Poll of the Day > Is democracy the best form of government?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why or why not?

How could it be? It's just a demo

---

I honestly think a constitutional monarchy would be better.

A setup where you have a "monarch" (not an actual birthright...but it's easier to just call it that) or a "much more powerful president," but also an elected legislative body. The former is mostly in charge of the country, but has no control over the legislature, which can with a large (2/3?) majority override/overrule any egregious laws/policies/decisions or remove the monarch/president from office (leading to a popular vote for a new leader), as a check on him/her from becoming a tyrant. S/he otherwise is fully independent and has pretty wide power to get shit done, to avoid the mire of deadlock and inaction that democracies seem to be doomed to.

Would need a bunch of other protections in place to keep the leader from cozying up to any group of legislators, especially w/ financial ties / mutual benefits. But whatever, that's the gist. One powerful leader that's supposed to just do what's best for his country and given a ton of latitude to enact it, w/ a way to thwart or remove him/her if he abuses his power. S/he like...shouldn't even be able to be in a political party, should be more like a Supreme Court justice...lifetime appointment barring a major fuck up, with no ties to anybody else in power.

The weakest link in Democracy will always be the people.

For better or worse

---

so far

---

It's the absolute worst form of government, except for all the other ones.

---

it really depends to what level you think democracy is actually achieved. "actual democracy" might be approximately as utopian as "true communism".

worse than a gestalt consciousness but we haven't teched up that far yet

---

Liechtenstein's model is the best one going right now. It's a direct democracy with an executive constitutional monarchy. What that means is that referendums determine what policies are enacted or repealed, politicians just figure out how, and the monarch has veto power as a check/balance in case the people made a mistake. Before some mouthbreather goes all "BuT tHeN hE's A dIcTaToR": they've held a couple of referendums regarding abolishing the monarchy but it's overwhelmingly popular and was kept. Not every culture or society is the same. A developed, well-educated nation with lots of money can function well this way.

---

I mean, we don't have one, so how are we supposed to tell?

---

All you have to do is understand history to see why it is better than any other form of government so far.

Yeah, but mostly because all other forms of government are worse.

---

Of existing forms of government, yes

---

A true democracy no. True democracy is mob rule where the minority is easily overpowered. Democracy where there is checks and balances to make sure the minority also has a voice is probably the best

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

True democracy is mob rule where the minority is easily overpowered.

yeah only the popular will survive

take that nerds

---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

And the weakest link in socialism will always be the leaders.

agree 100%

---

I feel a major improvement would be to allow us thee citizens to vote on minor laws ourselves like if weed should be legal if abc stores should be closed or open on Sundays. Basically anything thats not in the constitution a issue of human rights or dealing with taxes. Could have a yearly vote on laws like this provided any come up that year.

---

this is just pretend democracy.

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

A true democracy no. True democracy is mob rule where the minority is easily overpowered. Democracy where there is checks and balances to make sure the minority also has a voice is probably the best

Because giving every opinion equal value has worked out so well. You realize "mob rule" would've prevent Trump, right?

---

Raddest_Chad posted...

Because giving every opinion equal value has worked out so well. You realize "mob rule" would've prevent Trump, right?

Everything has cons but everyone deserves to have their voice heard. People in california lead different lives than me and therefore have different wants and needs. I wish states could just do whatever they wanted with disregard to other states. Let the federal level just handle foreign affairs and our military.

Its easier to pick up and move to another state if you dont like it rather than move to another country.

---

I think all forms of governments could work IF done correctly.. but none are..

In ideal circumstances? No. A despotism or imperialistic system is far more efficient.

In realistic circumstances? Debatable. The primary issue is the question between a democracy (in which the majority has rule) and a Republic (in which smaller groups hold larger power).

For example, let's assume a small nation with a large city and rural farmland. If the city says that the farmland should be taxed heavier than the city than, under a democracy, the city would likely have the majority vote and be able to pass the bill. It can easily lead to a tyranny of the majority. However, conversely, if the rural areas are weighted heavier than the city than, despite having less people, they can still pass and enforce laws that hurt the majority. They could pass laws that tax the city far heavier than the rural areas and they would hold more voting power than the city.

However there are also arguments for it. If the majority of people want to, say, make fishing illegal because it's hurting the environment it shouldn't be the fish mongrels who get to pass the laws. Conversely the minority never having any power leads to a one-party system with an effective dictatorship who can never be challenged.

I think the current system the founding fathers made was VERY close to ideal since it means that smaller states can get a say even if larger states hold more individual power. However I also feel that they never imagined a state COULD ever hold 29 electoral votes let alone 55. I know some people say 'why should someone in Wyoming have more power than someone in California'. Well, why haven't you moved to Wyoming then? Assuming you have the money to move what's stopping you from heading out to these places where you'd have far more political power and voting there? I mean, if all of San Fran up and moved they'd irrevocably turn that state blue forever. So why haven't they? I've toyed with the idea of a 'merit-based electoral' system in which a states electoral voting power is decided not by population but by things such as 'smallest gap in income inequality' or the like, but it's basically nothing more than a concept ATM.

---

What form of democracy are we talking about? I will say yes, but tbh that's not because it's so particularly great as it is that all the alternatives I can think of seem outright worse.

mooreandrew58 posted...

A true democracy no. True democracy is mob rule where the minority is easily overpowered.

As opposed to a bit of democracy, where a much smaller mob rules. *shrug* This is a silly argument, imo.

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Everything has cons but everyone deserves to have their voice heard. People in california lead different lives than me and therefore have different wants and needs. I wish states could just do whatever they wanted with disregard to other states. Let the federal level just handle foreign affairs and our military.

Its easier to pick up and move to another state if you dont like it rather than move to another country.

I dunno, I guess I just look at it like more people deserve a louder say. As long as there are checks so it's not going into unconstitutional territory, suck it up. Where I live I am an outsider on a ton of views, but I accept that the will of the majority should overrule my personal take on things. The greater good is more valuable than the individual.

---

Raddest_Chad posted...

I dunno, I guess I just look at it like more people deserve a louder say. As long as there are checks so it's not going into unconstitutional territory, suck it up. Where I live I am an outsider on a ton of views, but I accept that the will of the majority should overrule my personal take on things. The greater good is more valuable than the individual.

I dont feel it comes dowm to each individual having their voice being heard but their culture/subculture. Rural and urban lives are different for one example. That's the biggest example too I feel if urban and rural areas could operate by their own chosen standards everyone would get along better.

---

Yes but the U.S. hasn't been a democracy since corporations gained individual rights.

---

Raddest_Chad posted...

I dunno, I guess I just look at it like more people deserve a louder say. As long as there are checks so it's not going into unconstitutional territory, suck it up. Where I live I am an outsider on a ton of views, but I accept that the will of the majority should overrule my personal take on things. The greater good is more valuable than the individual.

The Greater Good demands you give up everything you own so the property can be distributed among the rest of us. Heck, The Greater Good demands that 49% of people give up everything they own and be ground up into a highly nutritious paste for the other 50% of us (the remaining 1% voted for Jo Jorganson). What's that? There's a constitution that protects you? Well the 50% of us voted that we desire a new constitution that allows us to do something like that instead of your 49%.

---