taken away by majority vote.

While we currently use representative Democracy I think direct Democracy would just work as well (or not well...) as what we currently have. Sure people would often not vote for the thing they should vote for in their own interest, but that's of course the same with parties and politicians...

Looks pretty right on to me. and my opinions on dictatorship/monarchy were covered by nihilistic's post. so i guess i don't really need to say anything myself for this one

 

[ComradeDavo]

The kind of democracy that is one where there are many parties representing a wide range of views. Then, once the populus as elected a parliment via porportional representation, laws/legislation can only be passed after a nationwide vote on the issue.

E.g. Parliment puts through a law saying that national cookie day is to be held on the 21st of August. The general population would then get a yes or no vote on the issue. Or maybe even a thrid option like 'I would a different day' or something.

Anyway, I reckon a democracy like that could work if the media and other countries would let it. Which of course will never happen.....

 

[DvR]

A true democracy wouldn't work I think.. It would soon turn into a dictatorship, run by the media..
Just think of how easily people are influenced by media, if those same people are to vote on matters they really know nothing about then it will actually be the media voting, not the people..

Of all the government types I know, I reckon a representative democracy works best and is fairest..

 

[~Corsair#01~]

A true democracy wouldn't work I think.. It would soon turn into a dictatorship, run by the media..
Just think of how easily people are influenced by media, if those same people are to vote on matters they really know nothing about then it will actually be the media voting, not the people..

Of all the government types I know, I reckon a representative democracy works best and is fairest..

What you describe is EXACTLY the government that we now live in. Democracy is essentially the lack of any real governing force whatsoever. The corporations run the country and do whatever they like.

 

[Plotinus]

I'm no fan of democracy at all. Democracy as we have it seems to me to mean "rule of the mass media and big business". I'm not sure that "rule of the people" would be any better, though - I don't trust "the people" very far. Wasn't it Sid Vicious who said, "I've met the man in the street, and he's a - " - well, I can't say it here.

Lord Salisbury was opposed to the notion of democracy, because he thought it would result in politics becoming nothing more than a popularity contest, with serious issues sidelines in favour of interesting ones, and intelligent discussion sidelined in favour of attention-grabbing soundbites. And how right he was, too.

 

[Hotpoint]

The Swiss have an unusual amount of Direct Democracy within their system. If you can get enough signatures you can force a referendum on any issue which is binding on the government.

This does not lead to anarchy or communism, the Swiss are actually quite socially conservative and capitalist... however it does seem to lead to a low voter turnout because most people really don't bother

 

[Archer 007]

Small scale direct democracy and left wing anarchy have much in common, and I'd chose either/or instead of no-voice capitalism.

You have a voice in the current system. You only lose it if you dont use it.

 

[Mise]

You honestly think that 1 voice among 60 million is going to be heard? One among 250, maybe...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The general populace seems to believe that Democracy is the best government you can have, but is this correct?

If the electorate is generally educated, and well informed, Democracy is the ideal system of government. However its the absolute worst form of government in situations where the electorate is ignorant and ill informed.

 

[ComradeDavo]

You have a voice in the current system. You only lose it if you dont use it.

Abiet an extremely small voice which in England it doesn't matter anyway cuz either the Tories or Labour are gonna win the election, and only the lib dems along with that stand a chance of any power. Of course in scotland it's a bit better with the greens and socialists.

 

[stormbind]

A true democracy requires a referendum on every issue... which is fairly doably in the Internet-enabled age of today. Lets stop arguing over it and find out if true democracy can work. Revolution!!



Uh, darn. You go on without me... I can't find my shoes.

 

[Grisu]

I agree that total democracy propably wouldn't work, but a bit more of direct democracy wouldn't hurt most countries. direct democracy IMHO isn't about the people voting on every issue, only the issues where a large portion of the people believe the parliament is wrong. and it seems to be working for us so far

 

[~Corsair#01~]

If the electorate is generally educated, and well informed, Democracy is the ideal system of government. However its the absolute worst form of government in situations where the electorate is ignorant and ill informed.

Well, the masses in every country are ignorant and ill-informed. Only allowing intelligent people to vote is just stupid- it's not democracy at all, plus there is too much scope for labelling everyone who disagrees with you "stupid"- it's very hard to draw the line between intelligence and idiocy.

 

[Richard Cribb]

One good definition of democracy is a society where everybody has the same influence on public matters. That sounds very good to me. But it is essential for such a democracy to have a high degree of economical equality, which already Aristotles noticed, and every citizen need to participate directly in the plitical decision-making.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@luceafarul

Check your PMs, please

Click this link if you don't know how: http://forums.civfanatics.com/private.php?

 

[stormbind]

Well, the masses in every country are ignorant and ill-informed. Only allowing intelligent people to vote is just stupid- it's not democracy at all, plus there is too much scope for labelling everyone who disagrees with you "stupid"- it's very hard to draw the line between intelligence and idiocy.

No, silly

First, everyone must have a national ID. When voting, they submit this ID online to a server which returns random, unbiased, scientific questions on the topic at hand.

If the voter gets every answer correct... then their vote is counted. What's wrong with that?

 

[AVN]

One good definition of democracy is a society where everybody has the same influence on public matters. That sounds very good to me.

I agree with the definition, but can this ideal situation be achieved in a country with several millions citizens ? (not even speaking about an organization as the EU).

The most ideal situation of democracy (at least IMO) we see at the moment in Switzerland, where people have the possibility to correct their parliament by means of referendums, but it's still far away from the "ideal situation".

There are still people who have more influence on public matters, for example members of parliament or ministers. And then I'm even not speaking about the influence of corporations and media.

So do we have a good definition of democracy here, but does it have only theoretical value, because it never can be achieved in a large society ?

But it is essential for such a democracy to have a high degree of economical equality, which already Aristotles noticed, and every citizen need to participate directly in the plitical decision-making.

I suppose Aristoteles isn't the only one who noticed this. Can you please give me the names of some others too ? I like to do some research on this.

 

[Plotinus]

First, everyone must have a national ID. When voting, they submit this ID online to a server which returns random, unbiased, scientific questions on the topic at hand.

If the voter gets every answer correct... then their vote is counted. What's wrong with that?

Brilliant idea. This sounds great. Why, it could even be that you answer the questions and vote at the same time, and never find out whether you got them right or not - that way you wouldn't know whether you really voted or not, which might prevent post-ballot box arguments!

Personally, I think Plato had all this (if not much else) pretty much right. Elitism is definitely the way forward.

As for mass Internet voting, I'm not sure about that. I don't think that voting should be made easier and more convenient - on the contrary, it should take effort. In the absence of stormbind's "knowledge" criterion of voting, I think a good second-best is a "caring" criterion. I would want anyone who is voting to at least *care* about the issues at hand. If they have to go out, go into a polling station, take time to make an X, and so on, then that suggests that they are bothered, to some degree, about the issues. If everyone had to vote (as in Australia) then it would be even more of a lottery than it is now - all the people who don't care would mark their boxes randomly. That's no way to elect a government.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well, the masses in every country are ignorant and ill-informed. Only allowing intelligent people to vote is just stupid- it's not democracy at all, plus there is too much scope for labelling everyone who disagrees with you "stupid"- it's very hard to draw the line between intelligence and idiocy.

I didnt say anything about only letting intelligent people vote, Im merely stating the obvious: educated, well informed people are better prepared and equiped to vote than ignorant, poorly informed people.

 

[Dann]

Well, the masses in every country are ignorant and ill-informed.

Not true. First world nations (such as yours) actually have as their biggest block of the population a reasonably educated and well-informed middle class. That's why democracy works for you. It's underdeveloped countries with their pyramid-shaped societies (such as mine) that fit your criteria, and thus tend to make a mess out of democracy even if it were handed to them.