Originally posted by prosoccerAnd what if choosing candidate to talk for you was a bad idea to start with. Do I have to vote for 5000 person that I wont releelected because they screw up, and at the end of the day never be heard?
The 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.
When the people refuse to excerise their responsi ...[text shortened]... ly in ones mind that the best candidate will actually win and therefore do the greatest service.
I am way able to give my own opinion on anything, just ask me, I dont need anybody to represent me and I seriously doubt that someone on earth has the same ideas that me anyway!
Originally posted by mrstabbyI was thinking of that, it's somewhere over there probably that we have to look at.
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
Originally posted by prosoccerSo why not direct democracy by states for states issues and the balance of it for National decisions?
Direct 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.
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 popul ...[text shortened]... r referendum, but those are usually held only for issues that truly affect everyone in society.
Originally posted by spruce112358
Democracy is an excellent system because power is not concentrated in the hands of any one person or small group for very long.
You mean it's not like we can get George Bush and then his son later on as president? It's not as if they can get through something like the Patriot act to arrest anybody without a motive and ask for a world conquest budget to the Senate?
Name me the country where it is not the same clique again and again for the last 50 years.
Originally posted by spruce112358
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).
So do we need rulers or do we need social peace?
Originally posted by spruce112358
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.
Well no! if you want to get rid of wars you are arrested for:
1) being against the nation
2) not being a good soldier
3) ...
So the fight against war or injustice in this world is prevented by the democratic system which take the power from your hands and give it to somebody who will tell you what is good for you.
Wars are created by a bunch of lunatics who have absolute power and use democracy to gain money and power. Democracy is their shield!
Originally posted by spruce112358
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'.
I've read somewhere that the size of human brain has stopped increasing - like it did for centuries. The theory is that we control our environment, so we dont need to think much anymore, everything is under control. That is the exact point of balance that announced the end of the past biggest civilisations. That theory said as well that it's only by going into space that we will be forced and chalenged into deeper and more complex ways of thinking, and then the size of our brain will increase again.
Aint gonna happen this week indeed!
Originally posted by JeeInstead of not voting, how about having a "none of the above" slot, so that people who care, but hate all the standing candidates can force a re-run.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
[b]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/gi ...[text shortened]... In some countries you have up to 60% of people who don't go to vote. Can it be any clearer?[/b]
The next revolution could be an individual revolution where everybody makes its own decision.
Why don't we stop hoping that somebody will have all the power and do something good - centuries have prooven that it aint working EVER whatever the system, and no matter how great the ideas are.
Somebody said once that the last person to who one should give the power is the one who wants the power. So lets have election to see who not to choose.
Originally posted by JeeYes .. but you're allowed to bitch about it afterwards, whereas if you didn't vote then STFU .. because you (in effect) voted for the winner whoever it is.
I vote for that!
But isnt that just admiting that the systems aint working then?
You either ..
1. don't vote
2. waste your vote on a 3rd Party candidate
3. vote for either of the 2 with a real chance to win .. a Democrat or a Republican.
4. claim you voted when you didn't
it's always the same ... bend over.
Originally posted by JeeTo use a stock market analogy -- I think you are selling stock in democracy at exactly the wrong time. The more open communication becomes, the better democracy functions. The more the internet opens up communication (and it is not done yet -- blogs are just the latest feature) the harder it will be for politicians to hide their actions. Knowledge is very definitely power in a democracy -- unlike in a dictatorship where knowledge makes no difference.
Originally posted by spruce112358
[b]Democracy is an excellent system because power is not concentrated in the hands of any one person or small group for very long.
You mean it's not like we can get George Bush and then his son later on as president? It's not as if they can get through something like the Patriot act to arrest anybody without a mo ...[text shortened]... en the size of our brain will increase again.
Aint gonna happen this week indeed![/b]
Yes, there are powerful families that go in for politics -- the Bush's, the Kennedy's, etc. In another age they would have been absolute rulers like the Medicis, and God help you if you disagreed with them or even insulted a distant cousin of the family! I prefer to know that there is a Senate, Congress, and Supreme Court to act as a check against them.
Democractic governments are much less warlike than their dictatorial counterparts, but wars do still occur.
If the UN were legitimately elected, it would be more effective as an arbitrater of international disputes. The UN cannot do that effectively at the moment primmarily because no democracy would EVER yield sovereignty to an unelected body.
Since there is no effective alternative, countries continue to make war.
Originally posted by spruce112358
Knowledge is very definitely power in a democracy -- unlike in a dictatorship where knowledge makes no difference.
Explain me why. My knowledge tells me that democracy is not working, so what can I do? I want to vote for you but you because I know you're the one, but you don't have any friend out there or solid money so you will never be in charge of anything.
Originally posted by spruce112358
Democractic governments are much less warlike than their dictatorial counterparts, but wars do still occur.
Read the news lately?
Originally posted by spruce112358
Since there is no effective alternative, countries continue to make war.
My point being "Since nobody even care of thinking of an alternative..."
Originally posted by JeeDemocracy only doesn't work if you don't know who you are voting for. As I said, we now can know more about candidates than at any time in history. So choose the right one. Vote for somebody with no money if you want -- that's your choice. It's easier than ever -- and getting easier.
Originally posted by spruce112358
[b]Knowledge is very definitely power in a democracy -- unlike in a dictatorship where knowledge makes no difference.
Explain me why. My knowledge tells me that democracy is not working, so what can I do? I want to vote for you but you because I know you're the one, but you don't have any friend out there or solid ...[text shortened]... to make war.[/b]
My point being "Since nobody even care of thinking of an alternative..."[/b]
I read not too long ago that the world conflict index is currently at a very low level -- very few wars at the moment relative to most of human history. So for all the hoopla about terrorism and such, open the window and look out -- this is what "world peace" looks like.