After some thousand of years of evolution, the system that seems to be the best for society seems to be democracy.
Democracy means that if there are 10 people in a room and 6 of them take the worst and most stupid decision ever, the 4 remaining have to do what the majority has decided.
So all this time wasted to come up with a mathematical answer to a philosophical problem: how to live together.
Isn't that the biggest disapointment of human kind's achievment ever?
And why don't we all start to think of a new/different system, so everybody will really have its word on the world problems and solutions.
What are your suggestions, ideas on the system that will outdate/overrule democracy?
Originally posted by 7ate9Democracy does include all people within a certain limit (people too young to vote for example are excluded because they lack the experience needed to make an informed decision).
It will take away people's selfishness in caring only for their own arse.
Democracy takes on a form of evolution, in the fact it kills off minorities. This doesn't make the world a better place, because it's the whores who go around hugging each other's arses that make the world. I don't want whores making MY world.
Democracy has to include ALL PEOPLE............
Democracy does not kill off the minorities, they have just the same rights as anyone else, or should if a decent constitution is in place. In fact, democracy gives minorities a great deal of power to control their own destiny unlike other governments.
Granted, it isn't perfect as no system is, but it is the best we have. It may not be complete equality but it is fair and that something that many other systems lack. Name a type of government that gives possibilities to everyone, not just the upper class as democracy does while still maintaining freedom of choice and speech and all of the freedoms that we have.
the best form of government is tyranny with a few impossible conditions.
1. the tyrant supposed to rule all must be immortal.
2. the tyrant supposed to rule must be wise enough to always make the right decision
3. the tyrant supposed to rule must have the moral fiber necessary for him to make the right decision.
4. the tyrant must make and keep people happy
if we find someone who meets these "small" conditions, tyranny is the best way to go.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThere are always going to be dumb people voting in any election we have. But the same goes for everything, if we just had a "everybody has to agree" stance on everything, there would be some oaf who took a completly foolhardy side and of course nobody would agree with him and that system goes out the window.
since when do people make informed decisions in democracy? most people are swayed by the most able politician. and many people simply refuse to exercise their right to vote. democracy is dead, we just haven't found anything better than this corpse.
Isn't not voting better than making an uninformed decision?
yes but my point is that people don't and cannot make an informed decision when voting. my argue is based on "all politicians are liars" stereotype. it is hard to find a politician who doesn't serve some minority interests(be it a corporation or a small class of people). this being the case, mostly stupid or uneducated(ignorant) people vote and the smart ones give up and refuse to vote simply because they cannot possibly tell wich ones are lying(the most)
of course i agree with you on this being the best we have at the moment but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for improvements.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe whole basis of democracy relies on a understanding that the politician who is or appears to be the most fitting for office should win. Naturally, if the politician is elected and proves to not be appropriate, they will have a harder time being re-elected and will sometimes be thrown out immediately.
yes but my point is that people don't and cannot make an informed decision when voting. my argue is based on "all politicians are liars" stereotype. it is hard to find a politician who doesn't serve some minority interests(be it a corporation or a small class of people). this being the case, mostly stupid or uneducated(ignorant) people vote and the smart o ...[text shortened]... g the best we have at the moment but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for improvements.
When the people refuse to excerise their responsibilities to stay abreast of what is going on politically and then transfer their thoughts to voting democracy fails. It is only through the attempt of weeding out poor candidates systematically in ones mind that the best candidate will actually win and therefore do the greatest service.
How about direct democracy instead of representitive?
That is, you have more referenda, recall elections, and initiatives. That way anyone representing can be overruled by an election, removed from office by vote, and the public can decide to vote on a particular issue. Governments are way too centralised these days, and as a result most people are disassociated from them.
We could take a leaf out of this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland
Originally posted by mrstabbyDirect democracy only works in smaller countries or areas where there aren't as broad of a spectrum of views and issues are more prevalent to everyone. Ancient Rome, for example, used the direct democracy.
How about direct democracy instead of representitive?
That is, you have more referenda, recall elections, and initiatives. That way anyone representing can be overruled by an election, removed from office by vote, and the public can decide to vote on a particular issue. Governments are way too centralised these days, and as a result most people are disas ...[text shortened]... m.
We could take a leaf out of this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland
The problem is in countries as large as say Canada or the United States or India or Russia or even Germany issues are less localised and large populations contribute to more differing viewpoints.
Of course there still is the odd plebiscite or referendum, but those are usually held only for issues that truly affect everyone in society.
Originally posted by JeeDemocracy is an excellent system because power is not concentrated in the hands of any one person or small group for very long. Anarchists would say 'we don't need rulers.' Democracy says we don't need the same ruler for very long -- unless he is very good. If you get a very wise ruler and keep re-electing him, you arrive at something like the Platonic ideal of an enlightened monarchy (which was a great theory but which breaks down in practice because every monarch/tyrant wants family members to succeed him).
After some thousand of years of evolution, the system that seems to be the best for society seems to be democracy.
Democracy means that if there are 10 people in a room and 6 of them take the worst and most stupid decision ever, the 4 remaining have to do what the majority has decided.
So all this time wasted to come up with a mathematical answer to a phil ...[text shortened]... ions.
What are your suggestions, ideas on the system that will outdate/overrule democracy?
Before you agree to majority democract rule you have to agree what powers the government will have (and where they cannot intrude - for example religion) and what rights minorities will have that are inviolable (e.g. see a Bill of Rights).
After that, the system works well.
What is holding us up is the UN. If we could reform the UN into a democratic, elected institution with defined powers and checks and balances, that would be the first step to getting rid of war on this planet for good. We could even address things like depleting fishing stocks, deforestation and global warming. Of course, the longer we delay, the longer those problems will go without any solution.
Then we could then get on with exploring space which is what we should be doing anyway.
But most humans really don't see that far ahead, so we'll probably have to wait a couple of generations until people 'get it'.
Originally posted by prosoccer
Democracy does include all people within a certain limit (people too young to vote for example are excluded because they lack the experience needed to make an informed decision).
Thats exactely the kind of reaction that we had in the world before democracies. Some people judge that some people could not vote because they werent good enough (not enough money, not enough education, they were woman,...). Why not the kids! ask them if they want pollution or flowers. Rather them than the goverments working for the industrial system!
Originally posted by prosoccer
Democracy does not kill off the minorities, they have just the same rights as anyone else, or should if a decent constitution is in place. In fact, democracy gives minorities a great deal of power to control their own destiny unlike other governments.
Tell me how many millions you need to run a campaign, how many signatures you need from the people in charge. You think a mayor will give its signature to a simple citizen that won't even sell his ass for him/her? So No! if you aint rich, its impossible for you to be elected in a modern occidental democracy.
Originally posted by prosoccer
Granted, it isn't perfect as no system is, but it is the best we have.
Exactely my point: it aint perfect but that's the best we could think of. Well think again then!
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
since when do people make informed decisions in democracy?
True! When was the last time that politicians discuss ideas? In which century was that. Campaigns about Clinton being sucked or Bush hiding from the army. Who cares!
On the political poster you just have one name - sometimes just a number - and a guy/girl smiling. Do you have any choice! No. You got the same usual suspects and they call that a choice!
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
many people simply refuse to exercise their right to vote. democracy is dead, we just haven't found anything better than this corpse.
True! Why arent blank vote taken in account. Thats IS denying people's right to vote.
A BLANK VOTE MEANS NONE OF THE ONE YOU'VE CHOOSEN FOR ME!
in other words: this system is not representing me, this system is not for me. In some countries you have up to 60% of people who don't go to vote. Can it be any clearer?
Originally posted by prosoccerIn a lot of countries you HAVE to vote.
Isn't not voting better than making an uninformed decision?
Where it is not forced, you got > 50% of people who don't even bother.
So if you are force to vote, you'll vote for anybody, with a preference for the most obnoxious one to give a big finger to the system.