The future of democracy Thread

Not so long ago in fourth or fifth century B.C. some crazy Greek townsfolk came up with an idea: "Hey I'm sick of king, let's kick his *** an start ruling together!" And boy, it was a huge success, only to die out few because of romans who were kind of pro-empire peeps. What the Greek townsfolk had was direct democracy, everyone (by that I mean every man) could go to gathering and discuss the politics and then vote for it. That or they bantered in the Bar.

So after they were totally crushed and stuff democracy died out. And then roughlt few thousand years later democracy was truly reborn (there were some "things" almost like democracy before) as representative democracy in America and not long after in France and since then it spread like a disease amongst the countries of the world.

It was representative democracy because there was NO WAY for all people in a large country to participate in politics directly.

But now at the era of Internet, media, telephones and all that, can't we go back to direct democracy especially elected covernments tend to fuck more than often lately. And the technology has already been worked out and used effectively (successfully in Estonia only as far as I know) and is most probably totally scam proof.

Of course there is that problem with most (by that I mean all) people being so greedy that they would desperately try to prevent laws and political decisions made by government from being released (couldn't find appropriate word, I'm not that experienced in english, I guess).

So, discuss.

Edited by: Whizzard

Your history is lacking, but that is rather immaterial. More the point, direct democracies pose a significant problem in complex societies and increased scale. Simply, the general population cannot be expected nor relied upon to learn the necessary information to understand the application of policy, much less the specific knowledge for the rationale, impact, etc., of a piece of legislation itself. This is why we elect representatives based on similarity of stances on policy; we entrust the representative to be knowledgeable regarding whichever position they'll be taking and to comprehend everything necessary to make an informed decision regarding a piece of legislation.

Granted, there is a significant problem with politicians, primarily without a reactive citizenry, and we have little to no recourse for the grandstanding which occurs to claim and maintain a position.

A simpler solution would be to create frequent enough elections while not permitting campaigning from officials holding positions and dynamic negative elections to remove officials and remove all votes, approval, etc., on legislation, decisions, whatever within a recent time frame from that official; I can even make this economically advantageous if anyone disagrees on this premise by essentially removing all costs not relevant to the vote strictly.

This is effectively direct democracy in an expansive, complicated society, though obviously local government should have more direct votes; an advantage of the above is further political awareness too.

Libertarian socialism anybody?

Vangor wrote: Simply, the general population cannot be expected nor relied upon to learn the necessary information to understand the application of policy, much less the specific knowledge for the rationale, impact, etc., of a piece of legislation itself. This is why we elect representatives based on similarity of stances on policy; we entrust the representative to be knowledgeable regarding whichever position they'll be taking and to comprehend everything necessary to make an informed decision regarding a piece of legislation.

the intelegance of the public has no relation to the type of govt, or how well a govt will work. A bunch of stupid people with a few smart people will either a) all vote stupid or b) listen to the smart people & vote their way, and there will be two outcomes from said voting (doesn't matter which way: a) if they voted stupid they'll do what they wanted, b) if they voted with the smart the stupids will decide it's not what they like & change it somehow (roit, violence, new vote, whatever).

It's a known fact (by non-stupids) that elected people's aren't anyone special, they don't really know much more then most average smart-non political people, they just get their name on the ballet. So once again, you're putting average people in charge who don't know everything & can't because it's impossible.

It's also a known fact (by non-stupids) that when you get respesentation to the point where people have no real voice in what happens (IE you elect someone to elect someone for you/do all the laws) people eigther feel a) like they don't matter, which they really don't or b) people don't care so it doesn't matter who's in charge or who they vote for, they just don't care.

Showing that direct voting is the best way because it lets stupid people eliminate themselves from the equation! (especially now WITH technology it's easily possibly. We use technology for taxes & that's far more technical vs electing someone) Then if people don't show up for all the stupid little things they don't care about only the smarter people will run things, and that's what happens 99% of the time in stuff people must always partake in: they never show up!

TheHappyFriar wrote: the intelegance of the public has no relation to the type of govt, or how well a govt will work.

I never mentioned intelligence. The sheer enormity of the functions of the any specific scale of government generally requires specialized knowledge, which the majority of the population cannot reasonably be expected nor relied upon to learn. Hence, we elect representatives who do specialize in the functions of their position, the interactions with other government associations and officials, and similar.

While I may possess a personal opinion on what is an intelligent or unintelligent choice to make, democracy exists because the choice is inevitably left to the people. However, an informed populace has a great deal of relevance with regards to type of government and how well the government functions because the people are more willing to hold the government accountable and thus change the system if necessary.

TheHappyFriar wrote: It's a known fact (by non-stupids) that elected people's aren't anyone special

Except the expectation which they can be held to by an informed population is they have specialized knowledge regarding their position, which is the entire purpose of a representative democracy. What you said is akin to saying doctors aren't anyone special. Of course, but they have specialized knowledge.

TheHappyFriar wrote: It's also a known fact (by non-stupids) that when you get respesentation to the point where people have no real voice in what happens

Except the other expectation which they can be held to by an informed population is they are representatives and are therefore meant to represent the constituency which elected them. More frequent voting and an ability to quickly hold a politician to task was included in my comment which I'm presuming you didn't actually read before misreading my first sentence.

TheHappyFriar wrote: Then if people don't show up for all the stupid little things they don't care about only the smarter people will run things

Unfortunately, the ideal is for the most informed to vote and for those who feel they are uninformed regarding an issue to not vote. The reality of this is vastly different; people predominantly vote along party lines regardless of information regarding either candidate and often use party affiliation as the strictest judge of a candidate. If they feel they've been wronged, either through their own thoughts or have been convinced by another, they're far more likely to vote as well.

Democracy will fail!!!Obama is a globalist and he isnt an angel savior.I saw documentary and its true.Think!!!Obama is president of USA when recesion started,he have ideas and he brokes his promises about better life.Obama is just a globalist muppet(Correctly a doll or ragdoll).If globalist say that he must say that is better then obama will do it.The globalist are people who are owners of big multi corporations.We need to destroy that corporations and only good guy when is about corporations is Bill Gates and That Creator of apple.I know only that his name is Steve.Democracy is in danger,the globalist are trying to conquer world.Its fucking true.When they conquer world there wont be windons operating sistem,no youtube,no google,no ati or nvidia graphic cards,no newspapers,no school,no freedom and no honor,duty and respect!!!Obama is just a ordinary man that Corporations control him and they will conquer world.The first that started one part of globalistic conquering America is George W. Bush!!!Its true.I watched doncumentary movie and there was people from UK,USA,FR,RUS and many other countryes in that doncumentary movie!Its true!!!Iam against globalism,communism is much better then globalism.Only Asian communism is bad,Yugoslavian kind of communism was good but not that good.Atleast it was much then other communist countryes.

Ugh, communism is one of the mankind's greatest failures. With the exception of China, but that's because China was and is wise enough to use capitalistic market economy in stead of true communistic failure planned economy. Soviet Union's economy stood and Russia's economy still stays up thanks to oil, but every time oil price drops, Russia looses a lot. And oil price dropped around $100 per barrel not so long time ago. They only export gas, oil and vodka, but not much else. And they import a lot. Now they hardly have any money left to keep up the import.

Oh and the history in my previous post is accurate enough for the thread, there isn't anything utterly false there and accurate history would make a long post. If there is something utterly wrong, please point it out.

Edited by: Whizzard

Communism is good and it was an experiment of difirent kind of Socialism.So fuck off you fucking capitalistic/globalistic bastard and you will die when i fire few bullets and your body becomes a swiss chesse so fuck off!!!

Communism is good and dont insult my communist heart Slavic Traitor!!!Chinese,Vietnamese,NorthKorean and Russian is total failures.Yugoslavian is the best ever.Chinese communism isnt Socialistic!!!

Oh dear, for one second I thought he was being serious about all this, but it really seems to me that the troll is back. icomefromlandunde got banned few days ago, no?

Sorry no.That guy dont know with Doom builder Do you want that i make for you a map?Iam sorry but i love communism.Its like better Socialism with errors

Iam really sorry about rude words but that insulted me!!!

You insulted me when you said that communism is a failure.

Iam not that guy.OK...Or other person

Iam now confused.Now i dont know who iam now.Are you confuse master.I dont know what is my real name now.I dont think that iam some member who always make accounts but iam now really confused.A shit...I got frezzed brain for few seconds.

IAm now really confused Call the doctor,we need to make lobotomy.

Elections are not democratic, especially in our times with propaganda from the media(Berlusconi, the prime minister of Italy, owns a large portion of the media in the country, no wonder everyone votes for him).True democracy is only achieved by randomly selecting those who rule.

Ratchet66 wrote: True democracy is only achieved by randomly selecting those who rule.

Like picking names out of a hat??

BIg business is what is f*cking democracy. Nobody takes responsibility for what they're doing.

Someone wrote: Like picking names out of a hat??

That's what I meant more or less.Wether we like it or not the people who win the elections are those who have the best campaings and make more appearances in the medias.

Edited by: Ratchet66

Democracy fails. Even in ancient Athens. The point of democracy at first was to let people who have rights of a citizen to participate in the governmetnt of the city-state by being able to say his opinions in several subjects, that had to do with the politics of the city. But from the(let's say) 400.000 of people in Athens only 100.000 were possibly citizens. Let women out, and it's a nice 50.000 citizens. Later, when Athens ruled the whole Hellas, democracy actually became a dictatorship of 50.000 people over the millions of Hellenes. Being a nationalist myself, I have many conversations on this subject with other people being nationalists as well or not. My opinion is that democracy is a nice thing. But not the way it is. First of all, through modern democracy, we vote for a pesron or a party we think it's the best for our country or matches our believes. In cases, like Cyprus, where population does not surpass one million, people vote for the party that will give more to them. I am not sure how to call it exactly in english, what I mean is you vote for the party that will give you a job immediately if you and your family vote it, or make you some kind of convenience. But if am supposed to vote for what i believe is true, why you keep propagandizing me? I went out to shout for my country and i said CYPRUS IS GREEK. But you stopped me. You said in the TV that young people shouted fascistic sloagans. But you are the one, you are the ones, that people voted you because you kept talking about democracy. I have grown up learning that democracy lets you say your opinion freely. Why, now, you don't let me to do it? @the person who say he loves communism. Why does your communism is agains anything national? Why itself, while antifascistic, is a fascistic sytstem? Don;t get me wrong. I like communism as well. But as long as it does not fighting nations. You say Barack Obama is globalist. Don't you know that communism is globalistic system as well? You should learn what globalism is. They want you to accept immigrants in your country, accept their language, their tradition and anything, make you forget yours, create a multi-"cultural" world, then unify world and establish a world government, with people that don't think and don't have an identidy. They want slaves. And behind all these are mostly families that own banks, big industries and control the economies of the world. And again, most of them are Masons.And to make you think of something, why does this happening only in the West(Americas and Europe)?

aerozol wrote:

Ratchet66 wrote: True democracy is only achieved by randomly selecting those who rule.

Like picking names out of a hat??

Erm, now that you mention it, those fat "politicians" can give any amount of votes they got to any of their party members. Which means they can get their buddies they wish into government if they have enough votes. And that's cheating.

democracy sucks ...

communism sucks ...

They both have the same problem really ... eventually some prick(s) come along and try to control it for their own advantages rather than thinking of the majority ... they both have inevitable corruption ...

I do like the idea of a totally pure democracy though ... simply because people would have no one to blame but themselves when they make a bad decision

Edited by: Assaultman67

Maybe people should consider animals as an example... exchanged help for no money in result.

Assaultman67 wrote: I do like the idea of a totally pure democracy though ... simply because people would have no one to blame but themselves when they make a bad decision

No they will still blame others for stupidity. For not looking really through for what they voted.

As if you would like to read through a new proposed law(from 1 page to 20 pages) and decide to vote for it and then another almost everyday.

Good dictatorship is best(non-tyrant). Because citizens don't have to worry about politics at all. You trust the dictator with his companions.
Let's take very short History of the three Baltic States. (1918-1940). All started as new parlamentary democracities. At some point all became authorian after a coup d'état(small military takecover with leading politicians). Lithuania at 1926, Estonia at 1934 and two months later Latvia. Citizens did not interfiere. Who cares? Let's continue to live our lives.
Problem comes when a dictator thinks he/she can do every single political job.

Mobius89 wrote: Maybe people should consider animals as an example... exchanged help for no money in result.

Don't animals live in anarchy? Humans are too smart to live in anarchy. We need to be stupid to live good lives in anarchy.

Edited by: Pendrokar

I dont remember Bees or Ants living in anarchy, its a monarchy :o And even Sun Tsu said that the most economic (not best) form of a government is a dictatorship. Though i dont like dictators all that much ^^

Edited by: N0dachi

Majority is the most times stupid. few people are clever. So if majority gets to choose it will always choose the stupid option.

As my friend often said: group's IQ is equal to the IQ of it's dumbest member.

Or you are only as strong as your weakest member. In other words; natural selection. Kill off the stupid, stay with the smart.

--

~Toyoka's Gaming Channel~

communism rulz!!!!!

Eventually we will have one world government where on parliment rules over everything! I cant wait!

marinos wrote: Majority is the most times stupid. few people are clever. So if majority gets to choose it will always choose the stupid option.

Thats statistically wrong. A Majority is smarter then a couple of smart ppl.

Pendrokar wrote:
Good dictatorship is best(non-tyrant). Because citizens don't have to worry about politics at all. You trust the dictator with his companions.
Let's take very short History of the three Baltic States. (1918-1940). All started as new parlamentary democracities. At some point all became authorian after a coup d'état(small military takecover with leading politicians). Lithuania at 1926, Estonia at 1934 and two months later Latvia. Citizens did not interfiere. Who cares? Let's continue to live our lives.
Problem comes when a dictator thinks he/she can do every single political job.

The problem with dictatorship is that you can't know how how the dictator will rule until he does, at which point is hard to overthrow him if he proves to be a tyrant.