NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's start off first with this clarification. No countries will be named or fingered because unless there's some aliens out there with a similar governmental structure, it primarily deals with the functions of a democratic government and how human nature works inside it.

Now, at the most basic level, democracy is all about giving a voice to the masses and letting them have a say in how the country is shaped and ruled. This is the ideal that's supposed to create an involved and free people. To that effect, leaders are elected by the vote of the majority.

This is where it falls apart.

In any democracy, those who get elected into positions of power are those who WANT to get there. This could range anywhere from Tommy the lunatic to Pat the ultra fundie. Unless candidates can be ghost nominated i.e. they don't have a say whether they want to or not, this rule is the constant.

To lead is to have power. And those who want said power will be the ones to get it. This cuts down the number of potential candidates to those interested in wielding said power. Of course there is a mixture between principles, vision, etc, etc, but ultimately, it is the desire for power and it's trappings that drives them.

Ok, now that that's established, we go to the next phase. Getting elected. Senator, Congressman, President, Chief Clown, they all get into position by simply being the most popular of the rest of the candidates.

What does this mean? It's fairly simple. The average layman doesn't, and couldn't be bothered to, understand the more intricate workings of the political machine and government running. Consider. In your average population, which one would be considered to be of greater popularity? A clever exposition of a very complicated tax model that will result in long term benefits and economic improvement or a simple promise of "job security, good times and free beer"?

Good money lies on the latter.

So now we have three parts of the overall formula. A voting mechanism that rewards the most popular, people who desire power to run for positions of influence and a populace that is largely influenced by catchphrases and slogans. What happens?

From a logical standpoint, it becomes merely a matter of who is the best used car salesman. Whoever has the most friends, is the most popular and has the most screentime eventually wins.

Of course this absolutely avoids the question of what the person is really like and what he/she intends to do once in power. And with human nature being what it is, it is generally people who aren't very interested in the common man.

And democracy goes out the window. Bit by bit or wholesale depending on how many safeguards, but eventually, it goes.

So, your thoughts and analysis?

people willingly give up their power.

Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

he has a slightly differnet twist on it than I mean here, but a person who actually thinks for themselves is extremely rare. most people, myself included, will resort to paraphrasing others for large parts of their worldview. people do lip service to freedom, but they very rarely actually make use of it...and without that - it just goes away. I agree with you.

In your average population, which one would be considered to be of greater popularity? A clever exposition of a very complicated tax model that will result in long term benefits and economic improvement or a simple promise of "job security, good times and free beer"?

Good money lies on the latter.
I disagree. In my state, there is a candidate whose platform is essentially "Boobs (http://www.loony-show.com/content.php?article.853) and marijuana (http://www.lorettanall.com/gh.html)", and she couldn't even get on the ballot.

I'm not joking, by the way.

From a logical standpoint, it becomes merely a matter of who is the best used car salesman. Whoever has the most friends, is the most popular and has the most screentime eventually wins.
You forgot one very important point and probably most important point in a number of cases:

Whoever has the most MONEY.

Of course this absolutely avoids the question of what the person is really like and what he/she intends to do once in power. And with human nature being what it is, it is generally people who aren't very interested in the common man.
That might be due to the fact, that they are rich?

And democracy goes out the window. Bit by bit or wholesale depending on how many safeguards, but eventually, it goes.
Democracy gets hijacked by rich corporations/individuals who want to get richer and/or at least maintain their riches and influence.

The best democracies, IMHO, are the ones that firmly believe in a fair distribution of the country's wealth.

Here is an example:

Norway possesses the second highest GDP per capita in the world, and the highest position in the World on the Human Development Index (HDI) for the fifth consecutive year. The Norwegian economy is an example of mixed economy, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector and the electricity production. The control mechanisms over the petroleum resources is a combination of state ownership in major operators in the Norwegian fields (Statoil ca 70% in 2005, Norsk Hydro 43% in 2004) while specific taxes on oil-profits for all operators are set to 78%, finally the government controls licensing of exploration and production of fields. The country is richly endowed with natural resources: petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals. Norway has obtained one of the highest standards of living in the world, partly from petroleum production but mainly from efficient economic policies, creating a good environment for doing business. Norway has a very high employment ratio.

Democracy is, in terminology, an equally bogus concept as "the peoples republic", because the people really have no say at all in the actual political process. Which may be a good thing, but that's an entirely different discussion.

On the average, though, the process of elections and coalitions (okay, I'm talking from a European perspective) ensures that a generally centralist line of government will prevail, as the most extremist forces will not get enough votes to have representatives in a position of influence.

Those seeking power will soon find out that their quest for "greatness" collides with that of all the others in the same position, so they will have to seek forms of cooperation to achieve their goals. This may lead to some money wasting "projects" and some short term corruption, but again, elections will stop any single person from doing too great a damage.

So despite it is a money wasting system too, in the end, the result will be a lot less bad than a system that allows the government to reign with impunity.

You forgot one very important point and probably most important point in a number of cases:

Whoever has the most MONEY.

And what better way to get popular by having lots of money and promising to spread it hmm? It's still the same principle though.

I disagree. In my state, there is a candidate whose platform is essentially "Boobs (http://www.loony-show.com/content.php?article.853) and marijuana (http://www.lorettanall.com/gh.html)", and she couldn't even get on the ballot.

I'm not joking, by the way.

I may have exaggerated a bit, but the primary principle still remains. Catchphrases and easily remembered slogans win votes better than actually working plans.

Those seeking power will soon find out that their quest for "greatness" collides with that of all the others in the same position, so they will have to seek forms of cooperation to achieve their goals. This may lead to some money wasting "projects" and some short term corruption, but again, elections will stop any single person from doing too great a damage.

Not really. All it will take is for a coalition of those with sufficient power and general consensus in how to slice the pie to set the stage. After that, it's a matter of alienating the opposition from the general public, which is more often than not done by fearmongering. Or better yet, accuse the opposition of being traitors to the country.


So despite it is a money wasting system too, in the end, the result will be a lot less bad than a system that allows the government to reign with impunity.

Not really. All it will take is for the current administration to remove the safeguards and that will be that. Nobody else who comes back into power after him/her, if they don't declare themselves rulers for life, will definitely not bother to put those safeguards back.

elections will stop any single person from doing too great a damage.

since hitler, for example, was elected. election isn't safegaurd against much anything other than non-wealthy candidates.

In any democracy, those who get elected into positions of power are those who WANT to get there. This could range anywhere from Tommy the lunatic to Pat the ultra fundie.

That's what makes democracy the best deal of them all. If Tommy can't ever be elected out then you have a nation that is REALLY screwed over.

Not really. All it will take is for a coalition of those with sufficient power and general consensus in how to slice the pie to set the stage. After that, it's a matter of alienating the opposition from the general public, which is more often than not done by fearmongering. Or better yet, accuse the opposition of being traitors to the country.

Not really. All it will take is for the current administration to remove the safeguards and that will be that. Nobody else who comes back into power after him/her, if they don't declare themselves rulers for life, will definitely not bother to put those safeguards back.

Alas, in both cases, one can no longer speak of a 'democracy' since the people in power are clearly intending to stay in control for much longer than the period for which they were elected.

That's what makes democracy the best deal of them all. If Tommy can't ever be elected out then you have a nation that is REALLY screwed over.

could you clarify that? were you being sarcastic, or is there a problem with lunatics never being elected to positions of power?

That's what makes democracy the best deal of them all. If Tommy can't ever be elected out then you have a nation that is REALLY screwed over.

Tommy could declare a state of emergency if he has the proper panic groundwork set in and run on near indefinite length.

Besides, it doesn't even have to be Tommy. A continous succession of puppets or members of the coalition mentioned earlier could just replace him at each term.

could you clarify that? were you being sarcastic, or is there a problem with lunatics never being elected to positions of power?

So you think we can keep the lunatics (crappy leaders) out of office by not having the population vote?

What I am saying is that a crappy leader can pop up in any nation. Best to have a system that changes leaders every few years than take a chance of having a crappy, 50 year, dictator or Emperor. And the more people used in the selection process, the better.

So you think we can keep the lunatics (crappy leaders) out of office by not having the population vote?

What I am saying is that a crappy leader can pop up in any nation. Best to have a system that changes leaders every few years than take a chance of having a crappy, 50 year, dictator or Emperor. And the more people used in the selection process, the better.

fair enough. I feel compelled to link to this (http://www.angelfire.com/in3/theodore/opinion/articles/coulombe/monfaq.html), even though I don't agree with it. whoever wrote it does have some decent points, if not a particularly convincing or attractive thesis.

fair enough. I feel compelled to link to this (http://www.angelfire.com/in3/theodore/opinion/articles/coulombe/monfaq.html), even though I don't agree with it. whoever wrote it does have some decent points, if not a particularly convincing or attractive thesis.

The attractive points are that as long as a monarch does a good job then there is no worry.

I don't put much stock in Sobran's quote: "if voting actually changed anything, it would be illegal." Politians in democracies DO manage to get things done. (not everything done, but neither does the rest of the nations)

The part about the tyrants are usually the elected ones. You can't put a guarantee on a thing like that.

Even if my absolute, favorite choice were monarch. I wouldn't want him/her in charge for the next 50 years. (I imagine it can be quite stressful work and normal people can go quite mad if too much stress is endured)

Nope. When your shift is over, clock your ass out and go home. We need fresh minds with fresh ideas and not the risk of maddening stagnation.

Now, at the most basic level, democracy is all about giving a voice to the masses and letting them have a say in how the country is shaped and ruled. This is the ideal that's supposed to create an involved and free people. To that effect, leaders are elected by the vote of the majority.

This is where it falls apart.

Democracy is about more than just 'the largest mob rules'. Most modern nations are effectively run by bureacracies, with elected officials providing the direction that they campaigned on. (And if they're doing the opposite, and getting re-elected, part of the problem is the democratic mechanisms of said nation...)

If leaders aren't elected by the vote of the majority (and in many democratic systems, that isn't necessarily the case either, particularly in 'first past the post' systems), then some other less desirable method is used to determine who provides focus and direction to the bureaucracies that run our nation-states.

I don't see where things are falling apart yet. (In your analogy, I mean.)

In any democracy, those who get elected into positions of power are those who WANT to get there. This could range anywhere from Tommy the lunatic to Pat the ultra fundie. Unless candidates can be ghost nominated i.e. they don't have a say whether they want to or not, this rule is the constant.

To lead is to have power. And those who want said power will be the ones to get it. This cuts down the number of potential candidates to those interested in wielding said power. Of course there is a mixture between principles, vision, etc, etc, but ultimately, it is the desire for power and it's trappings that drives them.

This is true of any governmental system. Those who move to positions of leadership are those who want to be there, usually for their own purposes, or the interests of a larger group, whether it be democracy or dictatorship. What differs is the mechanic which puts those people into power. At the very least democracies provide a 'seal of approval' by a majority demographic of the nationstate, and in most cases lead a party of individuals which have agreed on a set of compromises. Very rarely will one person completely dominate an entire nation based on his/her particular views. This person needs backing, and in most nations that requires party support.

A non-democratic scenario means that in order to get into power, you have to do so through violent means, or you put someone into power who just doesn't want to be there, and probably isn't qualified, which in my view is worse. Better to reform the democratic mechanisms that put Tommy the Lunatic into power, or at the very least, provide a way to remove him once his lack of sanity becomes obvious.

Ok, now that that's established, we go to the next phase. Getting elected. Senator, Congressman, President, Chief Clown, they all get into position by simply being the most popular of the rest of the candidates.

What does this mean? It's fairly simple. The average layman doesn't, and couldn't be bothered to, understand the more intricate workings of the political machine and government running. Consider. In your average population, which one would be considered to be of greater popularity? A clever exposition of a very complicated tax model that will result in long term benefits and economic improvement or a simple promise of "job security, good times and free beer"?

Good money lies on the latter.

Definitely a problem with democracy, no doubt. Russian style mob revolutions everytime a Monarch or Dictator doesn't give them 'job security, good times and free beer' is hardly preferable however. Again, it all depends on how the democratic mechanisms function in a particular nation. After all, people don't need to understand macro-economics or the nuance of every decision, which is part of the reason we elect representatives.

So now we have three parts of the overall formula. A voting mechanism that rewards the most popular, people who desire power to run for positions of influence and a populace that is largely influenced by catchphrases and slogans. What happens?

From a logical standpoint, it becomes merely a matter of who is the best used car salesman. Whoever has the most friends, is the most popular and has the most screentime eventually wins.

Of course this absolutely avoids the question of what the person is really like and what he/she intends to do once in power. And with human nature being what it is, it is generally people who aren't very interested in the common man.

And democracy goes out the window. Bit by bit or wholesale depending on how many safeguards, but eventually, it goes.

All democracies do, is provide legitimacy to groups of people to control the trappings of state for a limited time by requiring that they have a certain endorsement from the populace. Any other notion of democracy is quaint, and unrealistic. It is still far preferable to have an elected representative change from time to time, than to have a hereditary ruler without restraints, or to worry about a power struggle every time it comes to decide who the next dictator is going to be.

If anything, your analogy supports the continuation of democracy to keep the 'best used car salesman' on top. Nothing supports that anyone would want to discontinue this model, particularly when it seems to be working for the people who want to put themselves in power.

Democracy as an ideal, and in practice is generally a good idea. It's not without its flaws. Better to fix the flaws in the system, than to discard the whole practice; the alternatives are worse.

Just answering the Thread Title here...

No.

...

Of course this absolutely avoids the question of what the person is really like and what he/she intends to do once in power. And with human nature being what it is, it is generally people who aren't very interested in the common man.

And democracy goes out the window. Bit by bit or wholesale depending on how many safeguards, but eventually, it goes.

So, your thoughts and analysis?

I found this part of your very reasonable thesis particularly interesting.

People who are "interested in the common man" are generally not very good company. They make a very good first impression, having a joke with your kids or offering to help cook dinner for instance, but it isn't long (a matter of hours) before they're telling you how you should care for the herbs in your window-box, or offering to program your tivo for you. They are, in short, busybodies. They'd be quite happy to live your life for you, in the few minutes they have spare between living their own.

Even more succinctly: people who are interested in the common people are not very common. Those who seek only common interests with you are either autistic or trying to sell your something.

Almost everyone considers 'the commonality' (that which we all share) something to be opposed or risen above.

Essentially, though, I agree. Democracy sucks: it's had many chances, in many different forms, and it has sucked and is sucking.

The next thing I'd like to see tried is Monarchy by Lottery. :-|

Almost everyone considers 'the commonality' (that which we all share) something to be opposed or risen above.

I don't think that's necessarily true. well, in this country it is, but I've had people tell me when I've said things like that, that americans really *do* have a much stronger sense of independance and lack of group identity than most other people. again, I don't think that the majority of the world thinks this...though I agree that the majority of americans very well might.

Just answering the Thread Title here...

No.

Please elaborate.

And you're wrong :p

Please elaborate.

And you're wrong :p

you're never wrong if you say something often enough and in large enought font. (which, incidentally, is part of why he's wrong)

you're never wrong if you say something often enough and in large enought font. (which, incidentally, is part of why he's wrong)

So, yea, I stand by my previous statement.

I think humanity might be doomed to failure. Democracy, if practised by a hypothetical better-than-human species could function very well.

I don't think that's necessarily true. well, in this country it is, but I've had people tell me when I've said things like that, that americans really *do* have a much stronger sense of independance and lack of group identity than most other people. again, I don't think that the majority of the world thinks this...though I agree that the majority of americans very well might.

Well, I'm an Aussie, but I don't think we're that different from Americans. We are really subjects of Capitalism, while participating in Democracy. Our opportunities, our ambitions, our values are defined in relation to a society which is regulated by money first, the rule of law second. Law says "thou shall not" but capital says "pay the price, it's yours." A free people are regulated more by the lack of money than the fear of punishment, now that so many things are possible as to dwarf what is prohibited.

I'm just saying, wouldn't it be fun if for three years Claude Mange, a naturalized citizen won the Presidency, with a Cabinet of a dozen random folks, of whom one went to jail for drug possession and another retired to give birth? If Claude Mange bent all of the governmental power vested in him to achieve his lifelong dream of allowing all people and household pets to attain the power of flight?

And then the next year Johann Smith, a paranoid hermit, was forcibly incarcerated in the Oval Office, refusing to talk to his randomly selected cabinet, and offering no instructions other than "Shut up! Everybody, stop talking now!!!" Presumably the cabinet would have a round of arm-wrestles to decide government policy.

And then Samantha Clark, a nice-looking middle-manager from Ohio, had to decide whether "Shut up! Everybody stop talking now!!!" was a Presidential decree, and binding on future presidents? Did she have to apply to the randomly selected Congress to permit speech in the administration of government? Or was it a whole year of smiling at the cameras and losing arm-wrestles for her?

Yeah. One year terms. It would be more fun if the President was in a mad rush to make the world turn out right.

Anyone of legal age, not currently serving time. Ex-criminals would be eligible. The mentally incompetent would be eligible. It would not be optional - if selected, Presidents must serve. After serving, Presidents get a huge pension, like billions per year, to reduce the corruption factor.

I still think it would work. "Random person off street" = "best President since Lincoln" > 50%

EDIT: Yes, I'm drunk. It happens.

EDIT (2): I've even got a cool name for my favourite system: democrazy!

I think humanity might be doomed to failure. Democracy, if practised by a hypothetical better-than-human species could function very well.

It wouldn't be democracy then. It would be theocracy!

people willingly give up their power.



he has a slightly differnet twist on it than I mean here, but a person who actually thinks for themselves is extremely rare. most people, myself included, will resort to paraphrasing others for large parts of their worldview. people do lip service to freedom, but they very rarely actually make use of it...and without that - it just goes away. I agree with you.

Well, it's not that self-aware thinkers are rare. They're just rare in certain circumstances. If you get a strong middle class, you get an aware democratic movement. That's why when dictators establish stable economies, they tend to see rebellions and revolutionary movements because all of a sudden, they've got citizens who realize that they suck.

France had this in pre-war France right up until the start of WWII (without the bloody revolution) and Latin America saw it all threw the 70's and 80's. This is also why terrorists today tend to come from the middle class. They've been "educated" to believe that America causes all their problems (to be sure, we have a lot to do with their problems, but obviously, there's more to it than just us).

If you have a middle class you get either democracy or civil-war. If you have a middle class and democracy, but then loose the middle class, you get Fascism.

The OP is right on the money. We have rational ignorance on the part of the masses and a rent-seeking interest on the part of those who push the policies through, such as the politicians whose power is both means and end, the lobbyists, and the special interest groups. The trick to gaining power in a democracy, thus, is to be able to fool the ignorant populace and to appease those who desire the monopoly of force that the government possesses. You therefore end up with people consenting to policies that, otherwise, they would not voluntarily consent to, but with the apparatus of government and its powers of force the rent-seekers are able to become parasites on a nation. It's just a glorified tyranny.

I'm not entirely sure the objections against democracy raised by Non Aligned States cannot be equally applied to any political system. While democracy surely involves the people more directly than any other government system that I know of, all government systems must take the people into account if they want to stay in power. As Machiavelli said, "Men must either be caressed or else annihilated". The support of the people is crucial, both to getting in power and to keeping power. Or, if you happen to actually have the people's best interests at heart (as every good ruler should), then obviously the people are of extreme importance.

The face that people will choose a candidate based on mere appearances (i.e. "Good times and beer!" VS. "Complicated Tax Model") is based upon an apathetic, lazy populace. The question here is, can we educate people enough to make them see what's really good for them? The Federalist Papers makes it rather clear that the Founding Fathers of America only thought this system would work if the populace was both educated and virtuous. In fact, they shied away from using the word "democracy" which they equated with mob rule (as it has been, classically, since the time of Plato). This brings me to my next point, which is

Democracy is rather vague, isn't it? Without naming any current regimes today, most countries at the very least pay lip service to "Democracy" and good portion of them make some attempt (however feeble) to incorporate it into their government. I don't think we can simply dismiss democracy altogether, since one form of "democracy" is likely to radically differ from another form of "democracy". Whether one form works is largely dependant on a number of factors, like the size of the population involved, the history of the population, the amount of resources and their distribution, etc. We can perhaps argue that a particular brand of democracy is a failure, but to argue that democracy itself is flawed is, IMHO, far too sweeping.

For that matter, let's just assume we've agreed democracy was a dangerous, archaic political experiment that is best abandoned. What do we replace it with? What system is better at achieving the goals of a society? For that matter, what should be the goals of a society? I think the latter question has a lot to do with what system of government we think is best.

since hitler, for example, was elected. election isn't safegaurd against much anything other than non-wealthy candidates.
No, Hitler was not elected. Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor.

Please let the myth that Hitler was elected die the death it so richly deserves.

No, Hitler was not elected. Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor.

Please let the myth that Hitler was elected die the death it so richly deserves.

Nevertheless, the NSDAP did have a (huge) plurality in the Reichstag, far more than any other party. In effect, he had won the Reichstag elections, to which the Chancellor is responsible to.

Well, I think Democracy is an idea that's time is running out... Multi-Party politics was an system that was needed at about 200 hundred years ago to take over from Monarchies.. But like a Monarchy*, it's time has come to an end (at least in it's practised format)..

We need a new system.. Unfortunately the world is so dumbed down that it's difficult to see where the level that philosophical thought will come from..

*Monarchies, please note are "elected" officials who didn't have a choice in the matter of leadership.. But they were groomed to (mostly) responsible leadership from the time they were born. Clearly with that much "investment" you don't change officials out every few years..

A Representative Republic (not a pure democracy) is the best form of government that we know of. It's not perfect. It's vulnerable to ignorance and apathy on the part of the voters. And it requires Checks and Balances to keep a leader from becoming too powerful after he's elected. But we haven't yet found anything better.

democracy is a good idea but not the way its implemented and used

Please elaborate.

Alright, if I must.
IMHO, you have far too little faith in the wisedom of the Comman Man. I'll admit that not everyone on this Planet on ours has the Knowledge, or indeed the Capability to understand everything about the Sphere of Politics.
In fact, there are some that just don't care.

But they WILL begin to care as soon as some Hot-Shot Politican begins meddiling with this "Common Man's" Affairs. Then he (or she) will get involved and get the know how he needs to vote "Smart". So, come the next election, he will vote against the the guy who getting in his way. Course, if the guy still wins the Common Man will just have to put up with it, or cede from the Country his living in.

But the fact is, it works. And it works because people who have experienced it know its right, and most will fight to save it if it is ever threatened.
That's the best part of the West's deepest held beliefs, they're held pretty deeply.

you're never wrong if you say something often enough and in large enought font. (which, incidentally, is part of why he's wrong)

:mp5: :upyours: :sniper: :gundge: I R RIGHT FOOL.

:p

Nevertheless, the NSDAP did have a (huge) plurality in the Reichstag, far more than any other party. In effect, he had won the Reichstag elections, to which the Chancellor is responsible to.
No, the Chancellor was responsible to the President. The President chose the Chancellor.

"Democracy can't work. Mathematicians, peasants, and animals, that's all there is — so democracy, a theory based on the assumption that mathematicians and peasants are equal, can never work. Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group." --Scar Gordon

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?" --Lazarus Long

Democracy is about more than just 'the largest mob rules'. Most modern nations are effectively run by bureacracies, with elected officials providing the direction that they campaigned on. (And if they're doing the opposite, and getting re-elected, part of the problem is the democratic mechanisms of said nation...)

If leaders aren't elected by the vote of the majority (and in many democratic systems, that isn't necessarily the case either, particularly in 'first past the post' systems), then some other less desirable method is used to determine who provides focus and direction to the bureaucracies that run our nation-states.

I don't see where things are falling apart yet. (In your analogy, I mean.)

And how do these officials get elected? By being the most popular of course. The only difference is the amount of influence that they wield once in power. And in electoral voting mechanisms, the rule of popularity still applies.

You don't have to be smart, patriotic, or even remotely interested in the well being of the nation. Just popular enough to make people overlook your negative points or be good enough to hide them.


This is true of any governmental system. Those who move to positions of leadership are those who want to be there, usually for their own purposes, or the interests of a larger group, whether it be democracy or dictatorship. What differs is the mechanic which puts those people into power. At the very least democracies provide a 'seal of approval' by a majority demographic of the nationstate, and in most cases lead a party of individuals which have agreed on a set of compromises. Very rarely will one person completely dominate an entire nation based on his/her particular views. This person needs backing, and in most nations that requires party support.

And the party is of course, generally composed of people also interested in themselves than their constituents. That means even if you compromise a bit, if you can establish a cadre of elite for those who matter, their support will fall in behind you.

And of course, for those with problematic morals can be removed by the usual political tricks and scandal raising. In a survival of the fittest, it's generally the most ruthless, and most power hungry, that get to the top of the heap.


Better to reform the democratic mechanisms that put Tommy the Lunatic into power, or at the very least, provide a way to remove him once his lack of sanity becomes obvious.

And how to reform it? The only way to do so is with executive and/or parliamentary/congressional support. And those in such positions are unlikely to desire a change that could threaten their power base.


Definitely a problem with democracy, no doubt. Russian style mob revolutions everytime a Monarch or Dictator doesn't give them 'job security, good times and free beer' is hardly preferable however.

I never claimed monarchies or dictatorships were better. I just said that democracy is an ideal doomed to failure. If I have a better idea for a governmental system, you'll be the first to know.


Again, it all depends on how the democratic mechanisms function in a particular nation. After all, people don't need to understand macro-economics or the nuance of every decision, which is part of the reason we elect representatives.


But the problem is that if the common people don't understand the basics of the truth behind the decisions however, it makes them very easy to fool. And representatives aren't always there for the interests of the common people.


All democracies do, is provide legitimacy to groups of people to control the trappings of state for a limited time by requiring that they have a certain endorsement from the populace. Any other notion of democracy is quaint, and unrealistic.

Which, given the outline I have stated, makes democracy a sham.


It is still far preferable to have an elected representative change from time to time, than to have a hereditary ruler without restraints, or to worry about a power struggle every time it comes to decide who the next dictator is going to be.

Perhaps, but the best form of population control is one without constant upheaval and one that provides them with an illusion that they have control over their lives.

That way, you don't have to give true control. The populace will hand it over.

And besides, once the mechanisms of government are firmly established, there will be a development of a cadre of the elite. That means that even if a new face will replace the old, humans being mortal and all that, they will be of an extremely exclusive "caste" and indoctrinated in the ways of ensureing that the power remains in that "caste"


If anything, your analogy supports the continuation of democracy to keep the 'best used car salesman' on top. Nothing supports that anyone would want to discontinue this model, particularly when it seems to be working for the people who want to put themselves in power.

Best used car salesman doesn't mean honest salesman. Given historical precedent, most salesmen who do get to the top do it by screwing over a lot of people without them even realizing it. Democracies aren't any different.

Most people have this illusion that democracies are supposed to be the best governmental system because it ensures that the people won't be tyranized or extorted by their government. But that isn't true at all.


Democracy as an ideal, and in practice is generally a good idea. It's not without its flaws. Better to fix the flaws in the system, than to discard the whole practice; the alternatives are worse.

The problem is fixing the flaws. Without periodic cleansing at the upper echolons of society across the political, economic and social regions, the elite will recreate monopolies of power and start the process all over again.

It would not be optional - if selected, Presidents must serve. After serving, Presidents get a huge pension, like billions per year, to reduce the corruption factor.


There was a curious idea that was proposed once. People who were selected to serve in a presidency had all their worldly goods confiscated and turned into state property, tied to the national economy. Living needs were taken care of the state, but he was allowed no form of income. With fixed tax rates, if a president screwed up the economy, he came out of office broke. If he made the country come out with a surplus, he came out of office richer.

I didn't analyze it extensively, but it seemed a rather interesting idea.

As long as most men keep a rifle, democracy - at least in the sense of 'popular government' - wont go anywhere anytime soon.

The face that people will choose a candidate based on mere appearances (i.e. "Good times and beer!" VS. "Complicated Tax Model") is based upon an apathetic, lazy populace. The question here is, can we educate people enough to make them see what's really good for them?

Unfortunately, if given opportunity, most of the population would choose the lazy and apathetic state as politics do not directly affect them in an immediate and identifiable manner.

But they WILL begin to care as soon as some Hot-Shot Politican begins meddiling with this "Common Man's" Affairs. Then he (or she) will get involved and get the know how he needs to vote "Smart". So, come the next election, he will vote against the the guy who getting in his way. Course, if the guy still wins the Common Man will just have to put up with it, or cede from the Country his living in.

You missed the part of the best used car salesman didn't you?

And how do these officials get elected? By being the most popular of course... *snipped* .

Democracy is far from perfect, and I agree that the notion is almost religiously worshipped. I tend not to look at Democracy as 'the ideal government', but rather, as a means of non-violent political resolution. In any nation, there will be those who float to the top of the social structure and use their influence for their betterment. Democracy, at the very least, involves the general populace in the process. They want their piece of the pie as much as the people on top. Democracy helps ensure that the citizens of a particular nation are better off than serfs.

Generally, I disagree with the notion that it's 'an ideal doomed to failure'. It's been working relatively well for over two centuries, and if politicians want to be re-elected, they generally need to be re-electable. Particular democracies may fall, but I doubt the notion will fall by the wayside. That particular genie is way out of the bottle.

I don’t know as it’s doomed to failure. It’s just irritating to be a minority.

Generally, I disagree with the notion that it's 'an ideal doomed to failure'. It's been working relatively well for over two centuries, and if politicians want to be re-elected, they generally need to be re-electable. Particular democracies may fall, but I doubt the notion will fall by the wayside. That particular genie is way out of the bottle.

When you consider that democracy was originally designed to prevent tyranny over the masses, it doesn't really do that very much does it? I mean, during the stewardship of democracy, we've seen internment camps, detention without charge, torture, slavery, etc, etc all across the globe.

Over time, it seems that any form of governmental system eventually decays into a tyranny of sorts.