Is Democracy really the best way to go?

[Battlecow]

Wait, what exactly are you talking about? The premise of this idea was to help ensure that the voting population is decently knowledgeable. In other words, it's to get rid of people who vote and yet don't know what they're voting for. Dunno where your urban/country thing came from.

Not sure what you're confused about. Read my post again. I'm saying that ignorant urban voters (who'll likely vote liberal, i.e. the direction you presumably think people "should" be voting in) outnumber ignorant country voters (i.e. the rednecks you're trying to keep voiceless) and that your tests would, ironically, work against you, because the elites are going to be the ones voting and they'll vote to further their own interests.

 

[global-wolf]

Not sure what you're confused about. Read my post again. I'm saying that ignorant urban voters (who'll likely vote liberal, i.e. the direction you presumably think people "should" be voting in) outnumber ignorant country voters (i.e. the rednecks you're trying to keep voiceless) and that your tests would, ironically, work against you, because the elites are going to be the ones voting and they'll vote to further their own interests.

1. I didn't suggest the idea as a way to promote my own views, I suggested it as a way to ensure a "qualified" voting population without being discriminatory, which was what Holder and Bob were talking about.

2. The elites already vote at a far higher rate than people of lower classes, both in terms of education and income. I provided a link to statistics earlier.

3. I posted earlier why I think it would encourage people to get themselves acquainted with the political issues, which is not hard.

4. Urban people outnumber country people, period. Assuming that a larger percentage of country people really are more knowledgeable, and more knowledgeable people vote, then it's possible to get a larger increase in the percentage of urban people who are knowledgeable, especially because information in the city travels quicker.

 

[Battlecow]

1. I didn't suggest the idea as a way to promote my own views, I suggested it as a way to ensure a "qualified" voting population without being discriminatory, which was what Holder and Bob were talking about.

2. The elites already vote at a far higher rate than people of lower classes, both in terms of education and income. I provided a link to statistics earlier.

3. I posted earlier why I think it would encourage people to get themselves acquainted with the political issues, which is not hard.

4. Urban people outnumber country people, period. Assuming that a larger percentage of country people really are more knowledgeable, and more knowledgeable people vote, then it's possible to get a larger increase in the percentage of urban people who are knowledgeable, especially because information in the city travels quicker.

I'm not saying a larger percentage of urban people. I'm just saying more. If you're really just trying to make sure that only qualified people vote... That's admirable, I guess. the sans culottes aren't gonna be happy tho. Say hi to Madame G. for me.

 

[Sol9000]

I wonder what would life be like if we only had the Military/Police/Etc?

I'll shut up now.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I wonder what would life be like if we only had the Military/Police/Etc?

If you've never heard of Marshal Law, then you should probably read this article. Hopefully, it will give you a good idea of what to expect from a country that would have military rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

 

[Sol9000]

If you've never heard of Marshal Law, then you should probably read this article. Hopefully, it will give you a good idea of what to expect from a country that would have military rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law

*sees Canada*

Seems Legit...

Spoiler

/can'ttellifwhati'msayingissarcasmornot

The point of this test would be to determine the voter's knowledge of the candidates, right? Well, the point of most election campaigns is to purposefully distort the opposition. How would the test control for that?

If I was elected president, one of the first things I'd do is try to make an Amendment to ban political advertisements.

All that money to sway one undecided voter? = ...

Oh, how about if someone got the answers wrong, then they tell them what was wrong after the test--.

GLaDOS Does not Approve.

 

[Jon Farron]

*sees Canada*

Seems Legit...

Spoiler

/can'ttellifwhati'msayingissarcasmornot

The War Measures Act was a Canadian statute that allowed the government to assume sweeping emergency powers, stopping short of martial law, i.e. the military does not administer justice, which remains in the hands of the courts. The Act has been invoked three times: During World War I, World War II, and the October Crisis of 1970. In 1988, the War Measures Act was replaced by the Emergencies Act.

Prior to 1837, martial law was proclaimed and applied in the territory of the Province of Quebec during the invasion of Canada by the army of the American Continental Congress in 1775-1776.

It was also applied twice in the territory of Lower Canada during the 1837-1838 insurrections. On December 5, following the events of November 1837, martial law was proclaimed in the district of Montréal by Governor Gosford, without the support of the Legislative Assembly in the Parliament of Lower Canada. It was imposed until April 27, 1838. Martial law was proclaimed a second time on November 4, 1838, this time by acting Governor John Colborne, and was applied in the district of Montreal until August 24, 1839.[2]

It is not currently under Martial Law, but was at several points.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Sol, this isn't the place for your antics.

Spoiler

nowhere is

Also, I think it'd be nice if you could fix your font to make it not so obnoxious.

 

[Sol9000]

It is not currently under Martial Law, but was at several points.

oh.

Sol, this isn't the place for your antics.

Spoiler

nowhere is

Also, I think it'd be nice if you could fix your font to make it not so obnoxious.

1) What exactly are my antics?

2) this website accepts me. of course, there isn't as much activity as i come to accept here. hmm, i wonder why.

3) sure thing. I'll start right now.

Spoiler

yeah, I'm for serious

 

[GreenKirby]

Negatively impact the poor? I never acknowledged this, because it would not negatively impact the poor. Not only does it do nothing to them, but I feel that no one had the right to vote to begin with. I've only acknowledged that they'd be less likely to know about politics through means of internet and television. Through people, through paper, through other peoples' technology, they all have the potential to know.

Access is not as easy as you make it out to be. For starters, when are the poor gonna bother to research on the the Internet when they have to worry about working 2 jobs just to make ends meet?

And don't think the Internet and television always tell the truth either.

Original topic: No, democracy isn't the best way to go. As Dre, a benevolent dictator would be the best way, which almost never happens. It's just that democracy is the only one that "works." And I use that term loosely because there's a thin line between democracy and tyranny of the majority.

Campaigns aren't allowed to tell outright lies about the opposition.

Apparently that isn't bloody true anymore. Flat out lying is the in thing now.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

It's just that democracy is the only one that "works."

Is this really the case though? What gives you the impression that democracy actually "works" and that it does a better job at that than any other type of "government" does or did in the past?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Even if we are to say that the poor cannot be educated to vote and thus couldn't, how would this necessarily negatively impact the poor? (It's been a while since I've posted in here, my views may have changed, and I may have forgotten things). That does not mean the middle class or even the rich are just going to vote in ways that would disadvantage the poor. And I'm sorry, but if that individual has no time to learn about the politics of the situation, how would he even know how to benefit himself or anyone for that matter when voting?

Also, I'd really like to discuss this "tyranny of the majority" or "mobacracy". I must not entirely understand because, on the assumption that we want the country to be modeled after the general will of the people, the "tyranny of the majority" makes perfect sense. There is of course the concept that has been introduced from my first post that the general will is inferior to the wisdom to rule. We have a mix of both ourselves, we elect people that rule in the different branches through democracy in the hopes of selecting the ones with the most wisdom. If the rule to which we test the wisdom of the ruler is our general will, is it not then better to simply use our general will as the wisdom rather than have the distortion in the form of a separate ruler?

 

[Aesir]

Is this really the case though? What gives you the impression that democracy actually "works" and that it does a better job at that than any other type of "government" does or did in the past?

200 plus years of success? Provide a better model and we'll hash it out. Secular Democracies have the highest rate of success among any government model. The only exception is China, but China's only a success story because of free trade.

Even if we are to say that the poor cannot be educated to vote and thus couldn't, how would this necessarily negatively impact the poor? (It's been a while since I've posted in here, my views may have changed, and I may have forgotten things). That does not mean the middle class or even the rich are just going to vote in ways that would disadvantage the poor. And I'm sorry, but if that individual has no time to learn about the politics of the situation, how would he even know how to benefit himself or anyone for that matter when voting?

You're putting way to much blame on uninformed voters, and not enough on the media. Also if you think the rich and middle class would not make bad decisions for the poor, I suggest looking deeply into American history, and carefully examining the problems that arose when we limited voter participation.

If you're really worried about uninformed voters electing bad leaders than you need to address the media problem. Until the media is held accountable all you're doing is weakening individuals. Even if the Rich and Middle Class were allowed to vote would they generally make more informed decisions about what's good for the country? or what's good for them? Most people go and vote what's good for themselves. By cutting out a large part of the country you're ignoring their needs, which is very undemocratic.

Also, I'd really like to discuss this "tyranny of the majority" or "mobacracy". I must not entirely understand because, on the assumption that we want the country to be modeled after the general will of the people, the "tyranny of the majority" makes perfect sense. There is of course the concept that has been introduced from my first post that the general will is inferior to the wisdom to rule. We have a mix of both ourselves, we elect people that rule in the different branches through democracy in the hopes of selecting the ones with the most wisdom. If the rule to which we test the wisdom of the ruler is our general will, is it not then better to simply use our general will as the wisdom rather than have the distortion in the form of a separate ruler?

Tyranny of Majority is fixed by Representative Democracy, and Separation of Powers. Though I'm sure you know that. We really don't have a Tyranny of the Majority in this country.

But if you want to fix the problems with Democracy you need a strong independent Media who acts as a watch dog. Arbitrarily attacking the poor because they're uninformed is ignoring the deeper issue.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I would like to say right now that being poor does not equate to a lack of knowledge of a candidate and thus being too uneducated to vote. Being a low-class Puerto Rican who collects SSI, I can attest to saying that I still do the research needed to understand who it is I vote for and why I do it. And trust me when I say there are poor republicans, and poor people who vote republican. I'm labeled a republican (despite leaning heavily towards democrat anyway), and my grandmother votes republican... except she did vote Obama, but I digress. I don't know what the statistics are, but there are poor people who are well educated despite their origins. I think a chart showing statistics on voters by class and education level could help bring more clarity, if no one has linked to one already.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

200 plus years of success? Provide a better model and we'll hash it out. Secular Democracies have the highest rate of success among any government model. The only exception is China, but China's only a success story because of free trade.

Obviously, I'm asking you to be more specific when you throw around words like "success". What kind of success are you talking about and for whom is this success even of relevance in a democracy?

 

[GreenKirby]

Is this really the case though? What gives you the impression that democracy actually "works" and that it does a better job at that than any other type of "government" does or did in the past?

It "works" in a sense that everyone has a voice at least.

Of course, that's not always a good thing though.

Even if we are to say that the poor cannot be educated to vote and thus couldn't, how would this necessarily negatively impact the poor? (It's been a while since I've posted in here, my views may have changed, and I may have forgotten things). That does not mean the middle class or even the rich are just going to vote in ways that would disadvantage the poor. And I'm sorry, but if that individual has no time to learn about the politics of the situation, how would he even know how to benefit himself or anyone for that matter when voting?

You don't really think the rich are buying off politicians for the sake of the lower class?

Also, I'd really like to discuss this "tyranny of the majority" or "mobacracy". I must not entirely understand because, on the assumption that we want the country to be modeled after the general will of the people, the "tyranny of the majority" makes perfect sense.

Tyranny of the majority is a bad idea due to the fact of any minority in said country. Under TotM, what's to stop the majority from wanting to treat a minority demographic as third class citizens?

You can't say morality cause history already proved that false.

 

[Aesir]

Obviously, I'm asking you to be more specific when you throw around words like "success". What kind of success are you talking about and for whom is this success even of relevance in a democracy?

Why don't you just explain why you think it hasn't been successful then. I would love to hear it.

It "works" in a sense that everyone has a voice at least.

Of course, that's not always a good thing though

I say it is good. Everyone has a voice so their concerns can be heard. If you limited who's voice can be heard and who's voice cannot you would a revolution on your hands.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Why don't you just explain why you think it hasn't been successful then. I would love to hear it.

I did not say that I disagree with you - after all, I'm hardly in a position to tackle your main argument if I don't understand what it is supposed to be about in the first place. I'm just legitimately unaware of what you mean by "successful" because the term is ambiguous to me in this context, so I ask you for clarification before I decide on whether I agree with you or not.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You don't really think the rich are buying off politicians for the sake of the lower class?

I'm not saying there aren't selfish voters, I'm saying that I don't think that people are inherently selfish voters. People want what makes the country run the best, ultimately helping them anyhow because they are IN the country.

Tyranny of the majority is a bad idea due to the fact of any minority in said country. Under TotM, what's to stop the majority from wanting to treat a minority demographic as third class citizens?

How do we avoid the majority when we use the majority to vote for an elected individual based on what their views are (therefore indeed, although distorted, a manifestation of the general will AKA tyranny of the majority), especially with an elective system that negates county votes when they are in the minority? With any system there will be a minority, even our own, and yet our system doesn't necessarily seek to destroy said minority.

You're putting way to much blame on uninformed voters, and not enough on the media. Also if you think the rich and middle class would not make bad decisions for the poor, I suggest looking deeply into American history, and carefully examining the problems that arose when we limited voter participation.

If you're really worried about uninformed voters electing bad leaders than you need to address the media problem. Until the media is held accountable all you're doing is weakening individuals.

I'm not saying it isn't the media. Also, wouldn't weakening the control of those who are buying into propaganda and thus distorting the country a good thing?

Tyranny of Majority is fixed by Representative Democracy, and Separation of Powers. Though I'm sure you know that. We really don't have a Tyranny of the Majority in this country.

Not in the sense of a pure democracy yes, but as I said above, we still have a minority that isn't heard in the election process, and we still have a majority deciding our leader by who they think is the best.

But if you want to fix the problems with Democracy you need a strong independent Media who acts as a watch dog. Arbitrarily attacking the poor because they're uninformed is ignoring the deeper issue.

I never attacked the poor. The only thing I ever said was that I acknowledge that they might lack potential resources to be informed, but I am also the one that said they are capable of educating themselves if they truly tried.

At any rate, the problem with media and with this democracy, particularly a representative one, thinking media can ever be what we need is a bit of a pipe dream.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I still don't think that ignorance or lack of interest (or race, or criminal status, or gender, or land ownership) are justifications for revoking a person's franchise.

The thing is, whenever one is suggesting limiting the rights and privileges of a group of people, it's always a group they don't actually belong to.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That's wrong actually, if we had to be educated about politics to vote about politics, it would strip me of my right to vote. I'd be a little more hesitant to make such presumptions.

 

[Sol9000]

Oh, good. That crappy post of mine slipped past the cracks...

Thank you Smash Boards for your forgiving behavior. I am not worthy

 

[Claire Diviner]

That's wrong actually, if we had to be educated about politics to vote about politics, it would strip me of my right to vote. I'd be a little more hesitant to make such presumptions.

So then how is an individual supposed to prove they are educated enough to vote? There are plenty of people - as I mentioned before - in the poor class who are educated despite their lack of wealth, yet their right to vote could be stripped out of what is basically a rather poor stereotype. To restrict voting rights to certain groups is very flawed, because it will be unfair to those who are intelligent, thus earning their right to vote. Correct me if I'm addressing a different issue here.

Sol, please attempt to take this debate seriously. We really don't need these threads marred by posts that add nothing to the debate. That's just how I feel anyway.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

It "works" in a sense that everyone has a voice at least.

Of course, that's not always a good thing though.

I missed this post earlier, but once again you're not really explaining things to me. You say that "it works" because "everybody has a voice". But is this actually the case? Does everybody in a democracy have a voice? To what extent is this true? And how does the fact that everybody has a voice mean that democracy "works".
On a side note, to me it'ss circular logic anyway: You basically say that democracy "works" because everybody has a voice but that's the only way it can be a democracy. It's the same thing as saying that monarchy "works" because there is a king. That is self-explanatory and doesn't really tell us anything we don't know in the first place.]

I wish people were a bit more specific in this thread. Even the term "democracy" is vague because there isn't just one way to have democracy. The european way of a deocratic government is not the same as in the USA. Saying that "democracy works because it's successful" is as empty a claim as can be for I'm sure nobody would agree that all different kinds of democracy "work successfully", whather that's supposed to mean.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

So then how is an individual supposed to prove they are educated enough to vote? There are plenty of people - as I mentioned before - in the poor class who are educated despite their lack of wealth, yet their right to vote could be stripped out of what is basically a rather poor stereotype. To restrict voting rights to certain groups is very flawed, because it will be unfair to those who are intelligent, thus earning their right to vote. Correct me if I'm addressing a different issue here.[/COLOR

Well, the idea was posed in the middle of this thread a method of "testing" the knowledge of those who are voting on what they are voting. I'm not particularly against the concept.


Someone private messaged me also about how there was a study that said ignorance was good for democracy in that it helps people mindlessly go with who seems popular, but to me that just seems like "mobacracy", which no one seems to like anyhow (and in this sense I definitely don't).

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well, the idea was posed in the middle of this thread a method of "testing" the knowledge of those who are voting on what they are voting. I'm not particularly against the concept.

While on paper, this seems like a good idea, it would also mean that every citizen wanting to vote will need to be tested every four years to prove they've kept up with politics. Unless there's some quick qualifying test where a series of questions correctly for five minutes will allow said person to vote. I can understand the concept, but it isn't something I believe will work in actual practice. Plus, it can potentially break the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Someone private messaged me also about how there was a study that said ignorance was good for democracy in that it helps people mindlessly go with who seems popular, but to me that just seems like "mobacracy", which no one seems to like anyhow (and in this sense I definitely don't).

I will agree in saying this past election was a popularity contest. I voted Obama myself because of some of the things he has done and says he will do. Whether he will do what he says or not is still better than what Romney said he'd do, but that's a different personal issue. It would be interesting to see how this past election would turn out if "qualified" people voted though; it may bring us some insight as to exactly who votes, let alone for whom they voted for.

 

[Sol9000]

Sol, please attempt to take this debate seriously. We really don't need these threads marred by posts that add nothing to the debate. That's just how I feel anyway.

I think that's how everyone feels

Spoiler

myself included

 

[Aesir]

I'm not saying it isn't the media. Also, wouldn't weakening the control of those who are buying into propaganda and thus distorting the country a good thing?

No because the propaganda would just become more subtle. When you do that you haven't addressed the issue. it's like taking an aspirin when you have a brain tumor.

Not in the sense of a pure democracy yes, but as I said above, we still have a minority that isn't heard in the election process, and we still have a majority deciding our leader by who they think is the best.

Get rid of the electoral collage, and make congressional elections proprietorial representation. You want the minority heard? There's your solution.

I never attacked the poor. The only thing I ever said was that I acknowledge that they might lack potential resources to be informed, but I am also the one that said they are capable of educating themselves if they truly tried.

Something tells me you've never been poor; if you have you probably were not old enough to remember it. Being poor means most of your waking hours are spent working. The other portion is worried about making payments on time. A poor persons rarely thinks about those political issues because they're so preoccupied with just trying to get by that they can't afford to get educated because there are just not enough hours in the day. You can't strip the rights from those people because you think their opinion doesn't matter, or you think they're to uninformed. Getting informed is hard when you don't know where to look. That's why fixing the media problem is so important.

At any rate, the problem with media and with this democracy, particularly a representative one, thinking media can ever be what we need is a bit of a pipe dream.

Really? because that's how it use to be. The Media in the past has always been the neutral watch dog of the government; it wasn't until the late 70's (I think) that we saw them shift away from being a watch dog and into a money making business. It would be challenging but it's not a pipe dream to suggest that news become non-profit again.

 

[Inle~Orichas]

Full correspondence between me and Holder of the Heel, for debate purposes.

Not able to post on the debate thread, thought this article was central to discussion.

uninformed people voting good for democracy

I appreciate the article, thank you. Although, I can't agree with its views, particularly because they don't make sense to me. Having a large array of opinions and correct knowledge about politics and the politicians does not somehow collapse the democracy. Also, we've been talking about in the thread the tyranny of the majority, well anyone afraid of that would surely not like a large mass of ignorant people just going with who seems the most popular.

Absolutely, a mass of completely uninformed people collapses the system outlined in the scientific experiment outlined in the article. (Too many unaltered fish in the experiment results in chaos)

I don't think uninformed voters are necessarily a good thing.

What I feel the article outlines is that a society shouldn't have people with polarized political views dominate the majority. Politically non-involved people; people who don't follow politics, are necessary for democracy to function.

I would say the problem existing in the form of the 'tyranny of the majority' is more a criticism of massive population growth than it is a criticism of democracy. (Since the proportion of ignorant people grows with the population)

The problem of ignorance is exactly why public education is such an importance to the prosperity of any society.

My feeling is that a voter test is a sledgehammer solution to a flyswatter problem.

Sorry again for making this a PM, but the issue you talk about in the thread is one I take very seriously.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Aesir, are you actually going to respond to my question?

 

[Aesir]

I did not say that I disagree with you - after all, I'm hardly in a position to tackle your main argument if I don't understand what it is supposed to be about in the first place. I'm just legitimately unaware of what you mean by "successful" because the term is ambiguous to me in this context, so I ask you for clarification before I decide on whether I agree with you or not.

I don't mean to start the hur dur america rant but it might come off that way.

I would judge a democracy on two things:

1. Does it produce a stable government?
2. How many people are eligible to participate in the democratic process.

Number 1 is a no brainier we have had stability in this country for a very long time. Even with the Republicans playing fast and loose with the debt ceiling and generally being very uncooperative. I would probably give this a high score for us.

Number 2 is a bit harder, last election had one of the highest turn outs ever in a presidential election, and that numbers been going up over the last election cycles; In other words participation has been steadily going up. However, I wouldn't give this as much of a high mark as number 1. Not until we do away with the electoral college.

Keep in mind that the struggle for a true and fair democratic process is never ending and we'll likely never attain true and fair suffrage. However, if we can mitigate the failures and produce a very fair system I would say it's worth continuing. We're just in a weird place right now democratically.

 

[Muhti]

Sorry to but in randomly, but:

I believe Socialism may be better than a Democracy, a Republic, Communism, etc.

It holds a piece of Democracy since EVERYONE has a say in the decisions.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and services.

- worldsocialism.com

Socialism would also get rid most of greed within people, equal everything for everyone. That also means a sharp decrease in hunger, obesity, and homelessness.

Sorry to suddenly change the subject, but Im just putting this out there.

 

[Dre89]

2. How many people are eligible to participate in the democratic process.

This is assuming democratic values though, which is kinda circular. It's like measuring how good tyranny is by how few people are involved in the decision-making process.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

OK, let's make this a bit clearer.

Aesir, I do not think that you can objectively claim that democracy "successfully works". First of all, you've not defined what "successful" and "work" mean in this context. What makes democracy successful? The fact that the majority in your country agrees with it? The fact that the majority in my country agrees with it? The fact that it simply is the system you were born into, you understand best and are just used to the most? So far, your reasoning has been largely circular. You think democracy is successful because more people are involved in the democratic process than in other systems. That's not a qualifying statement and it doesn't show how it is successful. It simply states what democracy is: a system where the majority of people is involved in the democratic process. But it doesn't explain where the "success" is coming from, that you postulate. So I'll ask you again: if democracy is a successful system what is it that makes it more successful than [system X].

Historically, I would say that democracy has not proven itself successful. The early attempts at democracy in ancient Greek and Rome have not lasted very long and have been replaced by tyrannies rather quickly. It is my honest opinion that democracy has already failed in the USA as it could not outpower the ruthless, unconditioned and cynical capitalism that the USA embraces. As a result the government puts more priority into the interests of large corporations than into its citizens. In this context I'd say that democracy has proven itself unsuccessful - the financial market and the greed for money have more power than the public. Whether it's going to prove successful in Europe remains to be seen but in a lot of countries it either has already failed or never managed to make an impact to begin with.

Though all that doesn't mean that I don't think democracy is the right way to go. I think of all systems we've seen so far it's the lesser evil. However, not only do I think that a good democratic system has yet to be established but I'd also say that people generally overrate its potential.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

The early attempts at democracy in ancient Greek and Rome have not lasted very long and have been replaced by tyrannies rather quickly.

The roman republic lasted a little under 500 years. Athenean democracy ceased when the they lost to the Macedonians. (Even then, it lasted 200 years)

 

[Battlecow]

Sorry to but in randomly, but:

I believe Socialism may be better than a Democracy, a Republic, Communism, etc.

It holds a piece of Democracy since EVERYONE has a say in the decisions.

Socialism is an economic system, not a system of government. The U.S. could easily become socialist without changing our form of government at all. All we'd have to do would be to elect a socialist president and house and senate and bam. We haven't because Americans, on the whole, are not stupid. Socialism and Democracy are not mutually exclusive.

If you're proposing some sort of socialist dictatorship then not everyone would have a say. So lol.

It is my honest opinion that democracy has already failed in the USA as it could not outpower the ruthless, unconditioned and cynical capitalism that the USA embraces. As a result the government puts more priority into the interests of large corporations than into its citizens. In this context I'd say that democracy has proven itself unsuccessful - the financial market and the greed for money have more power than the public.

Name me a non-democratic country from history with a standard of living as high as America's. With a justice system as well-structured as America's. You say that the government's unsuccessful because of the influence of big business, but really that's just the one issue you care about so you draw the ridiculous conclusion that big-business lobbying has somehow invalidated democracy. Where are the effects? To make the system unsuccessful, I'd argue that you have to have more than shady political influences at work; the soviet union, for example, imploded and then fell apart. That was a systemic failure. Once big business takes away voting and makes us all slaves, then I'll say the system has failed; until then, you just need some perspective.

I guess what I'm asking for is an explanation for why some corruption in government means that "democracy has failed," when the country on the whole is doing so well.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The roman republic lasted a little under 500 years. Athenean democracy ceased when the they lost to the Macedonians. (Even then, it lasted 200 years)

I don't know what sources claim that democracy lasted "a little under 500 years" in ancient rome. Would like to see them. With that said, 200 years mean next to nothing in the history of mankind. What are those 200 years compared to the more than 1000 years of tyranny or monarchy that followed? Ancient Israel had tribes with communistic systems that lasted more than two hundred years and yet nobody claims communism to be a successful system.

I'll stand to my point that democracy has yet to prove itself successful.

 

[global-wolf]

@Gheb: Isn't the debate question asking if democracy is the best way to go, not if democracy is the most successful? Successful can be very widely defined, by the way; you seem to be basing the success of a government on its length of existence, but what about the happiness of the people under its rule? Or its world influence? Or its cultural and scientific accomplishments?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

@Global Wolf

I'm aware of that. My stance is that Democracy is the lesser evil of all systems that we've seen so far in history. In Europe, Japan, Australia and other countries democracy has had a noticeable impact and secured peace. Europe and partly Japan have a history of being involved in devastating wars and inhuman crime before democracy was established and ever since then those countries became particularly known for their commitment towards peace and good education of their citizens. The latter could possibly be achieved in a different system too but I don't think long-term peace can be achieved without it.

In regards to the talk about "success", here's how that came about:

It's just that democracy is the only one that "works."

What gives you the impression that democracy actually "works"[...]t?

200 plus years of success?

It's the statements of Green Kirby and Aesir that made me comment on the whole "success" thing. Essentially, my questions towards them would be pretty much the same as yours towards me. I was actually hoping to make it clear how broadly "successful" could be defined in this context myself by confronting them with those kind of conclusions.

 

[Mr. game and watch]

Communism is technically ideal. The problem with democracy is there are stupid people who vote on stupid things.

However the problem with Communism is that the leader will always go crazy with power and turn evil and decide he's a god.

Man is inherently evil, so any form of government is bad anyway, and the lack thereof is equally bad. So it doesn't really matter.