Is your argument only that democratic republics will fail? Are you arguing that it would be better to implement democracy in a different way, or that it should be foregone altogether? I imagine most people would agree that they inevitably fail, but not that there is a better option.
I intentionally wrote: representative democracies. I’m not aware of any ongoing implementation of complete direct democracy, not even in Switzerland so I can’t tell for those.
I don’t think it’s representative democracy that is the problem per se. That said i would take your hypothetical 51% taking from the 49% over the current practical reality of the 1% voting to take from the 99%
The current system persists because most people are happy enough not to complain. And the current wave of democratic backsliding is arguably caused by people becoming unhappier, and trying to fix that by voting for far-right candidates/parties.
Remember Brexit? 51% vote for one thing, suddenly the entire economic situation goes to shit, without consulting experts, union leaders, economists, diplomats, anyone. Just “yea sounds good let’s leave this shit”. That is what direct democracy is.
What representative democracy seeks to do is the exact opposite: the agonizingly slow parliamentary processes, coalition politics, political pandering, social dialogue, and general unwillingness to do anything rash is the entire point. It makes democracies stable. That’s their whole job. To provide a stable, predictable political environment in which people and businesses can thrive.
Autocracies scare businesses away because every time a ruler dies or is deposed, there is a high likelihood of deep political troubles. Even during the ruler’s lifetime, there is a higher likelihood that he will do something rash (say, invade Ukraine) and then refuse to acknowledge mistakes because an autocratic political apparatus just doesn’t tend to reward honesty. Democracies can make mistakes as well, but every election cycle gives everyone an opportunity to change direction without losing face. And the balance of powers ensures that, if a mistake is made, it probably isn’t a catastrophic one.
Now democracies can be too slow to change sometimes. They may be too meek to appropriately deal with an expansionist autocratic state (see: WWII). Some (e.g. France, the US) have “fixed” this issue by giving a lot more power and flexibility to the Executive branch of power. It’s a hard balancing act, because while the advantages to “reactivity” are obvious, it also concentrates power in a way that makes it easier for a wannabe autocrat to hijack.
Furthermore reality isn’t so black&white. There are as many democratic systems as there are democracies. Switzerland has some direct democracy. Some countries (Germany, the Netherlands) are way more parliamentary than others (the US). Lots of Democratic countries have strong social safety nets to ensure that, literally, people don’t go hungry (if your idea of a “socialist” country is Canada, know that Canada is a mere starting point for social-democracy). Voting systems greatly affect democratic outcomes (ranked choice FTW). Unions and citizen involvement makes social democracies work. Many democracies are experimenting with modern methods of citizen involvement, for instance I personally like the idea randomly selecting a diverse section of the population to study a subject, consult experts, and draft propositions to be voted on; it removes a lot of the “useless” aspects of ministerial politics.
How would you change the voting system in case of a referendum? It was the easiest possible case, for or against. There’s no advantage to voting “for” when you’re against or vice-versa. You could require a supermajority, but on which basis? Because you don’t like the outcome? Setting arbitrary thresholds would just be indirect democracy with extra steps.
Now of course the UK should get rid of FPTP in favor of another voting system, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the referendum.
So what’s the alternative then? Representative democracies devolve into shit shows given sufficient amount of time. Dictatorships are horrible, council-led states (Sowjet) don’t work either… So what’s left?
The concept of a digital data processing machine was made by Charles Babbage, a mathematician from England.
The first phone was constructed by Italian engineer and inventor Antonio Meucci, Bell just got the patent for something that was being “invented” in several forms in previous years.
Karl Benz from Germany invented the automobile but it was already Leonardo Da Vinci who conceived the idea of mechanical vehicles. The French Nicolas Cugnot built the first steam propelled tractor/car in 1769.
The moon might be yours but only because the USA confiscated all the German knowledge about rockets and took the engineers like Wernher von Braun
If the US eliminated starvation is something I can’t deny nor confirm but you certainly invented the largest drug abuse crisis (opioids and derivatives) in the history of mankind. Oh and mass imprisonment is also an achievement that probably challenges China or North Korea.
Not sure about the progress aspect there, I have doubts. But one thing I know for sure: The US needs better education, it’s horrible how wrong you were.
They were wrong on a few things but I think they have the right idea. If we can agree every form of government will fail eventually, then why wouldn’t we focus on simply trying to improve conditions before it fails? We can argue about democracy all day but the best way to actually improve things is by donating or volunteering.
Is your argument only that democratic republics will fail? Are you arguing that it would be better to implement democracy in a different way, or that it should be foregone altogether? I imagine most people would agree that they inevitably fail, but not that there is a better option.
I intentionally wrote: representative democracies. I’m not aware of any ongoing implementation of complete direct democracy, not even in Switzerland so I can’t tell for those.
deleted by creator
I don’t think it’s representative democracy that is the problem per se. That said i would take your hypothetical 51% taking from the 49% over the current practical reality of the 1% voting to take from the 99%
deleted by creator
My brother, gestures broadly at the world behind him i cannot fathom where you are getting this idea.
But i do agree that I’m getting very hungry
The current system persists because most people are happy enough not to complain. And the current wave of democratic backsliding is arguably caused by people becoming unhappier, and trying to fix that by voting for far-right candidates/parties.
Remember Brexit? 51% vote for one thing, suddenly the entire economic situation goes to shit, without consulting experts, union leaders, economists, diplomats, anyone. Just “yea sounds good let’s leave this shit”. That is what direct democracy is.
What representative democracy seeks to do is the exact opposite: the agonizingly slow parliamentary processes, coalition politics, political pandering, social dialogue, and general unwillingness to do anything rash is the entire point. It makes democracies stable. That’s their whole job. To provide a stable, predictable political environment in which people and businesses can thrive.
Autocracies scare businesses away because every time a ruler dies or is deposed, there is a high likelihood of deep political troubles. Even during the ruler’s lifetime, there is a higher likelihood that he will do something rash (say, invade Ukraine) and then refuse to acknowledge mistakes because an autocratic political apparatus just doesn’t tend to reward honesty. Democracies can make mistakes as well, but every election cycle gives everyone an opportunity to change direction without losing face. And the balance of powers ensures that, if a mistake is made, it probably isn’t a catastrophic one.
Now democracies can be too slow to change sometimes. They may be too meek to appropriately deal with an expansionist autocratic state (see: WWII). Some (e.g. France, the US) have “fixed” this issue by giving a lot more power and flexibility to the Executive branch of power. It’s a hard balancing act, because while the advantages to “reactivity” are obvious, it also concentrates power in a way that makes it easier for a wannabe autocrat to hijack.
Furthermore reality isn’t so black&white. There are as many democratic systems as there are democracies. Switzerland has some direct democracy. Some countries (Germany, the Netherlands) are way more parliamentary than others (the US). Lots of Democratic countries have strong social safety nets to ensure that, literally, people don’t go hungry (if your idea of a “socialist” country is Canada, know that Canada is a mere starting point for social-democracy). Voting systems greatly affect democratic outcomes (ranked choice FTW). Unions and citizen involvement makes social democracies work. Many democracies are experimenting with modern methods of citizen involvement, for instance I personally like the idea randomly selecting a diverse section of the population to study a subject, consult experts, and draft propositions to be voted on; it removes a lot of the “useless” aspects of ministerial politics.
51% rule is a symptom of the voting system, not the divide between populations.
I would wager the actual divides on topics are in much different ratios when you can vote how you like without disadvantaging yourself.
How would you change the voting system in case of a referendum? It was the easiest possible case, for or against. There’s no advantage to voting “for” when you’re against or vice-versa. You could require a supermajority, but on which basis? Because you don’t like the outcome? Setting arbitrary thresholds would just be indirect democracy with extra steps.
Now of course the UK should get rid of FPTP in favor of another voting system, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the referendum.
So what’s the alternative then? Representative democracies devolve into shit shows given sufficient amount of time. Dictatorships are horrible, council-led states (Sowjet) don’t work either… So what’s left?
Anarchy doesn’t work either…
I believe we must replace leadership with A.I.
The only AI we have currently is taught by what we already do.
deleted by creator
That hasn’t worked for North America, it’s not working in the EU and if I look at South America… no I won’t.
deleted by creator
Wow there’s so much wrong with this:
The concept of a digital data processing machine was made by Charles Babbage, a mathematician from England.
The first phone was constructed by Italian engineer and inventor Antonio Meucci, Bell just got the patent for something that was being “invented” in several forms in previous years.
Karl Benz from Germany invented the automobile but it was already Leonardo Da Vinci who conceived the idea of mechanical vehicles. The French Nicolas Cugnot built the first steam propelled tractor/car in 1769.
The moon might be yours but only because the USA confiscated all the German knowledge about rockets and took the engineers like Wernher von Braun
If the US eliminated starvation is something I can’t deny nor confirm but you certainly invented the largest drug abuse crisis (opioids and derivatives) in the history of mankind. Oh and mass imprisonment is also an achievement that probably challenges China or North Korea.
Not sure about the progress aspect there, I have doubts. But one thing I know for sure: The US needs better education, it’s horrible how wrong you were.
They were wrong on a few things but I think they have the right idea. If we can agree every form of government will fail eventually, then why wouldn’t we focus on simply trying to improve conditions before it fails? We can argue about democracy all day but the best way to actually improve things is by donating or volunteering.
deleted by creator