• 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!

Can there ever be too much democracy

K

Kate

In any country?

I believe mostly not, but sometimes the people can be wrong or not know what they are getting into. What are your guys' opinions?
 
Kate said:
In any country?

I believe mostly not, but sometimes the people can be wrong or not know what they are getting into. What are your guys' opinions?
Click to expand...

There can absolutely be too much democracy. It's called populism, demagogery and mob rule. The Founders feared it as much as they feared autarchy, and wrote the Constitution accordingly: they gave us a measured dose of democracy leavened with a variety of safeguards and diluted representation.

We've arguably gone too deep into democracy already, with the popular election of Senators, rather than their appointment by State legislatures.

In a pure democracy, 51% could vote that it was okay to rape, pillage, plunder and kill the 49% minority. Not good.

A little democracy is a fine thing. Too much can be like too much food, too much booze, or too much medicine.
 
At one time, I didn't think there could be "too much democracy", but the longer I live, the more apparent it is to me that most people cannot handle it with responsibility, and feel obliged to abuse it for their own self-interests. As much as I am a freedom-minded individual, I honestly don't think many people have the required ethical standards for a really free society to work well. I hate to say that, but it's what I am seeing.
 
Don't know too much about Switzerland's direct democracy failings but that seems to put nearly every political decision in the hands of the Swiss public.

We don't read of Switzerland as a land of instability and chaos.
 
It depends on the society. In an ideal society, there could not be too much democracy, but in the kind of societies we live in, I am glad we do not have direct democracy. The idea of us all standing by our tellies pressing the red button for each law is terrifying.

Terrifying mainly because most people are not educated enough on everything. I certainly am not.

Terrifying also because unfortunately most of us are too selfish.

The UK would have the death penalty if we had a referendum on that. Whenever I remember that, I am not so upset we have a very limited democracy. One day every five years or so.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Don't know too much about Switzerland's direct democracy failings but that seems to put nearly every political decision in the hands of the Swiss public.

We don't read of Switzerland as a land of instability and chaos.
Click to expand...

Switzerland is relatively small. We are talking about less than eight million people total. Less than the population of New York city.

On a small scale it seems works just fine. You can say the same about Communism. The more people you add, the more costly it becomes. Eventually you reach the point were it no longer works for a large portion of the populace.
 
Kate said:
In any country?

I believe mostly not, but sometimes the people can be wrong or not know what they are getting into. What are your guys' opinions?
Click to expand...

"Wisdom is not additive; its maximum is that of the wisest man in a given group."
Robert A. Heinlein (Thanks again to megaprogman. :2razz:)
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Don't know too much about Switzerland's direct democracy failings but that seems to put nearly every political decision in the hands of the Swiss public.

We don't read of Switzerland as a land of instability and chaos.
Click to expand...

A lil history lesson about Switzerland, they are a relatively new democracy.
They haven't had time to royally screw things up yet.

"Women were granted the right to vote in the first Swiss cantons in 1959, at the federal level in 1971[22][32] and, after resistance, in the last canton Appenzell Innerrhoden in 1990."

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland]Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Blackdog said:
Switzerland is relatively small. We are talking about less than eight million people total. Less than the population of New York city.

On a small scale it seems works just fine. You can say the same about Communism. The more people you add, the more costly it becomes. Eventually you reach the point were it no longer works for a large portion of the populace.
Click to expand...

You could add the same argument about any political "ism" - communism / capitalism etc etc but the fundamental question reverts back (and I'm not American so I'm also not thinking that the post is solely concerned with the US and its' Republican version of public representation or wishing to propose a change to the US constitution) to whether any people - be it 500 or 500 million can have too much democracy. My answer would be "depends" - as in depends on how it is implemented.

If all 500 million had to agree (or a majority of those 500 million) a policy to ensure it works then no, there is such a thing as too much democracy but if it were organised along similar lines to the cantons in Switzerland and the vote affected regions - it could work.

Ancient Greece also exhibited direct democracy but that too was broken down into decisions made in the different Greek Kingdoms. (And before Mr Guerilla says the Greeks never allowed women or slaves to vote....) and the argument could have been made that direct democracy worked for the 1million or so population of Greece but could never apply to a population of 8 million or so..

Harry Guerrilla said:
A lil history lesson about Switzerland, they are a relatively new democracy.
They haven't had time to royally screw things up yet.

"Women were granted the right to vote in the first Swiss cantons in 1959, at the federal level in 1971[22][32] and, after resistance, in the last canton Appenzell Innerrhoden in 1990."
Click to expand...

But did Wikipedia tell you when the Swiss first started direct democracy? That might help with your history lesson. Other cultures have denied female suffrage too - the Swiss were just late in recognising equality and female rights.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
But did Wikipedia tell you when the Swiss first started direct democracy? That might help with your history lesson. Other cultures have denied female suffrage too - the Swiss were just late in recognising equality and female rights.
Click to expand...

Meh, I don't believe in democracy on a macro level.
Way to much disinformation and ignorance for it to work correctly.

I'm going with Blackdog on this, that it works for small countries and areas with small populations but after that it really starts to break down.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Meh, I don't believe in democracy on a macro level.
Way to much disinformation and ignorance for it to work correctly.

I'm going with Blackdog on this, that it works for small countries and areas with small populations but after that it really starts to break down.
Click to expand...

Where's the killer example of direct democracy failing a large state though? It simply hasn't been tested on a large scale yet.

"Democracy" of sorts has been enforced on some countries like Russia and Indonesia when democracy was a precondition of economic aid - and failed.

I forgot to add - the history lesson forgot to add that though Switzerland allowed women the vote in 1959, the US only allowed white women the vote in the 1920s and had not even completed it's own civil rights movement till 5 years AFTER Switzerland rolled out the vote to ALL adult citizens.

I do think direct and other forms of citizen engagement greater than we have now can work but it requires both participation and structure to enable it to work.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Where's the killer example of direct democracy failing a large state though? It simply hasn't been tested on a large scale yet.

"Democracy" of sorts has been enforced on some countries like Russia and Indonesia when democracy was a precondition of economic aid - and failed.

I forgot to add - the history lesson forgot to add that though Switzerland allowed women the vote in 1959, the US only allowed white women the vote in the 1920s and had not even completed it's own civil rights movement till 5 years AFTER Switzerland rolled out the vote to ALL adult citizens.

I do think direct and other forms of citizen engagement greater than we have now can work but it requires both participation and structure to enable it to work.
Click to expand...

Heinlein pointed it out in my first response to this thread.
Wisdom is not additive.

Democracy failed in ancient Greece, it has failed in the Americas, in Europe, including many other places.
It's a potential dictators wet dream to have a popular democracy.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You could add the same argument about any political "ism" - communism / capitalism etc etc but the fundamental question reverts back (and I'm not American so I'm also not thinking that the post is solely concerned with the US and its' Republican version of public representation or wishing to propose a change to the US constitution) to whether any people - be it 500 or 500 million can have too much democracy. My answer would be "depends" - as in depends on how it is implemented.
Click to expand...

That is not true. After the people realize they can vote them selfs money, it's over, period. No way around this simple fact.

Infinite Chaos said:
If all 500 million had to agree (or a majority of those 500 million) a policy to ensure it works then no, there is such a thing as too much democracy but if it were organised along similar lines to the cantons in Switzerland and the vote affected regions - it could work.
Click to expand...

It is hard enough to get a few hundred people to agree on anything. Let alone thousands.

No it can't on a large scale because eventually someone with power will disagree.

Infinite Chaos said:
Ancient Greece also exhibited direct democracy but that too was broken down into decisions made in the different Greek Kingdoms. (And before Mr Guerilla says the Greeks never allowed women or slaves to vote....) and the argument could have been made that direct democracy worked for the 1million or so population of Greece but could never apply to a population of 8 million or so..
Click to expand...

It has never in history worked on a large scale. It can't because of reasons I have stated.
 
Pure or complete democracy will require a much high level of education and intelligence of the people.
As of today, we are no-where close.
Witness the tea bag rallies.
Or our Congress.
And we have just 40% of the people voting.
Now I know why democracy failed in Greece, and why dictatorships flourish.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
-- Democracy failed in ancient Greece, it has failed in the Americas, in Europe, including many other places.
It's a potential dictators wet dream to have a popular democracy.
Click to expand...

How did direct democracy "fail" in Greece?
Or more reasonably - do you want a history lesson on why Greece was over-run and thus became a subjugate nation?

As to your wet dream example - have you never heard of the Greek reverse election process called "Ostracism?" (now you know where the word comes from) in that Greek Citizens could vote to exile a politician or leader for a period of 10 years.

This was how they prevented civil war and corruption - and the threat worked on the politicians.

Blackdog said:
That is not true. After the people realize they can vote them selfs money, it's over, period. No way around this simple fact.
Click to expand...

It's not a simple fact - read up on Ostracism as a Greek voting process and procedure. Might be useful to introduce it to some UK politicians..

Blackdog said:
-- It is hard enough to get a few hundred people to agree on anything. Let alone thousands.
Click to expand...

And do you know how long it was a success in Greece before the country was overrun and became a small part of the Roman Empire?

Blackdog said:
-- No it can't on a large scale because eventually someone with power will disagree.
Click to expand...

Power to the people
One distinctively Athenian democratic practice that aroused the special ire of the system's critics was the practice of ostracism - from the Greek word for potsherd. In this reverse election to decide which leading politician should be exiled for ten years, voters scratched or painted the name of their preferred candidate on a piece of broken pottery. At least 6,000 citizens had to 'vote' for an ostracism to be valid, and all the biggest political fish risked being fried in this ceremonious way. For almost 100 years ostracism fulfilled its function of aborting serious civil unrest or even civil war. At the end of the fifth century it was replaced by a legal procedure administered by the jurors of the people's courts. Power to the people, all the people, especially the poor majority, remained the guiding principle of Athenian democracy
About the author
Paul Cartledge is Professor of Greek History at the University of Cambridge.



Blackdog said:
-- It has never in history worked on a large scale. It can't because of reasons I have stated.
Click to expand...

Direct Democracy first appeared in Switzerland in 1290... where it has dissappeared around the world is where/were (I can never remember which is correct) more powerful neighbours or conquerors over-ran a nation. I'm afraid unless you have an actual example of the failing of a system like direct democracy in a nation - due to the nature of direct democracy, I can not accept your argument.
 
Yeah. People don't know what's best for others.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
How did direct democracy "fail" in Greece?
Or more reasonably - do you want a history lesson on why Greece was over-run and thus became a subjugate nation?

As to your wet dream example - have you never heard of the Greek reverse election process called "Ostracism?" (now you know where the word comes from) in that Greek Citizens could vote to exile a politician or leader for a period of 10 years.
Click to expand...

I understand but remember the trial and death of Socrates.
Rampant populists and democracy condemned him to death for essentially nothing.

Infinite Chaos said:
This was how they prevented civil war and corruption - and the threat worked on the politicians.
Click to expand...

The average lifespan for a democracy is about 200 years, with representative democracies we'll get a bit more time.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand but remember the trial and death of Socrates.
Rampant populists and democracy condemned him to death for essentially nothing.
Click to expand...

This was pretty symptomatic of the era - I don't think this qualifies as a failure of direct democracy. Some historians argue that Socrates was favorable to the Spartans who had just conquered the Athenian state.

Harry Guerrilla said:
-- The average lifespan for a democracy is about 200 years, with representative democracies we'll get a bit more time.
Click to expand...

No hard examples yet of a direct democracy failing because of the nature of direct democracy though. :cool:
 
It's a shame but many educators still teach the students that we are a democracy. Not true. We are a republic.

But then the Soviets used to call themselves a republic and nothing could have been further from the truth.

A lot of condominiums have associations that work like a true democracy where the members vote but the problem is, is that they spend most of their time fighting over trivial matters and often wind up in court.
 
Too much democracy??

Yes, it's called the California Ballot Initiative System...
 
hazlnut said:
Too much democracy??

Yes, it's called the California Ballot Initiative System...
Click to expand...

Better that our politicians just decide what's best for us, because California politicians have such a good reputation in that regard.
 
Kate said:
In any country?

I believe mostly not, but sometimes the people can be wrong or not know what they are getting into. What are your guys' opinions?
Click to expand...

Yes, there definitely can. California is a perfect example of this, with its referendum system which has bankrupted the state. The voters have voted themselves access to an ever-expanding social net, then selfishly refused to raise their own taxes to pay for it. Voters are inconsistent, ill-informed, and short-sighted. At least with elected officials, you have people who devote their entire careers to understanding the issues. That doesn't guarantee that they'll do a good job, but they're certainly more likely to do a good job than the voting public as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
That doesn't guarantee that they'll do a good job, but they're certainly more likely to do a good job than the voting public as a whole.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added for good reason.
 
phattonez said:
Better that our politicians just decide what's best for us, because California politicians have such a good reputation in that regard.
Click to expand...

I prefer the Republic where elected officials get to perform certain duties for a limited time... Oh wait, that's what we have.

The CA ballot initiate system needs to be revised. People are voting on things they don't understand...

"The will of the people" sounds good, until the people are wrong.
 
You don't think that the representatives would do the exact same thing? They are, after all, voted in by the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom