Democracy

[jordanisonfire]

So, let's have a debate, eh? So, what are your thoughts on Democracy?

[Andy]

Pros: People usually get what they want. Leaders who clearly abuse their power will usually get booted out.

Cons: For all the democracies I know of, all votes are considered equal. Meaning a vote from someone really smart about politics will be equal to a vote from someone who never listens to the news. Also that popular opinions will (almost) always get its way, which can lead to poor decisions being made. What's popular is not always right.

So, it's not a perfect system, but I think it's one of the best ones nowadays. And I think representative democracy is better than direct democracy, because politicians who are usually better with getting all their facts straight have the final decision.

[Rafael Domination]

I agree.

Democracy requires the majority of the voting popluation to be idiots before an incredibly stupid decision is made. A dictatorship requires only one man to flatten the country.

[Andy]

XD

I heard once that the best kind of country is one ruled by an intelligent, benevolent dictator. No bureaucratic nonsense, and all decisions would be made in good time. Of course, that's never happened, and probably never will. :rolleyes:

[Rafael Domination]

Exactly! If there was a GOOD director, a just and moral person who actually cares and is loved by the people (and is wise - can't forget that), all the good decisions wouldn't take an aeon to make!

But that's just a fantasy.

[jordanisonfire]

It's all down to opinion, really. I mean, someone's idea of a good leader could be someone who cares about starving children but doesn't care about global warming.

[Nyx]

I agree as well. It's not a flawless system but it is one of the best.

[poetical science]

For all the democracies I know of, all votes are considered equal.
this was a major fear of the founding fathers; that the uneducated, non-indoctrinated would be able to vote, and that popular passions would overwhelm the political system. They did have concrete distrust of the masses. This is not a condemnation, exactly, but something to keep in mind.

While all votes might be equal in congressional and local elections, they aren't in Presidential elections; the electoral college sees to that. So, people believe that their vote doesn't count, or doesn't count as much; and what people believe is almost as important - and, in politics, more important - than what the truth is. A Democrat in Iowa has much more of a say than a democrat in Texas. Relatively few votes can matter in a "swing" state where they will never matter in a place that is deeply entrenched in one party or another. And so those from the losing party won't be as apt to vote in that state; and then how do you know how many democrats don't vote in texas because it's futile (or how many republicans don't vote in rhode island because it's seeminly futile?) this perceived disenfranchisement could build up to the point where the majority is actually silent (This is an inverse nod to Nixon, like a scowl in his direction, thankyouverymuch) and democracy is functioning on image and perception more than the actual desires of the people.

[Hypocrit]

Maybe instead of inequalizing the amount a vote counts for we should ecuate the populace?

The problem with OUR government is corporate lobbying, ESPECIALLY at the expense of civil liberties.

[poetical science]

I'm not saying you should inequalize it, just that the electoral college intrinsically does this.

I have to say I like the electoral system of Argentina (word for having foreign exchange students in a politics class): A party can field as many candidates as they like, though this is limited by a state supply of campaign funds. (campaign finance is another nasty problem of US Presidential politics) The first election sends the two candidates with the highest percentage of votes into a runoff election; however, these two can be from different parties or from the same party.

[Shaun]

Technically speaking there's really no such thing as a true democracy. But for the sake of this argument we'll just assume that when you say democracy you mean a representative republic, like the U.S. has...well...had.

That's an interesting system. That would be really interesting if it was utilized here in the states. There might be less of a chance of having to vote for the lesser of two evils simply because your candidate didn't get to the top. Then again, it might become a lesser or two evils of the same party...well, it might lend to greater variety.

The problem with democracies is that people don't get what they want. Only some people do. There are homeless who don't want to be homeless, impoverished families, starving kids, etc. right here in our American borders. We spend more money trying to fix problems in other countries and ignore the problems right here. Democracies also have the tendency to slowly remove the populace from the political structure. Few of us haven't a clue what really is going on in the White House. Most of us don't find out until it's too late that some law has gone into effect, or that the President has done something that violates the constitution. This is what happens in democracies like our own that put far too much power in the hands of the few. A good democracy allows the people to remove leaders they are tired of through simpler methods than what we actually have. It's easier to remove a Governor, who has very little impact on the country as a whole, than it is the remove the President and his cabinet. (Or Prime Minister or whoever it may be).
The system, basically, is tremendously flawed because, like every other governmental structure out there, it is subject to human weaknesses--biases, prejudices, ignorance, etc. It's a good idea, but the only governments that really work are ones that don't exist. If we wanted the U.S. government to function then we'd make an amendment that all representatives must be cycled out of office after 8 years. Subject all positions to the same strict rules of the Presidential elections.
Oh and the electoral college is retarded.

[Hypocrit]

Isn't Sweden a democracy? Whats their poeverty rate?

There will always be poverty. We can at least try and prevent it and not write it off as "laziness".

Ugh, Bill Ofreakin Reilly can suck my throbbing...

[Shaun]

I think Sweden is more like a socialist democracy...let me check. Well it looks like they're a democracy but with some socialist ideologies. They have a constitutional monarchy like the U.S., but with policies that are more socialist. Poverty is lower there than in the U.S. Then again, it's Sweden, it's small, and it has a lower population spread over a wider area. The U.S. is 80 people per sq. mi. Sweden is closer to 20.
Full socialist governments do take better care of their people but you also have to realize that in such countries the standard of living is a lot lower than it is in the U.S. and economic growth is typically stunted, which reflects upon the populace. The good news is that in socialist governments that have some sizable funds behind it, people don't die of stuff that plagues poor people in the U.S. But most people aren't living at middle class either. Then again, perhaps because they are used to it they don't see a large difference, whereas people here are faced with it every single day...

[Hypocrit]

Policy does not mean that their general outlying government is not democratic. We become way too specific on what a democracy means because we are jaded by our own.

They have democratically elected officials.

[Shaun]

No, but the types of policies put into effect change the way that the government functions. Socialist democracies are not like capitalist democracies due to huge policy differences, and therefore are very very different.

[Hypocrit]

So are we to believe that socialist democracies work the best for their people out of the two?

[Shaun]

Sure, if living just above U.S. poverty level is what you consider better for everyone. Socialist democracies, full socialist democracies (not Canada or the UK) have a tendency to have a severely reduced standard of living. Which means that rather than there being the potential for a lot of people to live in relative perfect comfort (I.E. Middle Class and Upper Middle Class...excluding Lower Middle Class), most everyone will be living at Lower Middle Class or lower, with some exceptions for those who run the system. Distribution of wealth isn't tiered, which means that advancements in any field are stunted because there is no benefit to the individual for doing something that here in the U.S. they would be compensated for.
Now, governments that can take all that into account and take the social policies of socialism that work and utilize them within a representative republic tend to work very well. There has to be a very careful balance between capitalist democracy and socialist democracy, otherwise you risk stunting growth. Alternately, capitalist economies, which are separate from capitalist democracies because any government can use capitalism, have to be heavily monitored, otherwise you end up with runaway economies that do wonders for investors up until the entire system crashes. The U.S. already learned this lesson, which is why we now have safety measures to prevent that in the future. China is going to learn it the hard way because they are being entirely ignorant about their economy.
But that's neither here or there...

[Hypocrit]

But everyone can survive off of lower middle calss. Everyone can eat. And slowly as the country grows so will the standard of living, especially if the optimize in scientific research.

From a survivalist aspect it allows the lower class to live better. There will always be an upper class, doesn't matter how shitty the average person is doing. In the world too. There will always be a rich country, no matter how fucked it is outside that countries borders.

[Shaun]

But everyone can survive off of lower middle calss. Everyone can eat. And slowly as the country grows so will the standard of living, especially if the optimize in scientific research.

From a survivalist aspect it allows the lower class to live better. There will always be an upper class, doesn't matter how shitty the average person is doing. In the world too. There will always be a rich country, no matter how fucked it is outside that countries borders.

The problem with it is that there isn't room for advancement so the country remains stagnant at what ever level it started at. The individual is lost in exchange for uniform distribution of wealth, making it basically pointless for any individual to do anything profound that here in the States, or Canada, or the UK, they would be compensated for. Growth, essentially, is stagnant. Nothing much happens in such countries. This is why you rarely hear of anything being done by small, socialist countries. While the citizens may be happier by comparison to people living in similar conditions in the states, they also are placed in a position where they won't know a grander form of life. Perhaps that's a good thing, but I'd prefer the opportunity to make my life better rather than being stuck in the same place. If I get rich due to my own genius I should be able to enjoy that wealth to some extent, especially if I earned it. All my wealth shouldn't be redistributed evenly among everyone. Otherwise, what's the point in doing anything at all?

[Hypocrit]

Nothing ever being done? Art wise??

You clearly haven't heard of cuban expressionism or Gabriel Garcia Marquez or the Buena Vista Social Club.

Now so far as scientific advancement that isn't true either. Russia made monster progress is both satellites and space exploration, not to mention nuclear power. However, for smaller socialist countries, or countries that like to call themselves socialist, there is less scientific advancement but I think that has more to do with size as opposed to government structure.

[Shaun]

I'm not talking about art. Art, traditionally, was done for expression, not to make money. I was talking about science, industry, etc.

Russia also was a communist government, which despite popular opinion is a lot different than socialism. The way they function is very different, though reaching for the same goal. Most people try to lob the two together, even Russians, and really they are separate things. Communist governments tend to have wealth distributed into the top most rungs of political power, while the average citizen is subjected to a lack of wealth, and therefore starvation and the like. Hence why communism, while a good idea, doesn't work.