Is direct democracy a good idea or is it just the tyranny of the majority?
It's mob rule and always turns into despotism.
Democracy is retarded and a bad idea.
>>958966
*tips eudaimonia*
>>958963
Considering how stupid most people are and how easily people get duped by the media, it's a very bad idea.
>>958963
At least democracies are attempt make political system placing more popular and deserving people to rudder.
>>959191
>deserving people
yeah, according to who can make the highest amount of uneducated plebeians like him. you have to be a stand-up comedian to win elections in the U.S. I totally want a comedian to rule my country, or maybe not.
>>959166
In antique society vote weight of plebeian was not equal for vote weight of patrician. If this do in our time, for example, vote weight of a citizen of a country having three generation of ancestors in this country not same as vote weight of a nomad with half-year citizenship of the country.
Obliviously, some people more important in country and would be have more weight of vote with out spending a lot of money for propaganda. But this is a same problem, how to place most deserving people to rudder.
>>958963
There's nothing wrong in the tyranny of the majority.
>>959191
>>deserving people
Always is that problem, even in Monarchy, with a lot of Royal Dynasty off-springs need choose worthy, and this do Royal Family with influence Royal Court.
Even in Oligarchy is that problem, too need choose more worthy and having ability for rule.
Even in MonoPartyCracy (like in modern China) is that problem, too need choose more worthy and having ability for rule.
>>959219
That's how the electoral college works
Democracy is a joke.
It doesn't work.
Just like multiculturalism doesn't work.
>>959246
In case, X age is now, and majority is dirt, uneducated peasants, you can get Dirtocracy.
With Dirtocracy often this event. Dirt was with rudder. Dirt steal money from Country Treasury.
Because Dirt fear lost of this money and fear jail and fear execution, Dirt convert himself to Dictator until his death.
>>959270
Democracy work fine in small societies, especially when all candidates well known many years. Often if family honour for them not empty word.
>>959289
Mate, improve your english before you post again. I dont even know what the fuck youre saying.
>>959289
Small society = Small country.
Small country = Weak currency.
Weak currency = National wealth is escaping
>>958963
Tyranny of majority is a less evil than tyranny of minority.
>>958963
Democracy's a good legislative idea on making laws, in my opinion.
Representative democracy and the idea of choosing leaders based on who the people want is an absolute shit idea. Meritocracy all the way.
>>959345
Meritocracy is good, but only if it's legitimate meritocracy, not "I'm a richfag so I MUST be suitable", and not Technocracy Movement shit AKA Fascism for Autists.
>>958963
No. There's a reason why modern Western countries like the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc...use the republican system. Educated and enlightened individuals elected to make decisions on a limited democratic system is more effective then a true democracy.
>>958963
>Is direct democracy a good idea or is it just the tyranny of the majority?
It would actually end up being a tyranny of the majority in most cases. A direct Democracy to be truly democratic would require direct votes of every citizen on all possible subject matters. With the massive expansion and scopes of governments and their bureaucracies today, people simply do not have the time, effort, or will power to vote intelligently on most subject matters.
>>959345
The problem with meritocracy is that it's still humans setting the standard for what constitutes merit.
It would be a good idea only if it was at a very small scale (IE, people only vote on matters that directly affect them).
>>960873
>A direct Democracy to be truly democratic would require direct votes of every citizen on all possible subject matters.
Electronic voting
>>960881
>he never studied renaissance humanism
>>959256
Until we have the population the ability to choose senators. I wish everyone understood how a federation of republics is supposed to work.
Two things to mention here:
First, direct democracy requires continuous political engagement by every citizen, which is unsustainable. Here's Zizek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhnLqAUdYKk
Second, let's assume you can somehow measure every person's political aptitude and give them a corresponding score called PQ (political quotient). The corresponding graph of every person in a country ordered by PQ would take on a normal distribution or bell curve, meaning the majority of people would have an average PQ and the higher or lower the PQ gets the smaller the number of available people that represent that PQ.
Given these propositions we conclude that direct democracy is not a good idea because it is unsustainable and because it minimizes the will of the best and gives credence to the will of the worst. In light of this, republicanism (the form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body) allows those with the most political aptitude to compete for election by the people, allowing the best to govern and alleviating the people of the need to be permanently engaged in politics.
Please feel free to critique.
>>960963
>>960973
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html
"I’m the bad guy for saying it’s a stupid country, yet polls show that a majority of Americans cannot name a single branch of government, or explain what the Bill of Rights is. 24% could not name the country America fought in the Revolutionary War. More than two-thirds of Americans don’t know what’s in Roe v. Wade. Two-thirds don’t know what the Food and Drug Administration does. Some of this stuff you should be able to pick up simply by being alive. You know, like the way the Slumdog kid knew about cricket.
Not here. Nearly half of Americans don’t know that states have two senators and more than half can’t name their congressman. Or take the health care debate we’re presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and “listen to their constituents.” An urge they should resist because their constituents don’t know anything. At a recent town-hall meeting in South Carolina, a man stood up and told his Congressman to “keep your government hands off my Medicare,” which is kind of like driving cross country to protest highways."
>>961007
Didn't mean to quote.
"People bitch and moan about taxes and spending, but they have no idea what their government spends money on. The average voter thinks foreign aid consumes 24% of our federal budget. It’s actually less than 1%. And don’t even ask about cabinet members: seven in ten think Napolitano is a kind of three-flavored ice cream. And last election, a full one-third of voters forgot why they were in the booth, handed out their pants, and asked, “Do you have these in a relaxed-fit?”
And I haven’t even brought up America’s religious beliefs. But here’s one fun fact you can take away: did you know only about half of Americans are aware that Judaism is an older religion than Christianity? That’s right, half of America looks at books called the Old Testament and the New Testament and cannot figure out which one came first.
And these are the idiots we want to weigh in on the minutia of health care policy? Please, this country is like a college chick after two Long Island Iced Teas: we can be talked into anything, like wars, and we can be talked out of anything, like health care. We should forget town halls, and replace them with study halls. There’s a lot of populist anger directed towards Washington, but you know who concerned citizens should be most angry at? Their fellow citizens. “Inside the beltway” thinking may be wrong, but at least it’s thinking, which is more than you can say for what’s going on outside the beltway."
>>961026
It is, but it's based on real polls.
http://www.alternet.org/story/90161/ignorant_america%3A_just_how_stupid_are_we
Some excerpts:
"In 1986, only 30% knew that Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court decision that ruled abortion legal more than a decade earlier. In 1991, Americans were asked how long the term of a United States senator is. Just 25% correctly answered six years. How many senators are there? A poll a few years ago found that only 20% know that there are 100 senators, though the number has remained constant for the last half century (and is easy to remember). Encouragingly, today the number of Americans who can correctly identify and name the three branches of government is up to 40%."
"Polls over the past three decades measuring Americans' knowledge of history show similarly dismal results. What happened in 1066? Just 10% know it is the date of the Norman Conquest. Who said the "world must be made safe for democracy"? Just 14% know it was Woodrow Wilson. Which country dropped the nuclear bomb? Only 49% know it was their own country."
I think the only thing standing in front of it is inconvenience. The idea of getting everyone to group up and vote for everything on a specific day every year is kinda inconvenient. If you can solve that problem, sure, go for it. The idea that it would lead to mob rule is kinda weird, considering the fact that the mob is already there & has been there for a long time. The mob will get what it wants eventually anyway, so why delay the inevitable? There's no way to 'beat' the mob, because you're already part of it. It's all a spook.
>>961060
"The only history questions a majority of Americans can answer correctly are the most basic ones. What happened at Pearl Harbor? A great majority know: 84%. What was the Holocaust? Nearly 70% know. (Thirty percent don't?) But it comes as something of a shock that, in 1983, just 81% knew who Lee Harvey Oswald was and that, in 1985, only 81% could identify Martin Luther King, Jr.
"A report in 2007 published by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute found that on average 14,000 randomly selected college students at 50 schools around the country scored under 55 (out of 100) on a test that measured their knowledge of basic American civics. Less than half knew that Yorktown was the last battle of the American Revolution. Surprisingly, seniors often tested lower than freshmen. (The explanation was apparently that many students by their senior year had forgotten what they learned in high school.)
The optimists point to surveys indicating that about half the country can describe some differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties. But if they do not know the difference between liberals and conservatives, as surveys indicate, how can they possibly say in any meaningful way how the parties differ? And if they do not know this, what else do they not know?"
>>961060
Pretty depressing desu
>>961074
"Plenty, it turns out. Even though they are awash in news, Americans generally do not seem to absorb what it is that they are reading and hearing and watching. Americans cannot even name the leaders of their own government. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Fewer than half of Americans could tell you her name during the length of her entire tenure. William Rehnquist was chief justice of the Supreme Court. Just 40% of Americans ever knew his name (and only 30% could tell you that he was a conservative). Going into the First Gulf War, just 15% could identify Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or Dick Cheney, then secretary of defense. In 2007, in the fifth year of the Iraq War, only 21% could name the secretary of defense, Robert Gates. Most Americans cannot name their own member of Congress or their senators."
"If the problem were simply that Americans are bad at names, one would not have to worry too much. But they do not understand the mechanics of government either. Only 34% know that it is the Congress that declares war (which may explain why they are not alarmed when presidents take us into wars without explicit declarations of war from the legislature). Only 35% know that Congress can override a presidential veto. Some 49% think the president can suspend the Constitution. Some 60% believe that he can appoint judges to the federal courts without the approval of the Senate. Some 45% believe that revolutionary speech is punishable under the Constitution."
>>961084
"On the basis of their comprehensive approach, Delli Carpini and Keeter concluded that only 5% of Americans could correctly answer three-fourths of the questions asked about economics, only 11% of the questions about domestic issues, 14% of the questions about foreign affairs, and 10% of the questions about geography. The highest score? More Americans knew the correct answers to history questions than any other (which will come as a surprise to many history teachers). Still, only 25% knew the correct answers to three-quarters of the history questions, which were rudimentary.
In 2003, the Strategic Task Force on Education Abroad investigated Americans' knowledge of world affairs. The task force concluded: "America's ignorance of the outside world" is so great as to constitute a threat to national security."
>>961074
>But if they do not know the difference between liberals and conservatives,
Not a single one knows the difference apparently.
>>961069
To be devil's advocate, maybe you could make weekly voting on issues. Hype it up, provide incentives, etc.
>>959326
>Hong Kong and Singapore would like to have a word with you anon
One of the worst ideas ever.
>>959326
Switzerland begs to differ
>>959166
This
Freedom of speech/press would have to be removed for a direct democracy.
>>958963
Democracy in general is the best system because you can always place responsibility on the people of a place as it stands, rather than people a long time ago or a special few. Direct democracy maximizes this effect. In practice there's propaganda and advertising and pundits and all kinds of catches, but that's part of why education is more important than almost everything else. Indirect democracy, handled properly, is almost as good because it involves choosing a special few to actually do most things. Unfortunately they generally are chosen from among a somewhat larger special few, but in any case in a functioning indirect democracy any person can enter the special few that take most direct action.
>>961188
>Democracy in general is the best system because you can always place responsibility on the people of a place as it stands, rather than people a long time ago or a special few.
How does that make it the best system? A good system should lead to a prosperous society. If your society is poor, but you're able to blame it on everyone, how does that make things better?
>>961074
>Nearly 70% know. (Thirty percent don't?)
>(Thirty percent don't?)
>>961210
because when shit happens people feel better about it
people that feel better are more productive and more kind and generally don't want to overthrow their current system of government
if you mean to say democracy (of either form) leads to a less prosperous society you're going to need to back it up with something
>>961230
It just blows my mind that 30% of the people who answered that poll don't know what the fucking Holocaust is.
I mean, I can't imagine how sheltered you have to be, to not know that.
>>961253
We beat the redcoats at ghettyburg in WII didn't we?
>>961246
>because when shit happens people feel better about it
How?
>Bob: Oh god, our country is so awful.
>Joe: Yeah, but...it's our fault!
>Bob: Wow, I feel so much better!
>if you mean to say democracy (of either form) leads to a less prosperous society you're going to need to back it up with something
No, I'm being skeptical of his claim that "Direct democracy is the best system."
>>961257
No, dumbass. It was WWI.
>>961257
>>961267
No dumbasses, we beat them in the Iraq War.
>>961275
Fuck off, it was the Spanish-American War, you fucking dolt.
>>961289
You retard, we beat them in King William's War.
>>958963
All political systems suck, direct democracy sucks a little bit less than the rest.
>>958963
Representative democracy is bad enough, direct democracy would be awful.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Churchill
Imagine some of the underclass/chavs/white trash/pakis/welfare queens getting a direct say in how the country is run.
>>961289
really? REALLY?! Apparently /his/ is full of illiterate mongs. It was the Revolutionary War dumbasses
>>961321
>my favourite political system is objectively the best one and I don't have to justify this claim
Democracy really must be terrible if this non-argument is all its proponents can come up with. Get out of here, Churchill.
>>961330
No, it was at the Bay of Pigs you fucking tard
>>961326
>Imagine some of the underclass/chavs/white trash/pakis/welfare queens getting a direct say in how the country is run.
I don't get this line of argument. Just because you perceive someone as less intelligent or resourceful, this means that they should have less say in how the state interferes with their life?
>>961376
But it's not just that - they get a say in how the state interferes in everyone else's life. Also, less intelligent people generally make worse decisions.
>>961332
what is a better political system then?
>>961382
>But it's not just that - they get a say in how the state interferes in everyone else's life.
Yes they do. But I'd rather have a system where everyone constantly argues how the state should interfere in people's lives, than a system where that kind of discussion and choice wouldn't be legal, and would get you hanged or imprisoned.
>>961390
Well I'm quite fond of Golden Liberty myself although it obviously had issues that led to its demise at the hands of aggressive neighbours and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to declare it or any other system to be objectively the best one.
>>961407
>implying it's a dichotomy between death and everyone participating
>>961441
What's "Golden Liberty"?
>>961454
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty
>>961449
No, but looking at the last 100 years, it's pretty clear what happens when you forcibly remove a democracy.
>>961390
Any sort with Maniac Rulers because Maniac Rulers are good for bringing Mass Death for humanity weird mistake of Nature.
>>961478
Examples?
>>961265
>How?
People don't feel cheated or tyrannized, and even if they do (because unfortunately they still will sometimes), they feel like they can fix it. Some people will think it's all pointless and broken but they'll either be too few or too jaded to do much about it.
>No, I'm being skeptical of his claim that "Direct democracy is the best system."
I said democracy in general is the best system, although I do think it's better when it's direct if you can make it work.
>>960963
The problem is that you make the mistake in assuming those that run for office are the best suited to lead, rather then the best suited to get into office. These are not guaranteed to be one and the same.
democracy index
>>961855
risk of rabies
>>961862
kidnapping and piracy
>>961865
education
>>961868
food security
>>961026
Naw anon, some people really did think the voting boots were for trying out new pants.
>>961870
political participation
>>961877
gdp per capita
>>961878
murder
>>961880
maternal mortality
>>961885
Deaths from indoor smoke from solid fuels
>>961887
elderly wellbeing
>>961891
human trafficking
>>961895
power distance
>>961898
>>961895
>>961891
>>961887
>>961885
>>961880
>>961878
>>961877
>>961870
>>961868
>>961865
>>961862
>>961855
In summary, either
>countries that are not democratically consistently suck
>countries that consistently suck are not democratic
Choose your own adventure
>>958963
In anything larger than a city-state it becomes very ineffective. Also, it needs some form of constitution and protection for the minority
>>960914
But is everyone 100% educated on every subject discussed? If, for example, someone made a speech like Antony at Caesar's funeral, and gave everyone an emotional reason to do or not do something, would direct Democracy work then? Electronic voting would solve the way to count the votes sure, but would it give an effectual government from it?
>>961853
In a direct Democracy, to my understanding, is that there is no leader, and rather the citizens are all just voting on everything. Republics != Democracies
>>958963
Lol ask a classical Athenian how direct democracy helped them during the Peloponnesian war.
>>961950
>Athenian Democracy
>Direct Democracy
>>961937
>But is everyone 100% educated on every subject discussed?
Not a single person has perfect information. That is why even absolutist monarchs had courts.
>>961069
It's not like if the majority of any given population want x, they will necessarily get x.
Weren't there lots of places throughout history where the majority of the population were slaves?
They probably wanted to be free, but couldn't manage to break free of the oppression of the minority, since the minority had, I don't know, better martial capabilities or whatever.
>>961898
>>961895
>>961891
>>961887
>>961885
>>961880
>>961878
>>961877
>>961870
>>961868
>>961865
>>961862
>>961855
>correlation implies causation
could just as easily be those countries are better because their populations are just smarter
which might imply that smarter people opt for democracy, but not that it's better necessarily
>>960963
electing representatives seems oddly circular anon as electing the right representative to make the right decisions requires a fair bit of "PQ" and like you said, minimizes the will of the best and guves credence to the worst
>>959246
>there's nothing wrong with tyranny
Don't forget to tip your funny hat
>>961855
>full democracy
>USA
This is a joke right
>>961469
>aristrocracy
ew
>>959276
This is some bloomsday level shitposting
>>961853
>>962018
Isn't this a problem of the electorate? For instance, Trump and Clinton are both obviously bold-faced liars, yet they have millions of supporters. My claim is that in a representative democracy, whoever the electorate deems to be the most qualified gains the office. The issue is that the electorate can be deceived and can also improperly judge one's ability to govern.
A related problem is that of people who are good at governing or could have become good at governing (the intelligent in general) choose professions other than politics.
>>962145
Electorate is also extremely selfish and dumb, everywhere.
>>960914
>Electronic voting
Electronic voting is the single dumbest idea ever. With a single error in software, or some unforeseen degradation in data, millions of peoples votes can be lost to the wind in an instant. And where would you store the votes? On server? Where the data can easily be stolen or manipulated? What if some asshole decided to DDOSS the elections because they could? What would you do then? In fact ignore DDosing, what if there are simply too many people voting at once at the system is overwhelmed and the whole voting server system shuts down? Are you going to just delay the elections? Bearing in mind its not just an event that happens every two years now, but one that happens whenever a pressing issue needs to be addressed by the masses.
>>962145
so it seems that the best way to do this would be to improve the PQ of the masses to ideally make them all possibly have a high PQ. this seems to be an unrealistic solution imho anon
>>962208
We can spread history through dank memes
>>958963
The ethics of communism take the theoretical assumption of each and every working man working for the good of their country, and nothing more.
The ethics of democracy take the theoretical assumption of a certain group of men working for the good of their country, and nothing more.
It is a lesser evil, but basically just as corruptible, if not more, than any other form of government. An honest leader will make democracy run smooth, but as soon as someone comes in that puts a stick in the gears of the government body is when democracy goes into a nearly in-escapable downward slide.
For current american democracy, a big fix would be a completely separation of political input to media, and a complete reformation of journalism. It wouldn't fix everything, but it would be a start to a better system of leadership.
>>962179
>With a single error in software, or some unforeseen degradation in data, millions of peoples votes can be lost to the wind in an instant.
That can't bring down a whole database and entry system if you design it halfway competently, ever heard of fault tolerance?
>And where would you store the votes? On server? Where the data can easily be stolen or manipulated?
That's why you don't make it easy and you store it in multiple places, ever heard of encryption and redundancy?
>What if some asshole decided to DDOSS the elections because they could?
I'll take "Multiple points of failure" for $1000.
>what if there are simply too many people voting at once at the system is overwhelmed and the whole voting server system shuts down?
You design for more than you need or expect and you do testing, it's not that hard to rig up a few boxes to send millions of requests a minute.
I mean, these are legitimate concerns, but to call this the dumbest idea ever because of them implies they're impossible or impractical to solve, when that's patently untrue. That makes you sound like a dumb luddite.
(You do know you can make your own ballots and fill them in how you want, right? It's not even that hard usually. All you need to do steal an election is make them and them for the real ones. Why does it happen so rarely?)
>>958966
t. edgy armchair man
>>962226
In fourteen hundred ninety two, to get away from the pesky Jews, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and then had no life like Tommy's dad Stu
>tfw no code of Hammurabi
Support Alexander! Make Greece Great Again!
>mfw firebombing of Dresden
>mfw I have no face
>>962472
Is he not right?
>>962179
>What do you mean we'll just put a box in the school, have people put paper into the ballot, and then count those by hand? What if all the people can't fit into the school? What if people block the doors? You want the police to keep guard? What if the police block the doors?
etc
>>961855
the US is a republic not a democracy retard
Machiavellian Republic is the only good form of government
>>963325
that's a type of democracy numbnuts
Im just a fascist
>>964471
No you're not.
>>961188
>there's propaganda and advertising and pundits and all kinds of catches
>but that's part of why public education definitely isn't any of those things!!
>>964540
It's why it needs to not be one of those things you idiot. I know it's been used that way in a few cases.
The dependence on the populace in a democratic system is why proper education is so important. Is that better?
>>958963
Yes.
>>958963
The common people are ready and willing to
1.Kill and individual to benefit the group
Therefore, they are not morally correct
2.Make short termed, poorly thought out decisions, including those that can hamper the exercise of democracy
Therefore, they are not politically correct.
3.Enter mass panic and fuck shit up
Therefore they are not logically correct.
Power exherted by the people, according to the common will, is tyranny.
Power exherted on the behalf of the people, according to the common good, is justice.
>>962463
>>962498
>(You do know you can make your own ballots and fill them in how you want, right? It's not even that hard usually. All you need to do steal an election is make them and them for the real ones. Why does it happen so rarely?)
Because of the difficulty of scale. Physical elections are relatively easy to manipulate, but it takes a lot of effort to scale things up properly. I the old ways of voter fraud a person could vote say up to three times. Once with a beard, another with a mustache, and again clean shaven. With electronic voting, its harder to actually commit the fraud, but its a lot easier to commit big fraud once your in.
Secondly, there's a certain moral aspect to physical voting. The fact that you are being physically watched and surrounded by your peers, psychologically deters people from attempting to commit fraud, whereas with electronic voting there is no such peer pressure component.
Another issuance with electronic voting that I just came to realize, is that the Internet is not universal, and in most places high quality. I was only 5 years ago where 30 percent of the U.S population didn't have Internet access. And in a nation of hundreds of millions that's a significant number of people.
>>958963
Every form of government is some sort of tyranny. You literally cannot make a socirty where everyone wins. That being said is democracy a good system. Yes I believe so since it helps to mitigate any sort of violent revolution as long as people believe to some degree that they can change the government so this is good. Direct democracy is not the best option because people don't have the time to learn about everything they are voting on. So there needs to be some specialization in the people who make the decisions.
>>961931
This, the guy posting the maps thinks prosperity is a direct result of Democracy.
Democracy doesn't work, period.
>>958966
It's only as retarded as its occupants
>>959219
Found the Euro
Direct democracy with different states and freedom of travel so if you don't like the laws in one place you can keep moving until you'd rather deal with the laws than move somewhere else.
It's what America was supposed to be, too bad.
Most people are fucking retarded.
Democracy is based on the input of most people.
Ergo, democracy is fucking retarded.
Technocracy is the objectively best government type.
>>958963
It's usually the rich assholes with money to hold on to who argue against increased democracy and try to scare people with images of social collapse.
>>968895
I'm pretty sure state governments had legislatures from the beginning, I know they had governors from the beginning.
