• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you believe in Democracy?

Do you believe in Democracy?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 24 55.8%

  • No.

    Votes: 14 32.6%

  • I hate the government.

    Votes: 5 11.6%
  • Total voters
    43
Amadeus said:
I notice that some people on the board do not support democracy, so I was curious to see what the overall opinion is.
Click to expand...

Not just no, but heck no. Votes should be weighted by the knowledge of the voter with respect to the entire matter at hand, regardless of whether it's citizens selecting a president or a family choosing what's for dinner.
 
Mathematician said:
Not just no, but heck no. Votes should be weighted by the knowledge of the voter with respect to the entire matter at hand
Click to expand...
Might sound appealing from an idealistic standpoint, but how on earth would you go about determining such a thing for all eligible voters? Can you even begin to fathom the bureacratic nightmare that task would require?
 
a351 said:
Might sound appealing from an idealistic standpoint, but how on earth would you go about determining such a thing for all eligible voters? Can you even begin to fathom the bureacratic nightmare that task would require?
Click to expand...

It's easy. Just let white, male landowners vote. They're the most informed.
 
a351 said:
Might sound appealing from an idealistic standpoint, but how on earth would you go about determining such a thing for all eligible voters? Can you even begin to fathom the bureacratic nightmare that task would require?
Click to expand...

Seeking only those who understand the topic well, filtering can be done efficiently in stages. For example, I know you don't understand mathematics well if you can't even get past arithmetic or elementary algebra. Other topics can be handled similarly. Since voting begins at 18, it would be reasonable to prepare people for the voting qualifications in high school.
 
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with your average voter.

If you disagree, dig up Churchill and argue with him. He said it, and he wasn't half right when he did. Wisdom of ages in that sentence.
 
JayDubya said:
Democracy is terrible, that's why we we're supposed to have a constitutional republic. It modifies the form, mainly by restricting its worst abuses.

In practice, however, we're ignoring the rule of law and devolving into a lower form of government - a democracy.
Click to expand...

good post!

a republican form of government is the highest form of government, ........and the hardest to maintain
 
spud_meister said:
It's easy. Just let white, male landowners vote. They're the most informed.
Click to expand...

I sincerely wish more people would focus on becoming well informed. The key to decision making lies in attention to detail and quality analysis.
 
Apparently there's a few who don't understand what the consequences of living in a "true democracy" would be like. NOT GOOD!
 
Amadeus said:
I notice that some people on the board do not support democracy, so I was curious to see what the overall opinion is.
Click to expand...

As Gandhi said of Western Civilization, I think it would be a very good idea.
 
kenc said:
It kills me how people fear the "rule by majority" but just love the "rule by elite minority" that we have now. You think because you have a vote every 2 or 4 years that you have a say in how your life is governed? Is Obama really doing what people expected of him? Change? Far from it. Did GWB really do what the people expected of him? Far from it. Politician's have no need to do what is in the best interest of the people when so many moneyed interests have much better options for them and can get them re-elected as well. The only thing that can bring our governments back to doing what is best for the people is direct democracy. If people don't like that then I really think we should consider not even having voting rights and just let the moneyed interests decide who governs. We're pretty much there anyway, so why do they need our votes? Maybe just to validate a corrupt system?
Click to expand...

Well said.
I doubt that democracy can survive party politics. You vote for someone to represent the party you favour, not someone to represent your interests. If those two are the same, well, maybe you should be running for office.
 
I do when it works, but I'd rather believe in our republic.
 
spud_meister said:
I dunno, seems to me most of the repressive regimes in the world have been republics.
Click to expand...

Dunno, Spud...

Here's the book definition: Democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives.

Think about that. Every time a minority group vied for any political power...and there are a lot of minority groups...what do you think that they would have to happen for them to be recognized or gain any power?

If you think Special Interests can buy government now...think of how they could really do damage.

But really...if you think it through, a pure democracy is nothing less than "mob rule". As the saying goes...When a lynching occurs, the democratic majority is just exercising its will upon the democratic minority. The trick to surviving in a "democracy" is to always agree with the majority.
 
What do you mean by "democracy," exactly.

Hopefully, no one here has ever lived in one. Many of The Founders found the concept repulsive. After all, a gang rape is a democracy.

Are you referring to a democratic republic?

This is a serious question, as I find that the term "democracy" is very often misunderstood.
 
Amadeus said:
I notice that some people on the board do not support democracy, so I was curious to see what the overall opinion is.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't support a pure democracy, which is essentially nothing more than mob rule.
 
Amadeus said:
I notice that some people on the board do not support democracy, so I was curious to see what the overall opinion is.
Click to expand...

anonymous polls are worthless

mob rule sucks
 
I'm a "Republican" through and through. I believe that Democracy can work very well, and often does, when, and only when, it is tempered in some fashion with representative checks and balances.

That being said, however; I am not wholly against authoritarian government either. Pragmatic historical reality would seem to suggest that there is a time and a place for dictatorial oversight and repression just like anything else in this world.

Democratic societies can often have a tendency to lack the political will and cohesion necessary to act decisively when faced with more extreme circumstances.
 
spud_meister said:
I dunno, seems to me most of the repressive regimes in the world have been republics.
Click to expand...

You should check out the election rates of the more heinous rulers in the history of the world in "free" elections.

Hitler's was somewhere around 97%, I believe.

I think I'd qualify that as democratic.
 
Gipper said:
You should check out the election rates of the more heinous rulers in the history of the world in "free" elections.

Hitler's was somewhere around 97%, I believe.

I think I'd qualify that as democratic.
Click to expand...

wat

Hitler and the Nazi's never got more than 38% of the vote for the Reichstag.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
wat

Hitler and the Nazi's never got more than 38% of the vote for the Reichstag.
Click to expand...

Correct. The Right doesn't like the fact to be known that an enormous minority is capable of subverting a democracy because it would be a reflection on them.......................
 
Bonzai said:
The Right doesn't like the fact to be known that an enormous minority is capable of subverting a democracy because it would be a reflection on them.......................
Click to expand...


Actually, I don't thin-


............

Yeah, sure, okay.
 
Gipper said:
You should check out the election rates of the more heinous rulers in the history of the world in "free" elections.

Hitler's was somewhere around 97%, I believe.

I think I'd qualify that as democratic.
Click to expand...

(grin!) I forget which, but either Kim Il Sung or Enver Hoxha was once elected with over 100% of the eligible vote.
They were both incumbents, though- I don't think Hitler was able to pull that off, given that he didn't need to be re-elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom