NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that these days people seem to be of the opinion that the democratic method of electing leaders is the best method.

*Yes, I am aware that what I am speaking of is actually a republic (representative democracy), not a true democracy, but Im using the word democracy in its modern sense and not in the classical greek definition*

But why is it the best method? Is this really a given? Does anyone hold a different opinion?

Here are some problems with democracy:

1. Most people are not intelligent, so if all people have an equal vote, the result will always move towards the average (which, keeping in mind that the average IQ is 100, the average is not very intelligent at all). Add to this the fact that the unintelligent masses can be swayed by a charismatic leader, and you have a dangerous situation. Witness Hitler's rise to power democratically in 1933 for example.

2. Democracy can easily lead to the opression of minorities because the majority always rules.

3. Democracy puts the most charismatic people in power, not necessarily the most intelligent or most qualified.

Yes, democracy sucks. Unfortunately, it doesn't suck as much as all the other systems currently in circulation. Depressing, really, isn't it?

a benevolent dictator is actually the best, but


power corrupts, absalute power corrupts absalutly

Democracy is the worst political system except for all the others that have been tried.

democracy works best in the long run.

no tryannical dictators that cant be removed. no drooling idiot son of a great king taking over.

Yes, democracy sucks. Unfortunately, it doesn't suck as much as all the other systems currently in circulation. Depressing, really, isn't it?

Indeed.

Democracy is the safest way of keeping extremists out of control; it's true that dictators might be great, but they have to be a good person. Democracy is like the prisoner's dilemma: http://www.princeton.edu/~mdaniels/PD/PD.html

That link explains and has a game to show the theory.

Basically in the prisoner's dilemma if both prisoners act irrationally then they get the least time in prison, but thier distrust of their partner causes them to act so as to minimise possible damage rather than act for the best outcome

democracy works best in the long run.

no tryannical dictators that cant be removed. no drooling idiot son of a great king taking over.

really? When were the Germans planning on removing Hitler? Once he had conquered the world and slaughtered all minorities?

Democracy is the worst political system except for all the others that have been tried.

Churchill.

a benevolent dictator is actually the best, but

Is almost unsustainable, is extremely unlike to come about in the first place, and has no real advantages over Democracy anyway.

I wouldn't know....Singapore isn't a democratic nation...well not a full democratic nation like USA so meh.

It seems that these days people seem to be of the opinion that the democratic method of electing leaders is the best method.

*Yes, I am aware that what I am speaking of is actually a republic (representative democracy), not a true democracy, but Im using the word democracy in its modern sense and not in the classical greek definition*

But why is it the best method? Is this really a given? Does anyone hold a different opinion?

Here are some problems with democracy:

1. Most people are not intelligent, so if all people have an equal vote, the result will always move towards the average (which, keeping in mind that the average IQ is 100, the average is not very intelligent at all). Add to this the fact that the unintelligent masses can be swayed by a charismatic leader, and you have a dangerous situation. Witness Hitler's rise to power democratically in 1933 for example.actually, for that, I blame the Media. they cannot be truly unbiased. they favored Clinton because Clinton knew how to smooze the media. GW could care less about the media and they know it. The Media has alot of power (almost as much as the Government.) yet they are not careful with that power.

2. Democracy can easily lead to the opression of minorities because the majority always rules.unfortunatly, you cannot please everyone. Look at this last election. Most those who supported anyone else but Bush are still bitching about it.

3. Democracy puts the most charismatic people in power, not necessarily the most intelligent or most adequately prepared.Intelligence is not all that important... sometimes it takes Charisma and Wisdom.

But until someone can come up with a system that will please everyone (Good Luck) this Democratic Republic is the best so far.

It seems that these days people seem to be of the opinion that the democratic method of electing leaders is the best method.

*Yes, I am aware that what I am speaking of is actually a republic (representative democracy), not a true democracy, but Im using the word democracy in its modern sense and not in the classical greek definition*

But why is it the best method? Is this really a given? Does anyone hold a different opinion?

Here are some problems with democracy:

1. Most people are not intelligent, so if all people have an equal vote, the result will always move towards the average (which, keeping in mind that the average IQ is 100, the average is not very intelligent at all). Add to this the fact that the unintelligent masses can be swayed by a charismatic leader, and you have a dangerous situation. Witness Hitler's rise to power democratically in 1933 for example.

2. Democracy can easily lead to the opression of minorities because the majority always rules.

3. Democracy puts the most charismatic people in power, not necessarily the most intelligent or most qualified.
1. Your elitism is showing. Just because someone hasn't scored high on some test of at best questionable value, does not mean they're incapable of making an informed decision about what's best for themselves and their children.

2. That's one reason for all the "checks and balances."

3. George Bush is charismatic? James Earl Carter was charismatic? Get serious! :D

Intelligence is not all that important...

Yeah, you know, actually it is.

What worries me about this country is now so many people think like that.

actually, for that, I blame the Media. they cannot be truly unbiased. they favored Clinton because Clinton knew how to smooze the media. GW could care less about the media and they know it. The Media has alot of power (almost as much as the Government.) yet they are not careful with that power.
The media has infinitely more power than government. They can and often do, criticise the government and urge people to vote for the party the editor happens to have allegiance to.

Reading biased "news" everyday affects every person's choices.

Yeah, you know, actually it is.

What worries me about this country is now so many people think like that.
I also agree. But requiring people to be of certain intelligence to vote would create massive uprising among the "unintelligent" and liberal, and cause chaos. Thus it's safest to let everyone vote.

And let's face it, most of the unintelligent (Along with many intelligent) can never be bothered to get up and vote anyway!

The intelligent (or at least informed) aspect of citizens is very crucial. This is precisely the reason why direct democracy will never really work. While we may have the capacity (near-instant communications and interconnectivity through the internet) there will always be people who have no idea what their vote means, which to me is very dangerous. And of course there will always be those who don't give a damn. Thomas Jefferson, our best president IMO, very firmly believed that in order for us to have a successful democracy that all citizens (voting citizens, at any rate, read white guys with land) must have adequate education.

As for our current system in the USA, no, it's not the best. It's designed not to be the best. The two-party system, along with our system of checks-and-balances, creates a lot of needless beurocracy and partisanship that often prevents things from getting done. Also, our executive is elected only once every four years. Whether he's doing a good or bad job, there always needs to be a presidential election every fourth year. Contrast this to the parliamentary, multi-party system. Governments are usually coalition governments, with no one party holding a majority. So long as the PM has broad support from his coalition, things tend to run smoothly. Furthermore, elections usually aren't strictly relegated to a calendar. However, if the PM fails to push through a desired legislation, a vote of no confidence is usually required, with a majority vote against the PM dissolving the government and requiring new elections. This tends to happen during times of heated differences, and leads to a lot of inefficiency then (like British inaction during Vietnam).

And as far as majority vs. minority goes, read The Federalist Papers No. 8 (I think). James Madison describes the formation of "factions" (interest groups) and the delicate balancing act between preventing tyranny by the minority and oppression by the majority.

And I think your point 3 ties in with point 1. People who either don't care enough or aren't educated enough to understand issues and a candidates stand on issues will most likely vote for the more charismatic. I think if problem 1 were solved, 3 might die away.

1. Your elitism is showing. Just because someone hasn't scored high on some test of at best questionable value, does not mean they're incapable of making an informed decision about what's best for themselves and their children.

Yes, but the main problem is that most people don't make an informed decision on what's best for them and their children. In the UK, people vote for Labour or the Tories not because they agree with them, but because they disagree with the other side. And the 'informed decision' people do make comes from information spun one way and another by poiliticians, then the media, then Darren from next door....

2. That's one reason for all the "checks and balances."

Which still don't always work. They generally keep from any widely sweeping changes happening quickly, though. Like ending slavery, for example; that too years and years and eventually a civil war.

3. George Bush is charismatic? James Earl Carter was charismatic? Get serious! :D

Bush is, shamefully, more charismatic than Gore or Kerry were. Much like headlice are more charismatic than Al Gore. Carter was indeed just a little duller that watching paint dry, though; I've never understood why anyone voted for him. He was a wazzock as well.

Yeah, you know, actually it is.

What worries me about this country is now so many people think like that.really... Nixon was an Intelligent man... so was Jimmy Carter... both were very intelligent... not great Presidents, but they were intelligent.

1. ... the main problem is that most people don't make an informed decision on what's best for them and their children. In the UK, people vote for Labour or the Tories not because they agree with them, but because they disagree with the other side. And the 'informed decision' people do make comes from information spun one way and another by poiliticians, then the media, then Darren from next door...

2. Which still don't always work. They generally keep from any widely sweeping changes happening quickly, though. Like ending slavery, for example; that too years and years and eventually a civil war.

3. Bush is, shamefully, more charismatic than Gore or Kerry were. Much like headlice are more charismatic than Al Gore. Carter was indeed just a little duller that watching paint dry, though; I've never understood why anyone voted for him. He was a wazzock as well.
1. Says who? Sometimes those who score lower on "IQ Tests" have far more sense than so-called "intellectuals," IMHO.

2. Slavery probably isn't a very good example ... it was both an economic and a "moral" issue, and it took time to convince people that the moral aspects were more important than the economic aspects.

3. LOL! :D

really... Nixon was an Intelligent man... so was Jimmy Carter... both were very intelligent... not great Presidents, but they were intelligent.

So? Intelligence isn't everything.

But it's still important. And Nixon WAS a good President. He got us out of Vietnam, right?

Democracy isn't always the best, but mixed in with some socialist guidelines and you have yourself an even better government than both a pure representative democracy or a socialist dictatorship.

Here are some problems with democracy:

1. Most people are not intelligent, so if all people have an equal vote, the result will always move towards the average (which, keeping in mind that the average IQ is 100, the average is not very intelligent at all). Add to this the fact that the unintelligent masses can be swayed by a charismatic leader, and you have a dangerous situation. Witness Hitler's rise to power democratically in 1933 for example.

a) I agree with an informed mass. Perhaps not unitelligent mass. If the mass of an average IQ is informed enough, this situation would be fine. It is the education system which lets us down.

b) Hitler technically was not made leader via democratic means. He forced the German president (Hindenburg? I forget his name) to invoke emergency powers into to make him "Furher", by using a supposed Communist attempt to burn down the parliment building and "highlighting" a Communist attempt for power.

2. Democracy can easily lead to the opression of minorities because the majority always rules.

I agree, in a democracy where there are few checks and balances. Also, in most Britain, minorities' views are held highly (to the promotion or detriment of democracy).

3. Democracy puts the most charismatic people in power, not necessarily the most intelligent or most qualified.

I agree with this, however leadership is not only about intelligent or qualification. Charisma is one of the most important aspect of leadership. Leadership is about making people have faith in you and your abilities. For me, the best example of this Clinton. He was not exaclt the best American President, in terms of decision making. But he had this charisma no-one could match! How on earth could the leader of the most powerful nation on the world, lie to both his people and his wife, and come out smelling of roses!? THAT'S A TALENT!!!! lol

I agree in part that democracy (in the modern sense) is highly flawed. Even if we had a system where each issue had a referendum, voter apathy probably would be worse.

What we need is an educated and informed society (preferbly informed by an unelected body). I like the British Democracy model, as there are unelected bodies, i.e. Houses of Lords and the Monarch, to check the powers of the Houses of Parliment.

1. Says who? Sometimes those who score lower on "IQ Tests" have far more sense than so-called "intellectuals," IMHO.

I wasn't actually refering to any given intelligence group. Everyone's prone to this kind of nonsense. My father, for example, had an IQ of 155 and still insisted on voting Tory simply so that the Labour party wouldn't get in. Such is the problem with democracy.

2. Slavery probably isn't a very good example ... it was both an economic and a "moral" issue, and it took time to convince people taht the moral aspects were more important than the economic aspects.

Abortion, then? The problem is mainly because of 'moral' issues, since everyone has different morals. Look at the middle east. Morality there says women should be completely covered at all times when outside of the house. I, personally, think that's just a tad mad, but the majority there will support that, just as they generally prefer Theocracies to Democratic systems.

So? Intelligence isn't everything.

My point exactly. Intelligence is great, but it's not the only thing.

and while Nixon did some good as President, he and Frm President Carter are/were excellent Former Presidents. doing more good out of office with their oversea/charity works than when they were in office.

Democracy isn't always the best, but mixed in with some socialist guidelines and you have yourself an even better government than both a pure representative democracy or a socialist dictatorship.

what are you babbling about? socialism is an economic system and has nothing to do with the electoral process. There can be pure representative democracies with socialist economic systems (the Netherlands and Canada for example), and there can be dictatorships with a capitalist economy (Italy under Mussolini for example).

1. I wasn't actually refering to any given intelligence group. Everyone's prone to this kind of nonsense. My father, for example, had an IQ of 155 and still insisted on voting Tory simply so that the Labour party wouldn't get in. Such is the problem with democracy.

2. Abortion, then? The problem is mainly because of 'moral' issues, since everyone has different morals. Look at the middle east. Morality there says women should be completely covered at all times when outside of the house. I, personally, think that's just a tad mad, but the majority there will support that, just as they generally prefer Theocracies to Democratic systems.
1. I fail to see how this is a "problem with democracy."

2. Hmm. How about the US's response to the Great Depression? Many aspects of society were changed in what were for that time, rather radical ways, and relatively quickly.

I'm still trying to remember the Greek philosopher, but one of them examined three types of government and their pros and cons. So, there is no perfect form of government, except tribal rule.

really... Nixon was an Intelligent man... so was Jimmy Carter... both were very intelligent... not great Presidents, but they were intelligent.

Carter was in over his head from the get-go. I have a feeling, responding to a previous comment, that a lot of people voted for him because they thought Ford was a blundering idiot. And Nixon may not have been a decent person or very effective on the home front, but he actually had some marked effects on foreign policy (like de'tant, or however you spell it, with USSR, just to name one). The smartest thing he ever did was probably naming Kissinger as Sec. of State.

Nothing human is perfect.

Nothing human is perfect.

And God is perfect.

Therefore, God is nothing.

:theologicalhijack:

Edit: Heyyy that read "nothing is perfect" when I quoted it!

Heyyy that read "nothing is perfect" when I quoted it!

Well, I realised that I could hardly speak for all those hyper-intelligent multi-dimensional aliens.

1. I fail to see how this is a "problem with democracy."

Well, I suppose it's more a problem with people, but since people are a fundamental part of democracy it's a flaw. It mean democracy doesn't work properly on it's foundations. I still maintain it's the best thing we've come up with so far, but it's still flawed in it's very root

2. Hmm. How about the US's response to the Great Depression? Many aspects of society were changed in what were for that time, rather radical ways, and relatively quickly.

Economical methods are easier to change because many people don't think about them very much. Frankly, I think governments would do a lot better keeping out of moral issues altogether and leaving it up to individuals, and doubly so with democracies. The majority's morals are not always right, and take many many years to change. Look how long it took the English to figure out a decent system. The King still ruled by 'divine appointment' until about three hundred years ago, and the conservatives of the time were willing to die for that because of their moral standpoint.

I'm still trying to remember the Greek philosopher, but one of them examined three types of government and their pros and cons. So, there is no perfect form of government, except tribal rule.

What is tribal rule exaclty and how is it perfect?

If you believe God is perfect, then wouldn't a theocracy be a perfect government? :: Ducks and covers ::

the problem with democracy nowadays is conflict of interest, of course george bush wanted to lower taxes for the rich... he earns a lot of money. he's not the only example, but it puts the idea across. people should only be allowed to vote on things that don't effect them.

What is tribal rule exaclty and how is it perfect?

I'd assume he means in social grouping of less than fifty individuals, wher eeveryone takes part in governing and the absolute leader is chosen by the people, all of whom have known him personally since birth, rather than 'I've seen him on TV and he seems OK'. The problem is that once you have more than about fifty or one hundred people, it doesn't work any more.

"Real liberty is neither found in despotism nor the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments." [Alexander Hamilton, “Debates In the Several State Conventions On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787,” from Elliot’s Debates, Volume 1, (Philadelphia: J. B. Lipincott Company,1901), Vol. 1]

Absolute democracy is the worst thing that can happen to a nation aside from complete anarchy:

“The extreme of liberty (which is its abstract perfection, but its real fault) obtains nowhere, nor ought to obtain anywhere. Because extremes, as we all know, in every point which relates either to our duties or satisfactions in life, are destructive both to virtue and enjoyment. Liberty too must be limited in order to be possessed.” [Edmund Burke, “Letter to the Sheriffs in Bristol,” in The Portable Conservative Reader, ed. Russell Kirk (New York: Viking Penguin, Inc., 1983), p. 1]

I'd assume he means in social grouping of less than fifty individuals, wher eeveryone takes part in governing and the absolute leader is chosen by the people, all of whom have known him personally since birth, rather than 'I've seen him on TV and he seems OK'. The problem is that once you have more than about fifty or one hundred people, it doesn't work any more.
We had that. It was called the Dark Ages.
"When you have effective government you have a dictatorship"--Harry Truman

We had that. It was called the Dark Ages.
"When you have effective government you have a dictatorship"--Harry Truman

No, the Dark ages were a time when fifty people gathered together and practiced the Tribal model, and then used it to rule over around 2 million subjects. Which is when it all cocks up hilariously. When we had the tribal system it was pre-Roman times.

First if all, in the feudel system most power was at the bottom amongst the small villages.

Second of all, before rome, the life expectancy was 17. Perfect place to live :rolleyes:

Democracy may be only a few steps away from Anarchy but at least its not as loud

First if all, in the feudel system most power was at the bottom amongst the small villages.

Um... No, because that's not how a feudal system works. The villages were owned by overlords who owed fealty to their masters, working its way up to the King, who had power over everything, really. I suppose you could argue that the villages were the base unit of power, but that doesn't make them powerful. It makes them chips in the great political game of poker.

Second of all, before rome, the life expectancy was 17. Perfect place to live :rolleyes:

Untrue, and also entirely irrelevant. The life expectancy pre-rome was 25 for women and 30 for men. That's about how long people are built for anyway; it's all downhill from there.

The tribal system of government is a political system, and so technological advance and medical practice is utterly unrelated to it. It doesn't matter how long the life expectancy is. What does matter is that it can't function with any group large enough to call itself a country.

the roman empire had a dictatorial government for most of it's life and it managed to last 2000 years. other countries have had dictatorial goverments and not even lasted 10 years. i don't think there is any truely best system. i think certain systems suit certain societies.

The life expectancy pre-rome was 25 for women and 30 for men. That's about how long people are built for anyway; it's all downhill from there.

EXCUSE ME ???

1. Most people are not intelligent, so if all people have an equal vote, the result will always move towards the average (which, keeping in mind that the average IQ is 100, the average is not very intelligent at all). Add to this the fact that the unintelligent masses can be swayed by a charismatic leader, and you have a dangerous situation. Witness Hitler's rise to power democratically in 1933 for example.

2. Democracy can easily lead to the opression of minorities because the majority always rules.

3. Democracy puts the most charismatic people in power, not necessarily the most intelligent or most qualified.
1. About the charistmatic leader, as the intelligence issue has been covered thusfar: The electroral college in the United States, as well as the Media to a far lesser extent, is meant to safeguard against the rise of a charismatic, and insane, leader. The collge has it's downsides, but that's one of it's positives.

2. Again, in the U.S., there are safeguards for the minority against the majority, such as the Supreme Court and the structure of our federal government in relation to the state governments and local governments. That's why we've gotten along so splendidly thusfar.

3. This is true. That's why, though I consider it relatively undemocratic, I like Britain's parliamentary system. People who can judge you by skill and intelligence rather than by how well you sell your ideas are the ones who put you in power. Meh!

Babel: Ah, the Golden Mean.

Tribal Rule-Very localized government with some alliances.

sure, what the heck. Representative government works pretty well. Don't want a king or a dictator. I want to be left alone.

I have always said democracy does not work.

The only true system is one with an absolute ruler (i.e. a monarch) who has an advisory panel elected by the citizens. That way, the minority doesn't always get the shaft.

I have always said democracy does not work.

The only true system is one with an absolute ruler (i.e. a monarch) who has an advisory panel elected by the citizens. That way, the minority doesn't always get the shaft.

That sounds like Russia right before WWI. I don't know about you, but I don't think that turned out too well.

That sounds like Russia right before WWI. I don't know about you, but I don't think that turned out too well.

Yes, as long as the ruler doesn't get opressive.

It seems that these days people seem to be of the opinion that the democratic method of electing leaders is the best method.

*Yes, I am aware that what I am speaking of is actually a republic (representative democracy), not a true democracy, but Im using the word democracy in its modern sense and not in the classical greek definition*

But why is it the best method? Is this really a given? Does anyone hold a different opinion?

Here are some problems with democracy:

1. Most people are not intelligent, so if all people have an equal vote, the result will always move towards the average (which, keeping in mind that the average IQ is 100, the average is not very intelligent at all). Add to this the fact that the unintelligent masses can be swayed by a charismatic leader, and you have a dangerous situation. Witness Hitler's rise to power democratically in 1933 for example.

2. Democracy can easily lead to the opression of minorities because the majority always rules.

3. Democracy puts the most charismatic people in power, not necessarily the most intelligent or most qualified.
the fastest way to get rid of individual rights and freedoms is to let the majority rule.

Democracy is one of the worst forms of government. That's why the Founding Fathers, who abhorred democracy, wisely gave us a republic.

Is democracy the best system?

Yes, but it still sucks, that's why there are so many pissed off people in democratic countries!!!

Yes, as long as the ruler doesn't get opressive.

But what's to keep him from getting oppressive? An elected council won't do anything against an absolute monarch.

But what's to keep him from getting oppressive? An elected council won't do anything against an absolute monarch.

There could be a system around it, but that could only be used in some cases. It would be really complex, yes, but better than representative democracy.

There could be a system around it, but that could only be used in some cases. It would be really complex, yes, but better than representative democracy.

So if it's really complex, it would get bogged down in its own weight, like a lot of [representative] democracies are today. So what's the difference? What is so bad about representative democracy?

So if it's really complex, it would get bogged down in its own weight, like a lot of [representative] democracies are today. So what's the difference? What is so bad about representative democracy?

What's so bad? 50.1% could say "yes" and get their way, leaving the other 49.9% shafted.

A Protectionist Democracy would be far better.

One where a very clear Constitution controls all Civil Rights. Well, by that I mean that everybody has complete freedom, and no official/elected official can change that.

A rule that would be necessary is one that would allow for ammendments, but only to make it more liberal. Ammendments that would endanger the rights of the people would be outright illegal, thus keeping complete civil rights as long as the nation stands.

I'm still thinking of a system that's good enough to make voting unnecessary. Of course there will be the usual scum that will want to integrate Church and State, and eliminate basic civil liberties, but that just goes with stupid people. I call them drones.

A partial Democracy is great, but a full-on one ass-fucks the minorities, and generally accepts "religion" as a good companion for government. Which, of course, it isn't. You see, that's the reason we have bibles that you're forced to swear upon in court. If Church and State were really separated, we wouldn't have to do that.

A government that holds the interests of civil rights first and foremost is best, even if it isn't a true Democracy. There are always going to be people who'll wish to strip civil rights for the benefit of the economy, and such rights should be protected at all costs. This, my friends, is why I say that a true Democracy is garbage.

What's so bad? 50.1% could say "yes" and get their way, leaving the other 49.9% shafted.

Quite true. That is why there are limits on what the majority can do. For example, the US Constitution. It describes the powers and limits of the government, and the amendments list the rights of the individual citizens. In theory can a person still have his rights removed for no reason? Sure. But it's a whole lot harder than if there were no limits. Personally, I view an absolute monarchy about the same as an elected absolute legislature.

You see, that's the reason we have bibles that you're forced to swear upon in court. If Church and State were really separated, we wouldn't have to do that.

The reason you have to swear on the bible in court, is because they know that the majority of people will not lie after they swear on the bible. It's not fool proof, but anything helps.

There could be a system around it, but that could only be used in some cases. It would be really complex, yes, but better than representative democracy.

Come on, the answer to the oppressive monarch is obvious. Indeed, we only need to look at Russia to get an idea of what happens - Revolution! Tsar gets dead!

To be honest, he wasn't so much oppressive as just stupid. He ignored the obvious indicators of unrest in the cities and made some truly staggeringly poor decisions. The simple reason for this is that he DIDN'T have advisors. He had bureaucrats presenting figures, but not experts analysing trends. He made his decisions with only a marginal grasp of what they indicated.

Now imagine a whole group of Tsars arguing over which viewpoint is correct and how best to implement it. Except, these Tsars don't have the threat of the chop, or of revolution - if they get demoted, they get a pension! For a monarch, being demoted usually means death! A much better incentive for looking to the good of your people, hmm?

The perfect system would be a Constitutional Dictatorship Republic where The aristocracy elects the rulers of small areas, these rulers hold absolute executive power but are still held in check by a constitution. The larger country made of the smaller areas would be ruled by one of the province leaders who is elected by the other province leaders. Throw in capitalism, keep it in check with a little bit of socialism, and give each ruler a cabinet to advise them and you've got a great system.

The perfect system would be a Constitutional Dictatorship Republic where The aristocracy elects the rulers of small areas, these rulers hold absolute executive power but are still held in check by a constitution. The larger country made of the smaller areas would be ruled by one of the province leaders who is elected by the other province leaders. Throw in capitalism, keep it in check with a little bit of socialism, and give each ruler a cabinet to advise them and you've got a great system.

By whom and how is the Constitution to be enforced and maintained in such a system? It is just a piece of paper unless there is some method of impeachment that is enforcable.
It would also promote nepotism to a grand scale. If you are part of the ruling family you get a province, regardless of your capabilities or desires. Why should the ruler listen to the cabinet, and how is this cabinet chosen? To many flaws and risks.

Democracy is inherently a popularity contest, hence the election of ex movie stars, or sports stars to political office. This is not a good way to run a country. It would be much better if the political offices were occupied by those best able to perform the tasks required. A meritocracy. To achieve this you have to find a way of selecting according to ability. The free market does this fairly well in the commercial world, but I do not see how to apply it to politics. So I suggest a qualified electorate making up an electoral college to select the best person for the job. This electoral college would be made up of those qualified to judge this in each area. The person responsible for the economic policies of the country should be selected by qualified economists, the person responsible for agriculture should be selected by agronomists etc. The president/leader should be selected by specialists in public realations as that is the actual job of such a person.

Not strictly a democratic issue, but...
1. Most people are not intelligent, so if all people have an equal vote, the result will always move towards the average (which, keeping in mind that the average IQ is 100, the average is not very intelligent at all).
100 is (or should be) the average. That's because that's the baseline. If we were a world of morons, their average would be 100. That world's 100 would be less than our world's 100, which in turn would be less than a World of Geniuses' 100 on the IQ scale (though the geniuses would probably have replaced IQ by something more reliable, that's not merely a measurement of how well you cope with IQ tests... :))...
At various times I've had my IQ measured (in a variety of legitimate and certified tests, albeit for fun rather than towards MENSA membership*) and I'm not proud of the fact that I've been measured at anything between 110 and 170, 'cos however much "IQability" I have, I am fully aware that I lack key basics of common sense...

The median intelligence may not be very intelligent at all, but certainly isn't low either**. I know that around half of people have (in a properly calibrated test) an IQ less than 100, but that's need not be a handicap. (May be less than. I can get so distracted by thoughts of things beyond my ability to realise. It wouldn't surprise me to if Practical people average as a lower IQ but with a higher net contribution to society.)

Anyway, the trouble with democracy is more that conflicting opinions (as much upbringing and nurture as intelligence and nature) drag the majority's political vector around through a multi-dimensional 'spectrum' in an irregular and usually lagged manner behind 'what must be done', with the occasional (due to sudden and short-term revelation of 'facts') jump to some extreme position...

What I'm wondering if you could get to work is a 'tree-like block vote' system. I've suggested something similar before (in passing) for a revamping of the NS endorsement system. Everyone has a personal vote. They may (if they wish) assign that vote to someone (anyone, within the system), basically giving them an authority based upon the number of votes they receive, plus their own. They may assign such votes to their own choice of someone (but you cannot create voting loops by assigning your vote and accumulated block to someone also 'below' you in the tree. Ultimately, the 'top of tree' candidates, who have accumulated votes and not passed them on to anyone else, get to vie for power.

You don't have to vote for a 'party leader' (or whatever equivalent there may become). If you vote for someone who (traditionally) is an MP, he'll pass on the block vote up through the 'party' ranks to the party leader. Maybe, if you still wanted MPs, the 'leader of the tree' would be able to choose (or be forced by the relative quantities of support he receives from each branch) to choose MPs from his sub-branching members (i.e. the MP you gave your vote to, if that convention still survives). The 'MP'-positioned person may trickle his vote up through the cabinet, though, who in turn support the leader of the party. In this way, you could support an 'MP' who supported the person in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's position who supports the PM, perhaps... (Or more layers.) The PM (indeed everyone) would be able to receive independant votes as well, which would allow everyone to guage whether they were personally supported, or merely supported because the grass-roots support liked the way that their representative supported the party line. If the Chancellor decides he has enough personal votes (and/or can pursuade colleagues to switch their allegances through him rather than directly to the PM) he can withdraw his support for the PM, depriving the latter of the appropriate sized block and using it himself as a rival. (Whether the PM would then become a splinter faction or switch his allegience to the former-Chancellor, in order to maintain the new-leader's lead against the other 'top of tree' leaders, would be an interesting question...)

In a way, it's a bit like stock trading, I suppose, and could see it being unstable at times. But you'd get people (at all levels) listening to what their supporters wanted (because they, especially the mid-level 'trustees' of a large number of lower-level votes) could switch their support to someone else. You'd have to be conscious of what people thought about the person you supported (assuming you're not at the top) as well, because if they fell out of favour, you could lose your influence. Better to switch to someone who you felt was in tune with your and your supporter's feelings.

Probably unworkable in real life, but I don't see anything stopping an electronically-handled version of this being used in leiu of an open-endorsement system like NS currently has. (No, not a suggestion, just a wild idea... :))

You could even (electronically/programatically managed) allow each person to split their votes and assign fractions to different people, the fractions floating up the various trees you tap into to the leader(s) at the top of the tree(s) you subscribe to... I've done some small-scale experiments, and it could work. Whether the human factor integrates well into it at all, I'm really not sure, however... ;)

(Hmmm, /me wonders if a celebrity like Darius could have become Prime Minister, had such a system been in place when he became popular, then dropped the ay after his next single was released, or something... I see flaws... Big flaws... :))


* It was once reported that MENSA and their low-intelligence counterpart organisation (DENSA?) organised a wine and cheese evening. The DENSA members brought the wine but the MENSA ones forgot the cheese. That could be apocryphal, must check snopes... :)
** - Save for in mobs. A mob's intelligence is the IQ of the lowest member divided by the number of people in it (paraphrasing... :))

[Ouch, please excuse the speeling mistooks, etc. Leaving them in, however, to show my failings... :p]

The perfect system would be a Constitutional Dictatorship Republic where The aristocracy elects the rulers of small areas, these rulers hold absolute executive power but are still held in check by a constitution. The larger country made of the smaller areas would be ruled by one of the province leaders who is elected by the other province leaders. Throw in capitalism, keep it in check with a little bit of socialism, and give each ruler a cabinet to advise them and you've got a great system.

That sounds like Nazi Germany.

What I'm wondering if you could get to work is a 'tree-like block vote' system. I've suggested something similar before (in passing) for a revamping of the NS endorsement system. Everyone has a personal vote. They may (if they wish) assign that vote to someone (anyone, within the system), basically giving them an authority based upon the number of votes they receive, plus their own. They may assign such votes to their own choice of someone (but you cannot create voting loops by assigning your vote and accumulated block to someone also 'below' you in the tree. Ultimately, the 'top of tree' candidates, who have accumulated votes and not passed them on to anyone else, get to vie for power.

Why would you assign your vote to someone else?
More importantly how frequently can you re-assign or reclaim your vote? It is either assigned for a fixed period of some reasonable duration or yu create a bureaucratic nightmare. How does power get resolved between the top few. Whoever has the most votes is dictator for a second until he has votes that were his reassigned or reclaimed by their owners.

In addition to this problem, how does this avoid the media feeding frenzy that democracy has become. It would just mean permanent electioneering.

You don't have to vote for a 'party leader' (or whatever equivalent there may become). If you vote for someone who (traditionally) is an MP, he'll pass on the block vote up through the 'party' ranks to the party leader. Maybe, if you still wanted MPs, the 'leader of the tree' would be able to choose (or be forced by the relative quantities of support he receives from each branch) to choose MPs from his sub-branching members (i.e. the MP you gave your vote to, if that convention still survives). The 'MP'-positioned person may trickle his vote up through the cabinet, though, who in turn support the leader of the party. In this way, you could support an 'MP' who supported the person in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's position who supports the PM, perhaps... (Or more layers.) The PM (indeed everyone) would be able to receive independant votes as well, which would allow everyone to guage whether they were personally supported, or merely supported because the grass-roots support liked the way that their representative supported the party line. If the Chancellor decides he has enough personal votes (and/or can pursuade colleagues to switch their allegances through him rather than directly to the PM) he can withdraw his support for the PM, depriving the latter of the appropriate sized block and using it himself as a rival. (Whether the PM would then become a splinter faction or switch his allegience to the former-Chancellor, in order to maintain the new-leader's lead against the other 'top of tree' leaders, would be an interesting question...)

And chaos ensues. There would be constant use of the threat of the withdrawl of vote blocks, and frequent implementation of this. No party is so homogeneous in beliefs that the leader could be sure ofd support to do anything. Sorry, it just is not going to work.



Probably unworkable in real life, but I don't see anything stopping an electronically-handled version of this being used in leiu of an open-endorsement system like NS currently has. (No, not a suggestion, just a wild idea... :))

If you are going to go the IT route, then simply do away with the government as a political entity. Use the NS UN type system of proposals for creating laws to be voted and allow each and every citizen to vote directly on such proposals. What benefits do the MPs parties, PMs and chancellors bring?

1. Most people are not intelligent, so if all people have an equal vote, the result will always move towards the average (which, keeping in mind that the average IQ is 100, the average is not very intelligent at all). Add to this the fact that the unintelligent masses can be swayed by a charismatic leader, and you have a dangerous situation. Witness Hitler's rise to power democratically in 1933 for example.

Wasn't it clarified in another thread that numerical IQ scores are standardized so that the peak of the scoring curve is 100 by definition? Basically, this is saying that "people are as smart as people are, innit that dumb?" EDIT: Or clarified by EBG, above.

Also, arguments along this line are tricky because we get into the area of disenfranchising those deemed "unintelligent." In the meantime, those who are complaining about the dummies wrecking the system for everyone are inevitably super-intelligent folk who know what's best for everyone, as evidenced by the fact that they answered one more question correct on an on-line quiz. They figured out that Mr. Green lives one door over from Mrs. Mauve, and that Mrs. Mauve walks her Doberman on Thursday while Dr. Gray walks his Mastiff on Mondays. Bravo! Give them two votes. Or maybe a cabinet post.

And then you also get into the sticky wicket of subjectivity. For example, I know for a fact that I'm the smartest human being in hte BosWash sprawl. Therefore, I ought to be running the show and all governmental policy ought to be much more pro-Poland.

No, sorry. Everybody votes.

"Democracy" is better than most systems, but compared to anarchism, it is still quite terrible.

"Democracy" is better than most systems, but compared to anarchism, it is still quite terrible.

Anarchism is beautiful in theory, but it's unworkable. If humans weren't so depraved, hopelessly intoxicated in sin, corrupt, selfish, immoral beings, I just might be an anarchist myself.

The reason you have to swear on the bible in court, is because they know that the majority of people will not lie after they swear on the bible. It's not fool proof, but anything helps.


Yeah, but I find it funny that most people still lie when they swear on it.

"Democracy" is better than most systems, but compared to anarchism, it is still quite terrible.
Things like anarchy and communism work wonderfully in small, tight-knit groups like families and friends. But as the group gets larger, distrust and greed begin to set in. For these larger groups constitutional representative democracy and restrained capitalism are the way to go.

yes - pure democracy is best

what the majority wants the majority should get

screw the minorities

whatever problems may arise wont stay for ever

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'

a benevolent dictator is actually the best, but


power corrupts, absalute power corrupts absalutly


yes quite right, why not allow the world to be run by a complex and equitable computer program?

then of course you have the issue of who will program the computer. You could go open source and let people from all over the world edit the code to make it fair for everyone but then you have a technocracy where the world is run primarily for the nerds ......... actually I like the sound of that =)

Not all democracy is the same.

There is representational democracy, as in the US.
There is accountable democracy as is still (but only just) in the UK.

In the representative model the people elected do so to represent those who vote for them. Absolute power is vested in the chief of the executive, and a battle ensues between the various elected parties (judiciary, senate, congress and president).

In the accountability model it is a series of checks and balances in the consitution which holds those elected to account. Those elected do not represent the electorate, though if they wish to be elected again they need to keep and eye on the electorate. Rather they vote in their own person.

In the latter case the establishment provides a series of checks and balances to the power of the executive and its chief (the prime minister). This includes an heriditory head of state, an unelected second chamber, an independent judiciary, and an elected first chamber. Sadly, this model is currently being eroded as the new Labour experiment seeks absolute power as in the US but without the cut and thrust of representational politics. A disaster as we slip into absolute dictatorship.

God help Blighty.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

-Winston Churchill

Things like anarchy and communism work wonderfully in small, tight-knit groups like families and friends. But as the group gets larger, distrust and greed begin to set in. For these larger groups constitutional representative democracy and restrained capitalism are the way to go.


ararchism as in where people just do things with no need for a system to enforce their actions sounds pretty good but thats impossible the whole idea of a society is to enforce a mind set on everybody thats why the most "fair" system would be anarchy but then you cant have stability, so its a balance really.

Communism would have worked perfectly if the whole world had gone communist at the same time. capitalism plays to the petty wants of people, it entices them. which is why communism collapsed because people in communist countries saw capitalism as "better" which it wasn't

I like our idea of Life Peers - people who make large social, economic, or cultural... my brain has just died, and I can't think of the word I want to use, but 'advancements' is closest - are probably well-enough qualified to assist in the decisions, but people who are simply born into it are not necessarily.

Personally, though, I'm an advocate of tiny-government, personal choice, and personal reponsibility (ie, Libertarian.). This does not solve all the problems, but it does mean the burden of solving the problems shifts largely onto the people involved - meaning they can actually get up and do something, instead of having to hope the massive, bloated governmental red tape machine gets around to it sometime in the next decade.

This, therefore, reduces the need of democracy - if it's up to an individual to take drugs, carry guns, or have an abortion, then there don't need to laws on the matter, they will simply fall under the blanket laws of proper conduct in medical practises, and the standard of products for sale, etc. etc.

yes - pure democracy is best

what the majority wants the majority should get

screw the minorities

whatever problems may arise wont stay for ever


That sounds really great. I mean, that's the best idea I've ever heard.

I've got an even better idea! Let's just buttfuck the minorities, and when we're finished, throw them in a damp, dark prison and forget about them.

ararchism as in where people just do things with no need for a system to enforce their actions sounds pretty good but thats impossible the whole idea of a society is to enforce a mind set on everybody thats why the most "fair" system would be anarchy but then you cant have stability, so its a balance really.

Communism would have worked perfectly if the whole world had gone communist at the same time. capitalism plays to the petty wants of people, it entices them. which is why communism collapsed because people in communist countries saw capitalism as "better" which it wasn't

Yes it was. How is it fair if I can put in, say, 8 units of work a day, and you can put in 11, yet we both get the product of 10 units of work? You should get more, and I should get less. That is one of the main flaws of Communism, ironically enough - it is astoundingly unfair.

That sounds really great. I mean, that's the best idea I've ever heard.

I've got an even better idea! Let's just buttfuck the minorities, and when we're finished, throw them in a damp, dark prison and forget about them.


wouldnt happen in this day and age

1. Most people are not intelligent, so if all people have an equal vote, the result will always move towards the average (which, keeping in mind that the average IQ is 100, the average is not very intelligent at all).

IQ tests are centered to 100. If the average person were as smart as Einstein, Einstein would have an iq of 100.

Yes it was. How is it fair if I can put in, say, 8 units of work a day, and you can put in 11, yet we both get the product of 10 units of work? You should get more, and I should get less. That is one of the main flaws of Communism, ironically enough - it is astoundingly unfair.

If you truly are only able to work 8 units, and the other person is able to work 11, then you should get the same product.

The concept is from each according to ability, to each according to need.
It's not, from each according to how much they want to work.

It is fair to me for doctors, who are generally more intelligent people than say, factory workers, to get payed the same amount per hour. They are working to their ability. Factory workers are working to their ability. Of course, in this case, the doctor also should have had all education expenses paid for.

Capitalism I would say is more unfair. Say I am a ceo, with a 1.8 bazillion dollar salary. I work 8 hours a day. There is another person, who works two jobs, one at walmart, the other at taco bell. They end up working 16 hours a day, and end up with a salary of, 30k? I can't believe that the ceo is actually working harder and therefore deserving more compensatsion. Utter bullshit to me.

The Greek philosopher I was talking about was Plato.

(My rather fanciful 'tree-block' system...)
Why would you assign your vote to someone else?Everyone always complains that "their vote doesn't count". This way it does. It's 'beyond PR' in that respect. If you really don't feel you trust anyone (not even parents, friends, neighbours) enough to use your vote wisely (either directly or by passing it on to people you are happy with them passing them on to, to the top of the chain) then you have a 'voter power' of one, yourself, and a high number of 'single vote' powers could be as significant as a low turnout at a traditional election is... It'd be true anarchy if no-one passed on their votes at all, but as soon as someone said "yeah, I trust Jim", and Jim had a power of two, you'd get an analogue (or 'digital'? :)) of party alignments springing up as others realised that their votes do matter and support their own mid/top-level candidates. (And they can support a 'stable' party through support of the members that they believe in, giving a clear indication of where the support is coming from, despite the power of the top-man (gender not implied :)).

More importantly how frequently can you re-assign or reclaim your vote? It is either assigned for a fixed period of some reasonable duration or yu create a bureaucratic nightmare. How does power get resolved between the top few. Whoever has the most votes is dictator for a second until he has votes that were his reassigned or reclaimed by their owners.I don't have all the answers. The momentary fluctuations you mention is why I mentioned it like being a stock market. Perhaps what you have to do, to be a succesful leader, is be seen to be upholding the interests of everyone slightly better than anyone else, or perhaps instead you have to be seen to be the 'least worst' representative... Human nature is what's going to cause the system to have most problems.

If you restrict it to "reassign on specific election days only" or "changes take effect 'n' days after shifts in support", then you're going to solve some problems and create others. Which is why I wouldn't mind an NS-endorsement-style system being used by this method, to see what might happen with in an unrestricted situation (some might say the current NS system is too unstable, but you tend to get large periods of stability in most regions, with only the occasional invasion, something that wouldn't have a direct analogue in the Real World (TM), unless immigration/naturalisation laws were relaxed/weakened at some point...)

And as for a beaurocratic nightmare, you could have true e-government. Of course, you'd have to have controls in place for fraud and vote-phishing... :)

In addition to this problem, how does this avoid the media feeding frenzy that democracy has become. It would just mean permanent electioneering.Maybe in some ways. Maybe not in others. If most people are happy to delgate through a 'chain', they can largely forget about switching their votes and just keep an eye on who their 'chain' of support leads through and up to. The people who convince others to trust them are going to be the main ones targetted by those trying to gain major support. Unless society prefers 'personal endorsement' of any leaders, in which case a different dynamic will emerge.

And chaos ensues. There would be constant use of the threat of the withdrawl of vote blocks, and frequent implementation of this. No party is so homogeneous in beliefs that the leader could be sure ofd support to do anything. Sorry, it just is not going to work.Worst case scenario, as I see it, is complete paralysis where nothing changes, nothing dare be done. But then as society's pressure discovers this truth, there'd be a change to someone who dare. Second worst is continually dynamic re-elections where it changes all the time, but at least following the society's whim faithfully. Given current expectations and political dynamics, I agree it wouldn't work from the off (I never meant to suggest it would be seamless) but trial and error should (depending on the amount and severity of error that can be tolerated) produce a new static/dynamic hybrid...

Well, that's my theory, and I'm sticking to it... :)

If you are going to go the IT route, then simply do away with the government as a political entity. Use the NS UN type system of proposals for creating laws to be voted and allow each and every citizen to vote directly on such proposals. What benefits do the MPs parties, PMs and chancellors bring?I mention them as useful handles to the current world. You'd have a leader of sorts. (A 'patrician', if you will.) And whether MPs and parties and the like are hard-coded into the system or not, there'd be a vested interest in creating a 'body of supporters' discussion group that could essentially look like a parliamentary or house/chamber-based system (would you invite the leading opposition leaders and their chief supporters into the main meetings? I don't know, it's pure speculation at this point...) I'm merely projecting a possible structure. You're not going to be a 'major trustee' within the top ranks of some top-man's support pyramid without expecting some indication that you are someone who should continue to be supported (and having minor disagreements with the leader on behalf of the concerns coming up through the grass-roots would increase your standing with the grass-roots, even if you don't get every petty issue supported at the top). And if you're an expert in a subject (money handling, food production, teaching) then you might expect to get a 'cabinet'-like official position as part of the deal for supporting the leader, or at least a deputy position behind the most influential person (who would prefer your influence through them than as a potential rival?)

That's one interpretation, of course, and I'm sure (I know) there are plenty of ways that I can be wrong about it... And, regarding the NSUN-style resolutions, why not give everyone 1) a personal vote, 2) a block vote proportional to personal (or pass-through) support at their own level, in all referenda-style policy judgements? Tuned/precalculated correctly, that could encourage the growth of a stable pyramid of support (or group, thereof, as you'd get many different-sized pyramids, including the 'floating' single-vote-not-assigned voters who would indicate the strength of 'voter apathy', as I've already mentioned...

Feel free to blast to bits, though... :)

yes quite right, why not allow the world to be run by a complex and equitable computer program?Reminds me of a shorrt story, where the election results (probably US, but could have been the world) were essentially calculated/shortcutted by taking thoroughly polling the comments and views of a randomly-selected individual and, based upon their opinions (but not necessarily following them, depending on whether the individual's answered indicated that he was representative or counter-representative of the nation as a whole), spewed out the result. Quickly and non-messily.

Can't remember the 'punchline' for the story. It must have had one. I can think of several (it chooses the election winner at random, it chooses the election winner most likely to keep the computer system in power, it is told who to support by a Cabal of some kind and it's all just an elaberate front, etc, etc, etc) but only the basic concept comes to mind at the moment...

Might have been by Simak (Clifford D?). He was one of the authors I was heavily reading at that time (a couple of decades ago) in the library I got that from. Probably not, though, given the absecene number of other authors I was encoutering and devouring the output of, at the time.

Putting any politics in the hands of an artificial intelligence would be dangerous. Because a truly artificial intelligence will develop it's own agenda...

No worries, Arnie will be on our side!