Is Democracy still effective?

[Masquerouge]

Democracy has never been optimal. A Constitutional Republics is the perfect balance between personal involvement and protection from tyranny of the masses.

I disagree. Democracy is fine with small communities, where it is actually feasible to gather everybody who can vote in one place and have them decide.

 

[mrt144]

the only problem with democracy that is winner take all is that it creates clear winners and clear losers.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

or it's going to be nothing but a obsolete governament of the past, like Communist.

Communism is a social structure, not a political one.

 

[Zarn]

I disagree. Democracy is fine with small communities, where it is actually feasible to gather everybody who can vote in one place and have them decide.

As much as I'm not a fan of Democracy, you are right about having local Democracy. Although a city would not be ideal, a township could be. Interests are much more similar, so their is much less likely to be any tyrannical measures.

 

[Kozmos]

Benevolent technocratic dictatorship or Technocratic Demosocialism, both very similarly administered by a global AI linked to each citizen via nanites enabling instantaneous democracy.

<<insert my repeated rants from previous threads how this technology would work and why it would kick ass even though it might be creepy and unsettling to some>>

 

[Tycoon101]

I disagree. Democracy is fine with small communities, where it is actually feasible to gather everybody who can vote in one place and have them decide.

As much as I'm not a fan of Democracy, you are right about having local Democracy. Although a city would not be ideal, a township could be. Interests are much more similar, so their is much less likely to be any tyrannical measures.

Oh, my apologies. I agree with Democracy on a local level. I just meant that a nation-wide, or even state-wide, usage of Democracy would not work.

 

[gangleri2001]

It has never been.

 

[scy12]

Democracy is the only way to ensure that not too much damage is done by the one who is ruling , by replacing him.

 

[gangleri2001]

Democracy is the only way to ensure that not too much damage is done by the one who is ruling , by replacing him.

Totally false! Crapocracy is the only way the people hear what they want to while the ruler does what he wants and nobody cares.

I want rulers who do what they want, but not a people with the heads filles of propaganda and idiocy. That's called despotism. Despotism is good, despotism is light, crapocracy isn't.

 

[scy12]

Totally false! Crapocracy is the only way the people hear what they want to while the ruler does what he wants and nobody cares.

I want rulers who do what they want, but not a people with the heads filles of propaganda and idiocy. That's called despotism. Despotism is good, despotism is light, crapocracy isn't.

I am sorry can you translate what you have said once again ?

 

[Theige]

Dumbass poll.

True Democracy is too inefficient, which is why we have Republics.

 

[Zarn]

Democracy is the only way to ensure that not too much damage is done by the one who is ruling , by replacing him.

Democracy cannot prevent tyranny as it is the will of the majority. When any one person's will or a group's will is absolute, you have potential for tyranny.

Republic...

Of course a Constitutional Monarchy would also work.

 

[Azale]

Totally false! Crapocracy is the only way the people hear what they want to while the ruler does what he wants and nobody cares.

I want rulers who do what they want, but not a people with the heads filles of propaganda and idiocy. That's called despotism. Despotism is good, despotism is light, crapocracy isn't.

Despotism is better than "crap"ocracy (such clever wordplay) because they don't bother with the formality of caring about what the people think? Eh?

At least in "crap"ocracy, the politicians HAVE TO pander to the people to some degree to retain control of their jobs. Dictators are not reigned in by this, except for the more "enlightened" ones, and if they are a particularly nasty brand of tyrant...well, I don't feel like godwining or godwynning or stalwyning this thread, so I'll refrain from the obvious reference.

That's assuming, of course, that this "ruler" really does "what he wants" and that "nobody cares". Even assuming that, "crap"ocracy still looks better than despotism.

 

[scy12]

Democracy cannot prevent tyranny as it is the will of the majority. When any one person's will or a group's will is absolute, you have potential for tyranny.

Republic...

Of course a Constitutional Monarchy would also work.

What in earths name are you talking about ? A western type Democracy goes along with several other things. In short , respect of minority rights , Freedom of expression , some large political parties that represent the most famous conflicting opinions so the public can choose which to support and other things that are what constitute a healthy democratic modern system.

What costitutes it as not a Tyrrany of the majority is the fact that the majority may choose to change camp at any given type not making it a tyrrany of a specific viewpoint.

This is not the case with undemocratic regimes. And as none has to answer to a public , corruption and ruling in not beneficial to society ways is much more likely.

 

[Zarn]

What in earths name are you talking about ? A western type Democracy goes along with several other things. In short , respect of minority rights , Freedom of expression , some large political parties that represent the most famous conflicting opinions so the public can choose which to support and other things that are what constitute a healthy democratic modern system.

What costitutes it as not a Tyrrany of the majority is the fact that the majority may choose to change camp at any given type not making it a tyrrany of a specific viewpoint.

This is not the case with undemocratic regimes. And as none has to answer to a public , corruption and ruling in not beneficial to society ways is much more likely.

Democracy is simply the will of the majority. Any tyrant can change their viewpoint.

 

[scy12]

Democracy is simply the will of the majority. Any tyrant can change their viewpoint.

Again , What in the world are you talking about ? While the will of the majority can be subject into manipulation what is important is that it is quite more likely for the will of the majority to change at one point in the future than the will of an oligarchy or of one person's . Truth be told there is no better safeguard than the will of the majority which Politicians attempt to make it theirs , as all alternatives provide worse results.

Unless one is of the benevolent and rightious dictatorship crowd in which they come extremely rarely and is certainly a not long-lasting governmental type because there is no guarantee of the situation after the benevolent dictator dies.

While i must admit that fear mongering leading the public to submit authority to one person , and fascism can possibly lead to more resources being used in War. The issue is that such regimes (or such situations if it is a democracy ) poison the system and are more ineffective , and is unsuited for a system of governance in peace. As such fascistical regimes may rise with not violence but can only step down with violence i believe democratic governments must remain even in Wars no matter the consequences of the war machine due to the consequences of the lack of democracy being far more severe.

The way i see it not even in war situations such regimes , different from Democratic ones should take power.

 

[Zarn]

I can name something much better than the will of the majority. It's called a constitution.

The majority is no more moral than a minority, and it it actually easier to change one or a few minds than the many. Ex- Jake's teacher told Jake that he could accept one of two assignments. One option would to be to convince two people the sky is green. The other would be to convince five people that the sky is green. Which assignment is easier for Jake?

 

[scy12]

I can name something much better than the will of the majority. It's called a constitution.

The majority is no more moral than a minority, and it it actually easier to change one or a few minds than the many. Ex- Jake's teacher told Jake that he could accept one of two assignments. One option would to be to convince two people the sky is green. The other would be to convince five people that the sky is green. Which assignment is easier for Jake?

Is there a democratic system (A western type Democracy) in this world or in fact any other system of governance without a constitution ?(actually there must be some but i would not call them systems of governance but systems of chaos) I don't know what you are smoking pal but i sure don't want it !

Democracy does not mean that the majority is able to decide on every issue they wish. They have to decide in specific issues where there is no better alternative than a majority deciding on , while the rest are granted by the law , and the constitution . The constitution it self must abide by some principles that grant respect of rights to all citizens. They can wish to change the law in the future if they wish but there must be some parameters to not making changing the constitution , too easy .

Now about that democracy with no Constitution you are talking about , i personally never heard of it before.

 

[Rambuchan]

I'm amazed that no one has yet asked the question:

Effective at what?

Productivity? Granting and protecting freedoms? Innovation? Fighting wars? Combating climate change? Redistribution of wealth and resources?

I'd be interested to hear which of these (or what else) people had in mind when they responded to the OP.

 

[scy12]

I'm amazed that no one has yet asked the question:

Effective at what?

Productivity? Granting and protecting freedoms?Innovation? Fighting wars? Combating climate change? Redistribution of wealth and resources?

I'd be interested to hear which of these (or what else) people had in mind when they responded to the OP.

Granting and protecting freedoms?

Positive.

Innovation?

Positive.

Fighting wars?

Maybe this is where democracy is lacking but due to the other drawbacks of not democratic regimes i think this is a setback we must all live with. In fact one could say that this drawback of democracy is actually one of it's biggest advantages .

Productivity?

Positive

Combating climate change?

I don't have an opinion of this matter.

Redistribution of wealth and resources?

It creates a bigger pie in which people will share of , but democracy is not the only subject at hand in association to how Wealth and resources are redistributed. I just instinctively associate it with a capitalist system (even if there are many socialist institutions ) and maybe that is my mistake.