democracy Vs the fourth Reich

[Amorphos]

democracy Vs the fourth Reich

this is an exercise of contrasts, so consider it on its figurative value.

democracy = george bush! i.e. a load of erm ordinary people votes for some ordinary chap who they can relate to. but do these people know what is best - are they even qualified to make such choices?

the fourth Reich = equality is relative! sure we are equal as humans yet some are better than others at a given task. some artisans are more skilled than others, some political experts are better educated than others, some scientists know more than others etc. certainly it is the case that there are many people who are better than mr and Mrs average in their specific field. so why not have a system based on the greater difference and on merit? democracy seams like a waste of paper to me esp as concerns india where it must take a few forests to create all those election cards.
furthermore, politicians are annoying, they waffle on for hours to actually say a few things of importance, wouldn’t it be nice if the people who lead just said what we need to hear [not want to hear].

[-Eclipse-]

Democracy is a flawed concept, and surprisingly (and worryingly for old America) very close to communism. It works on the basis of universal equality amongst citisens, as human beings.

This is flawed because not everyone is equal, some are stupid or clever, tall or short, insane or sane. Variety is something we should be proud of and how we should represent ourselves. Some people are more capable of making decisions for all of us then others. And as such, equal votes for all is flawed. I'm all for people needing a certain exam to be given the right to vote.

[DariusEG]

America isn't a democracy. Popular vote does not elect the president, well, not entirely.

the fourth Reich = equality is relative! sure we are equal as humans yet some are better than others at a given task. some artisans are more skilled than others, some political experts are better educated than others, some scientists know more than others etc. certainly it is the case that there are many people who are better than mr and, Mrs average in their specific field. so why not have a system based on the greater difference and on merit? democracy seams like a waste of paper to me esp as concerns india where it must take a few forests to create all those election cards.

We kinda do live in a meritocratic society where some people are more equal than others like the workforce for example. But there is a problem, just because one has more merits than another does make them entirely beneficial. Let's say for example there is a hardcore right-wing politician with a Ph.D vs. a more moderate politician with a Master's in run for presidency. In a complete meritocratic society the Ph.D would be president.

[kev-o]

America isn't a democracy. Popular vote does not elect the president.

America is what is called a democratic republic. Similar to ancient Roman standards. The people vote for a representative, and the rep. votes for the next leader, thus being the electorial vote.

[DariusEG]

America is what is called a democratic republic. Similar to ancient Roman standards. The people vote for a representative, and the rep. votes for the next leader, thus being the electorial vote.

Yeah that's what I said. The president is elected by the Electoral College. The president isn't elected by direct vote, in other words, by popular vote of the people.

[kev-o]

Yeah that's what I said. The president is elected by the Electoral College. The president isn't elected by direct vote, in other words, by popular vote of the people.

Okey dokey.


The electorial college has its advantages and disadvantages. I think it should be poular vote.

[DariusEG]

The electorial college has its advantages and disadvantages. I think it should be poular vote.

No way, that what lead to a definite mob rule. That would be more dangerous for America than anything.

This is where meritocracy does matter. The Electoral College is meritocratic institution.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

I totally agree with the OP. Democracy fails because the ordinary public votes on the basis of personal interests, etc ...

However, in countries such as Denmark and Sweden, where the literacy rate stands at nearly 100% and the GDP is well above that of other countries, Democracy does work. In most African and Asian countries, though, the masses are illiterate and divided in tribes, sects and ethnic groups. Democracy doesn't work. Democracy works when there's a stable economic condition, which gives way to a stable political system.

Such countries require a "strong man" to enforce economic policies that will lead to such a condition where Democracy is possible.

[Ummon]

You are mistaken Quetz, Democracy isn't Bush. The decline of democracy is Bush. And the decline of democracy paves the way for the "insert cardinal here" reich. Which is never anything worthwhile if not for those deluded enough to swap certain securities for freedom. Yet you see, the freedom I intend and which is always superior to any other human attribute is freedom with responsibility and not the void word of libertarian declining capitalist democracies.

[Amorphos]

dariusEG

Let’s say for example there is a hardcore right-wing politician with a Ph.D vs. a more moderate politician with a Master’s in run for presidency. In a complete meritocratic society the Ph.D would be president.

good point! but so be it? whatever side he is on his policies still have to get past all the other highly educated people, their would be many at the same level. in fact the mr lefty would feel he had to brighten up his ideas and get more highly educated to compete with the rest - not a bad thing? once you have many with PHD’s they would have to show themselves to be wiser and more intelligent to get ahead - not a bad thing in my mind.

ummon

freedom with responsibility

if you could arrive at a system where the leaders do not become dickheads then a ‘fourth reich’ of sorts would not be a bad thing. if for example you had a moral body which had complete power over such leaders and a constitution to boot, then a meritocracy of most advanced thinkers would not be so bad. lets face it dictators are not the cleverest or wisest people, so how would they rule in such a society?

[-Eclipse-]

good point! but so be it? whatever side he is on his policies still have to get past all the other highly educated people, their would be many at the same level. in fact the mr lefty would feel he had to brighten up his ideas and get more highly educated to compete with the rest - not a bad thing? once you have many with PHD’s they would have to show themselves to be wiser and more intelligent to get ahead - not a bad thing in my mind.

Or simply with far more time on your hands to do nothing but study... it makes you none the wiser, it just shows you as capable of phd level education.

[Amorphos]

with far more time on your hands to do nothing but study... it makes you none the wiser

no but with competition and debate it does - bring back the real forums eh!

[SovietDoom]

No way, that what lead to a definite mob rule. That would be more dangerous for America than anything.

This is where meritocracy does matter. The Electoral College is meritocratic institution.

I think you misunderstand the electoral college system in place today.

Hardly meritocratic, more nepotism than anything. A popular vote would just eliminate crap like the 2000 election.

[DariusEG]

I think you misunderstand the electoral college system in place today.

Hardly meritocratic, more nepotism than anything. A popular vote would just eliminate crap like the 2000 election.

You misunderstood what I meant by the electoral college as meritocratic. The representatives in the Electoral College are there for meritocracy in comparison to the people. These representatives are trusted with election of the president with their higher intelligence and experience of state affairs. (Ideally.)

Now, popular vote would not have changed the 2000 election because the context would have changed, matter of fact, the whole election would have been different with different candidates. For example, if Christian fundamentalists were the majority in the US, what's stopping a Christian fundamentalist from running for president and being elected? This would be mob rule. Lets say there is another majority in the US, whatever it may be, a presidential candidate's campaign only has to focus on this specific group of people. So, the campaign and future president could pretty much **** everybody else, because only that group matters. Pretty unfair, isn't it? You're asking for a president/candidate to be a nepotist.

The EC isn't perfect, but it's better than any other option that is on the table.

[SovietDoom]

If Christian fundamentalists were the majority of Americans, then there would just be a fundamentalist Democrat or Republican that would be elected by them. The EC changes nothing in that instance.

[DariusEG]

If Christian fundamentalists were the majority of Americans, then there would just be a fundamentalist Democrat or Republican that would be elected by them. The EC changes nothing in that instance.

That's what I said.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

Argh!! Too much discussion!

Strong man > Democracy!

[SovietDoom]

But the EC changes nothing, the Christian fundamentalist still gets elected and can pander to the one group that got him elected.

In fact, the EC could likely help him by allowing him to strategically grab Electoral College votes at the expense of popular votes, thus allowing him to win without the support of the majority of the people.

[DariusEG]

But the EC changes nothing, the Christian fundamentalist still gets elected and can pander to the one group that got him elected.

In fact, the EC could likely help him by allowing him to strategically grab Electoral College votes at the expense of popular votes, thus allowing him to win without the support of the majority of the people.

You have me confused. Are you in support of EC or in support of popular vote by the people? Because you're pretty much repeating me.

[Ummon]

ummon

if you could arrive at a system where the leaders do not become dickheads then a ‘fourth reich’ of sorts would not be a bad thing. if for example you had a moral body which had complete power over such leaders and a constitution to boot, then a meritocracy of most advanced thinkers would not be so bad. lets face it dictators are not the cleverest or wisest people, so how would they rule in such a society?

There is no need of such moral body: what is required is a society which knows and follows the rules of the human mind's functionng. Such a society would not experience the amounts of crime, violence, egoism and misery we have today. Unfortunately, we seem directed in the very opposite direction.