NationStates Jolt Archive

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

I think the quote is by Winston Churchill, although I'm not TOO sure about that. Doesn't really sound like something he'd say IMO, but the source I got the quote from says he said it.

However, who said it is rather irrelevant.

Personally, being against democracy, and this being one of my major points against democracy, obviously wholeheartedly agree with the quote.

Obviously I don't mean everyone, since clearly there are intelligent people that vote for every side and dumb people that vote for every side, but in a nation where the average person's IQ is ~95, how much do you trust giving all of them the power to choose your next leader?

I think if you're going to have a democracy, at least put it SOME limitations on who can vote. Like implement a sort of written test you must pass before voting that goes over basic fundamentals of economics, politics, and foreign affairs. Obviously no opinion based questions, since those would be biased.

You'd be amazed how many people there are who know NOTHING about these things, yet they go out and vote, usually based on a single issue.

This happens on both sides of the political fence too.... I've met many people who are fellow right-wing, yet they vote right wing PURELY on the basis of the fact taxes will be lowered, while obviously I support their position, I think they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

Similarly, leftists I've seen many who vote left-wing based on a single issue, like that minimum wage will be increased. How dumb is that to select a leader based on one issue when you have no understanding of anything else involved?

Ahhhh I made this post longer than I intended.

Anyways, your opinion on this quote?

Try to hold down the flaming :) Although I suppose on NS that's rather impossible.

In the end, I don't think you can't just vote for someone based on the issues they support. Especially given how few politicians actually make good on their promises. It has to be (in my opinion) a mix of their character, how much you trust this person not to ruin the country, and how closely they align with your morals.

That certainly wouldn't be something you can test, it's just a difference of morals and opinions. But, then again, I don't have a problem with democracy. So perhaps I'm biased.

I would have to agree with you not only on how much democracy is crap but also on how the voters have no clue what they are doing...


:headbang: :sniper:

Mr. Churchill was very right in how stupid many people are. Have you ever read "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlen? You sound like you would like it if you haven't read it already. In Troopers, Heinlen talks about a world where people must undergo a period where they must learn responibility and how to use their political influence (their vote) in an educated way. The movie makes it seem like military service was required, but the book mentions that there are alternatives to service. The point is, Heinlen had a good idea for sorting out stupid voters who only vote for Bush because Sean Hannity told them to. It makes you think about just how flawed our system is.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

I'd say that is actually one of the best arguments in favor of pluralism. The average person is not the average nutjob found here.

Obviously I don't mean everyone, since clearly there are intelligent people that vote for every side and dumb people that vote for every side, but in a nation where the average person's IQ is ~95, how much do you trust giving all of them the power to choose your next leader?

The average IQ is by definition 100. And, I'll say it again, the average person is much more reasonable thgan you give them credit for.

Domocracy costs money, and does have drawbacks, but it is a must have.

Why? because it brings Accountability...there is nothing worst than a Non-accountable Gov.(dictatorship)

I agree with ol' Winston about democracy, its a flawed solution to a complex question. Im not sure i entirely agree with Heinlein either, although i like his theory of earning influence a lot and have been thinking about it for years. Personally i favour a form of minarchist meritocracy.

The average IQ is by definition 100. And, I'll say it again, the average person is much more reasonable thgan you give them credit for.


Tommy Lee Jones' character Kay in "Men in Black" stated it best when Will Smith asks him why not uncover the secret, he says people are smart. Kay replies:
"The person is smart. People are dumb, stupid panicky, too quick to judge..."(I can't remember the exact line, but you see what I'm trying to say.)

Because EVERYONE can vote which cause moronic politicians to get elected and therefore makeing everything worse for the rest of the sane people.

Winston Churchill also said 'Democracy is the worst system, except all others'

The best argument against democracy, is that the least productive citizen has the same vote as I do. If the least has the vote, then the mosts vote is diluted. Meritacracy should replace democracy ASAP.

I have said this before.

The best argument against democracy, is that the least productive citizen has the same vote as I do. If the least has the vote, then the mosts vote is diluted. Meritacracy should replace democracy ASAP.

I have said this before.


"Starship Troopers" addresses that. I'm not trying to advertise the book, but it is good to read to see a good argument against our current system of democracy.

What justification is there for taxing and imposing laws on people who had no say in either?

Because they live here. Unless there is a law or system in place discouraging or forbidding emmigration, then it shall remain that way.

I am not opposed to a meritocracy, although I think there'd be some difficulty in deciding HOW much merit one should have to be allowed to have a say?

"Starship Troopers" addresses that. I'm not trying to advertise the book, but it is good to read to see a good argument against our current system of democracy.

Good book, decent movie, but the political system there is far better than the system we have here: If you make it to 18, you have a vote. At 18 what have you done to advance society? Service (Not just military service) should be a requirement of citizenship.

Because they live here. Unless there is a law or system in place discouraging or forbidding emmigration, then it shall remain that way.

So because people happen to live by you you have a right to tell them what to do?

Democracy may not be perfect but its the best and fairest system we've got. Sure its really annoying when people don't have a clue why they are voting, but there is no perfect system.
Personally I believe more politics should be taught in schools. It is one of the most important things we should know about, yet is barely taught at all. By the way, I also believe they should teach more philosophy too, irrelevant really, but something I see as very important.

If you live in someone else's house, then you are required to do what they ask, so long that they are not forcing you to stay (i.e. holding you captive or something).

If you live in someone's country (the government's), you are required to do what they ask, so long that they are not forcing you to stay.

Like it or not, the country technically is the government's, although that's more of a technically since it's rather difficult to physically possess a country.

If you live in someone else's house, then you are required to do what they ask, so long that they are not forcing you to stay (i.e. holding you captive or something).

If you live in someone's country (the government's), you are required to do what they ask, so long that they are not forcing you to stay.

Like it or not, the country technically is the government's, although that's more of a technically since it's rather difficult to physically possess a country.

are you seriously upholding the ideal of countries and nations that is the foundation of monarchy and dictatorship - that the government exist above and prior to the people in general?

If you live in someone else's house, then you are required to do what they ask, so long that they are not forcing you to stay (i.e. holding you captive or something).

If you live in someone's country (the government's), you are required to do what they ask, so long that they are not forcing you to stay.

Like it or not, the country technically is the government's, although that's more of a technically since it's rather difficult to physically possess a country.
I am afraid you have a grave misunderstanding of the ideals behind democracy (or more specifically a republic) it is based on inalienable rights, an individuals right to choose. The government is merely there to protect said rights, and the needs of a society are defeated by the rights of an individual. The government is not an almighty force that grants the populace rights it is there simply because it is necessary to protect said rights. Why should a government an abstract idea, have more rights then a living breathing person?

Wanna discredit democracy completely? Look at the morons who get elected.

Of course it's better than a dictatorship, where you don't even get to elect the fool.

I believe that society and the nation as a whole are more important than individual people, and so long that the government works to further the nation and society, then the sacrifice of a few people's rights is worth it to make life better for everyone else (if there were a 100 people, would you sacrifice 5 to create a paradise for the other 95?)

Anyways this is all beside the point.

The main point here is, do you think democracy is really such a good idea in light of how ignorant people often are of politics, economics, foreign affairs, etc.?

I'm not opposed to a meritocracy... it seems many people on here favor that system as well.

The main point here is, do you think democracy is really such a good idea in light of how ignorant people often are of politics, economics, foreign affairs, etc.?

That has been my arguement all along: I have no right to an opinion or vote on any issue that I have not educated myself on, or that does not affect me. I have my opinions on various issues: Gun(weapon) control, abortion, and a few others, but I do not have the right to vote on issues such as gay marriage, the draft. etc.

And amazingly, my opinions and right to those opinions are in a constant state of flux, as I grow, and things that once did not matter to me, now do. Things that once mattered no longer do as well..

Would you still support a fascist state if it worked to further all the causes you opposed, and ignored the causes you thought important?

I believe that society and the nation as a whole are more important than individual people, and so long that the government works to further the nation and society, then the sacrifice of a few people's rights is worth it to make life better for everyone else (if there were a 100 people, would you sacrifice 5 to create a paradise for the other 95?)
This is where we differ. The idea of simply sacrificing someone against their will is to me absolutely unacceptable. why should people rights be defeated simply by numbers? if there was a vote held that said that you had to die for no reason would it be right? Simply because a majority of people think something does not make it right. If rights can be taken away if someone is weak, if someone believes a certain thing, or if they are taken away "democratically" then they are useless. To me the rights of the individual is the primary responsibility of any government.

The main point here is, do you think democracy is really such a good idea in light of how ignorant people often are of politics, economics, foreign affairs, etc.?
That is precisely why we don't have a direct democracy. On top of those things a direct democracy would allow the majority to suppress the rights of the minority.