• 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
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.

Precisely my point. If there was a strong monarch in Germany, Hitler would never have risen to power. Republicanism is the problem.
 
I notice that some people on the board do not support democracy, so I was curious to see what the overall opinion is.

There was research a few years back indicating the American democratic system was destined for failure. I think it had to do with voters just being bumb.

I'll post some references when I get to a pc
 
Representative democracy - NO
Direct democracy - YES
 
So, sifting through these responses sure has been illuminating. I think I now understand how governments can get away with the crap they do. It's painfully obvious how GWB could easily get the Patriot Act through Congress. But hey, we voted for it, albeit indirectly.

I encourage everyone to stop thinking about democracy as anarchy. The practical application of direct democracy is through what is called participatory democracy. Here the people still democratically elect representatives but they also have to power of referendums and initiatives that serve no use other than to hold their politicians accountable to the people.

I think the truth is, most governments are scared to death of participatory democracy because of this holding politicians accountable to the people and not to the special interests, the Fed, etc. So, enter the spin doctors to create as much FUD as possible with this mob rule stuff and voila! the people will accept anything the minority ruling class do as long as they don't end up with majority rule. I think I am starting to see a trend here: WMDs, terrorists, mob rule... Don't worry, our concerned politicians will make everything right us, and they don't even need to consult us because they are superior to us. Trust them.
 
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.
You'll excuse me if I scoff at the notion that a national database categorizing every eligible voter on the basis of topical literacy could be created or managed in an efficient or objective manner.

Here's the problem. A hamfisted educational standard doesn't take into account actual subject matter expertise. A close relative of mine aced the math portion of his college placement exam, yet hasn't the slightest grasp of finance or the economy in general. To get an accurate assessment of true knowledge on individual topics, one would literally have to have a personal q&a with every potential voter, with the questions being uniformly accepted as an accurate and objective measure of knowledge. This would likely strip away the weight of many of our senior citizens and those with a casual interest in politics but a vested interest in particular swing issues. A nightmarish proposition with even worse effects.
 
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.......................

that's really silly. we don't like appeals to mediocrity and pandering to the emotionally driven being used to subvert our constitutional rights
 
Tough question as democracy can often times boil down to "mob rule" can't it?

Isn't there some kind of quote about democracy being not unlike two lions and one lamb deciding what's for lunch that day?

Only in the mind of the far right which have an almost instinctive loathing for the American people and a snobbish and elitist mindset that disparages and demeans average citizens. They know they are a minority and they know they can never achieve their goals through normal means so they rant and rail and do everything they can to demean our system with names like MOBS and SHEEPLE and other right wing nonsense. Its really very very sad.
 
democracy is the most vile form of government--James Madison

John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they (Republicans) have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us." --john adams
 
(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.

I think the Kims all hung out comfortably in the nineties as well.
 
Representative democracy - NO
Direct democracy - YES

Sure, lets have laws pertaining to science voted on and enacted by the majority who are incapable of comprehending the complexities of it and are un-informed for the most part on anything actually related to the subject. Just leave it to the them to base their decisions upon biased reporting, emotionality and self-interest (greed).

Oh, wait, we already have that problem under representative democracy also, and not just in science related fields.
 
Direct democracy? Absolutely not, it doesn't work. A democratic republic like we have in the U.S.? Sure.
 
Precisely my point. If there was a strong monarch in Germany, Hitler would never have risen to power. Republicanism is the problem.

Ah, but Monarchies/dictatorships have their own problems. Well strong and the most efficient, they rely upon the knowledge and benevolence of one or a few. Is there any actual proof that those two necessities for a monarch/dictator have been common traits of the breed throughout history?

Perhaps the 5 "wise" Emperors of Rome might serve as a positive example, they are just 5 out of how many throughout time? What is the historical ratio of "good" monarchs/dictators to bad? It's kind of like going to Vegas, yes, you can win sometimes, but the odds are stacked against you.
 
Its interesting the amount of opposition to direct democracy since it has actually never actually been tried in a national government. Every other form of government that has been tried has been proven to have many flaws.
 
Ah, but Monarchies/dictatorships have their own problems. Well strong and the most efficient, they rely upon the knowledge and benevolence of one or a few. Is there any actual proof that those two necessities for a monarch/dictator have been common traits of the breed throughout history?

Perhaps the 5 "wise" Emperors of Rome might serve as a positive example, they are just 5 out of how many throughout time? What is the historical ratio of "good" monarchs/dictators to bad? It's kind of like going to Vegas, yes, you can win sometimes, but the odds are stacked against you.

I live under a monarchy, it's working pretty well.
 
I believe in Democracy. I also believe in a thing called love

 
Democracy needs to be curtailed.
 
An absolute Monarchy or a limited Monarchy?

Limited constitutional monarchy, I'm Australian. Works better than a republic because the head of state is removed from the political process and is able to make objective decisions when required, but when not required is invisible to the political process.
 
Limited constitutional monarchy, I'm Australian. Works better than a republic because the head of state is removed from the political process and is able to make objective decisions when required, but when not required is invisible to the political process.

How would such have prevented Hitler from rising? For that matter, other than popular influence of the voters, assuming media cooperation, what real power does the Queen have?
 
How would such have prevented Hitler from rising? For that matter, other than popular influence of the voters, assuming media cooperation, what real power does the Queen have?

Well, imagine at the end of WW1, instead of getting the Weimar Republic, Germany had instead become a constitutional monarch, with a legislature to temper Kaiser Wilhelms idiocy. Things would probably have turned out better.
 
Well, imagine at the end of WW1, instead of getting the Weimar Republic, Germany had instead become a constitutional monarch, with a legislature to temper Kaiser Wilhelms idiocy. Things would probably have turned out better.

From that point of view, I guess it might have some validity.

When I saw your first post, I thought you were not really a centrist but a crown loyalist who wanted to restore actual political power to the crown.
 
From that point of view, I guess it might have some validity.

When I saw your first post, I thought you were not really a centrist but a crown loyalist who wanted to restore actual political power to the crown.

My first post was more trolling than anything else. :lol:
 
I see from this thread that most people really don't want to be involved in the decision making that affects their lives. It makes me wonder if we are not finally ready for some form of World Government. How would we like a world government to be? Dictator? Monarch? Or should we just let the US government be the world government? If we let the US government be the world government, then we can finally stop voting and just let Wall St. decide what is best for all of us. I pledge allegiance to the logo, of the Goldman Sachs hegemony....

Another idea I had awhile ago was to finally stop the charade and just privatize the US government, and turn it into US Government, Inc. As a private, for profit, institution it can sell its services to generate the revenue it needs. It then is only responsible to do what is in the best interest of its shareholders. And if you want a say in how you are governed you only have to buy enough shares of US Government, Inc, to get your way. If not, sit back and let US Government, Inc. decide what is the best use for you. By the way, how's that for all you free market fanatics?

Maybe all governments could follow the US and privatize. Through the magic of free market capitalism we will eventually end up with World Government, Inc.
 
I see from this thread that most people really don't want to be involved in the decision making that affects their lives.
There are plenty of local issues (at least here there are) that are decided by popular vote. Even being local, most people can't understand all the consequences. At the national level it would be almost impossible for people to be able to see the other person's point of view to try and come to a consensus. The only way that can really work is for our representatives (elected by popular vote!) to negotiate with other representatives to come to an agreement.

You like the business view? Here is it: Our lawyers negotiate with their lawyers to forge a viable contract except in this case it's not just two or three parties involved, it's fifty to a hundred of them, depending on how divided the various states are on the issue. I agree that corporate influence is unduly weighted and I'd like to see that changed. On the other hand, organizations like AARP have political sway, too, and I wouldn't want to see it short-changed in the process - so where can we draw a line to make that work? How do you allow a citizens group of seniors but disallow a citizens group of business owners? I don't see how that's possible because you can't really distinguish between them by any objective standard unless you start excluding certain specific groups, which is at best an extremely slippery slope to start down. I don't like it anymore than you but until we can somehow resolve it this is the best solution we have at the present time.
 
Back
Top Bottom