Poll: Would true democracy work?

[Larenxis]

I'm a big fan of democracy, I think the public should rule, rather than be ruled. A lot of people don't think that the public should be in power, because they perceive them as gullible pawns. So this is not to ask what you think other people would do, but what YOU would do if everything the country/state/province/city/whatever did was decided by the majority.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

If everything were decided by the majority, we'd be in a lot of trouble. When you have unfettered majority rule, you end up with situations where 51% of the populace thinks that 10% of the populace are ugly, foul-smelling troublemakers who should be locked up in camps.

Majorities tend to bully minorities. In cases where the particular minority group in question is "people who think it's okay to rape and murder 4-year-old kids", a bit of bullying is necessary. But in cases where the minority group is, say "Jews" or "Trade Unionists" or "Queers" or "Gamers" or whatever, a just society may need to protect the minority from the bullying of the majority.

It comes down to tolerance and harm. If a particular activity causes harm, then the majority has the right to put a stop to it. If it's harmless, the majority does not have that right, even if it does make them feel uncomfortable.

As to whether or not such a system of government will ever come to exist in human society... your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Anarchemitis]

As perfectly put by Kay in Men in Black:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, dangerous, crazy, stupid animals and you know it!"

 

[Calobi]

America's biggest problem with our democracy, IMHO, is that there are too many times to vote. There's primaries, caucuses (might be the same as primaries, or maybe they don't matter and they're just for getting an idea of who's winning, it's one of the two), then there's the actual election, finally there's the Electoral College.
Basically, again IMHO, either just have one huge election where everyone who wants to run can, or have a primary and let the Electoral College vote for their favorites. No offense to them, but that's what they seem to be doing more and more recently. The College is supposed to vote with the people in their areas, but many members are voting for who they think should or will win.

 

[MrHappy255]

Democracy in truth is impossible, what always happens is the haves have more than the have nots and they rule. That is always the way it has been.
Why? Humans don't often look past their own noses to see what is the good for the whole but only what is good for themselves. Until we have a society where there is no need or want democracy is destined to fail.
Is it, at the present time the lesser of many evils? Yes, Are there other options? at this time no, too many greedy selfish people around.

Once we left the little villages where everyone looked out for themselves and settled into large groups it stops being about what is good for everyone and what is good for themselves.

Honestly I am not a communist, if anything I am a socialist which can still be misconstrued but oh well, can't help it if I think everyone should be on equal footing and no one should get more or less than anyone else at the start. After that do your best and work hard to make yourself better. That would be true democracy. Fair and equitable treatment for all with the chance to improve yourself, not your social standing.
Oh well, too much late night rambling from me, sorry.

 

[PurpleRain]

Democracy is good unless you live in Australia were all the intelligent decent people were outnumbered by bogans 10:1. If people had complete controll then the majority (bogans) would make everyday beer/drunken-ramapage/beat-wife/make-eleven-kids day.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Democracy is good unless you live in Australia were all the intelligent decent people were outnumbered by bogans 10:1. If people had complete controll then the majority (bogans) would make everyday beer/drunken-ramapage/beat-wife/make-eleven-kids day.

That would be sweet, you never see a depressed bogan.

Australia has too many officials, each state has in effect its own government, a relic of the days when australia was really a collection of very divided, very competitive states (oho, the irony), as such we have more politicians per citizen than almost any other western nation, a culling of all but a core, streamlined leadership system would save $ in the millions.

I just want to wipe the smile off our blasted local political parasite... smug bastard

We do have many politicians here but i don't think that is a bad thing. The local Government choses what is best for the local area, state chosses what is best for the state and National choses what is best for the nation. Would you like kevin Rudd deciding where our pools and parks should be built. I sure know that I do not want that because chances are he'll just make a committee for the "production of entertainment" and not get anything done. When a big man controls the many littlemen then no real connection is made. And a lack of understanding arises and the people become angry. if a local council sees a problem then they can show that problem to the state and then the state can present that problem to the nation (If required) and then that problem can be fixed (prehaps).

As to the OT of Democracy. Well democracy is a fickle friend but so is any manner of rule. I think democracy is still the best though.

 

[Hey Joe]

True democracy could work, but you'd need to work with a clean slate.

You'd need a populous that didn't know any other form of government.

 

[Torchlyte]

True democracy fails because the general population is not made of experts on issue X or Y.

 

[sammyfreak]

The ultimate way to run a country is a monarchy where all the royals are all-wise, all-loving and strong leaders. Unfortunately this doesnt work.

 

[Chilango2]

By "true" democracy, I assume you mean something like the old Athenian system, minus the slavery and non-universal suffrage?

It might work if the country is:
1) Kind of small, direct democracy requires alot of "physical presence" requirements. Unless you develop better and more trustworthy online systems than we have now *and* make them widely availble. But that's easier in a small country anyway.

2) A religious and ethnic monoculture. The biggest danger with direct democracy is the tyranny of the majority. If a minority is easily culturally or religiously identifiable, it won't work, because the majority will, in all likelyhood, turn them into second class citizens and then the minority will begin to revolt.

3) Responsibility for wrongdoing is clear despite a diffuse power structure. In current modern representative democracies, its clear (if the system is set up well) who is in authority and who is responsible for decisions, and who is to blame. In a direct democracy, this is not the case. What if, to pick a random example, your direct democracy is swept away by nationalism and a charismatic leader to engage in a disastrous and ill advised invasion. (The Athenians did this, it's what brought an end to Athens as a independent power)

4) The problem of expertise. There are a number of things any modern nation does that are, in a word, incredibly complicated, but that your average layman, even a well educated layman, knows very little about. The average layman has little idea as to the worthyness of a public works project's viability, or the worth of a theoretical space program, or whether a particular research program for a cure for disease X is worth it, and so on. This is not to say that people are ignorant and stupid (although they can be frighteningly so), but rather that some things require sufficiently specialized knowledge that the general public has no means to understand or judge them. What then?

 

[UncleAsriel]

If it really were a true democracy, then I'd have given the Aquinas protocols to Helios. Ah, the JC Denton ending of Deus Ex: Invisible War! Such clever ideas in such a mediocre package.

 

[Razzle Bathbone]

Well put, Chilango2.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Democracy does not work unless coupled with economic stability. Its just too easily exploited by corrupt, stupid or evil people.

The Greeks had a good thing -only those with an invested stake in the city- i.e relatively wealthy or intelligent or at least economicly active people could vote- so that a situation unlike the current one in SA -the stupid, unemployed people vote for fellow stupid people because these stupid people give them handouts the state can't really afford instead of giving the economicly active people, say, a tax break that would allow them to create more jobs and thus relieve the growing problem of unemployed stupid people.

To summarise- don't let stupid people in charge.

 

[John Galt]

Complete democracy would be impractical in modern society. When you let every single person have an equal say, things will get messy very fast. I beleive in a meritocracy of sorts. You would only let those who've shown that they're of sound mind and are relatively responsible and educated. Frankly, I think that only those who've gotten an education past high-school (ie. college or a technical school of some sorts) should be allowed to vote. That would clear out quite a bit of our uninformed voting body. While that would be vulnerable to being dominated by the wealthy, scholarships would still be availible to the poor, yet smart, individuals.