What is democracy?

[MoROmeTe]

I am not aiming for theory only...

Let's see... Iraq's Parliament has met only twice and is in existence since December of last year. The PM is not supported to form a government. Shia, Sunni and Kurd parties seem ireconciliable. Is this democracy? Can the label "democracy" be applied to this situation?

I believe not. Call it "provisional government with unimportant parliament"... Call it "future democracy under military occupation"... Devise another name. But not tarnish the name "democracy" by applying it to this ,murky situation.

Discuss...

[Kanaric]

They are not a democracy, nor is the US for that matter. The US is actually a republic.

However I see what you say with Iraq, they are far from democratic. Especially since we, the US, choose who can and can't run for office.

[MoROmeTe]

Ok, leaving aside the whole "democracy" and/or/vs "republic"...

[Elu Barcino]

I am not aiming for theory only...

Let's see... Iraq's Parliament has met only twice and is in existence since December of last year. The PM is not supported to form a government. Shia, Sunni and Kurd parties seem ireconciliable. Is this democracy? Can the label "democracy" be applied to this situation?

I believe not. Call it "provisional government with unimportant parliament"... Call it "future democracy under military occupation"... Devise another name. But not tarnish the name "democracy" by applying it to this ,murky situation.

Discuss...

Agreed.

And another thing: People just vote along sectarian lines, rather than examining each candidate's policy.

[Custor]

"The tyranny of the majority"...?

[Darth Wong]

Democracy is the idea that people have an inalienable right to choose their own leaders, no matter how poor their decision-making skills are. It is in direct contrast with elitism, which argues that leadership selection should be made by the most qualified people because less qualified people are likely to make poor decisions. And both are in contrast to monarchism, which argues that leadership should be inherited.

To be honest, I think that democracy with a touch of elitism would probably be better than either idea by itself. That's the problem we're seeing in Iraq, but we see it to a lesser extent even in our own "advanced" western civilizations when people vote based on ridiculous reasons (especially the people who always vote for the same party no matter what happens).

[IamthePope]

To be honest, I think that democracy with a touch of elitism would probably be better than either idea by itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt that what we have in the US. Aren't the Electoral College, the House, and the Senate institutions put in place to prevent the unwise decisions of the masses. Aren't these examples of Elitism in a Demacratic Republic?

[Bwaho]

Democracy is the idea that people have an inalienable right to choose their own leaders, no matter how poor their decision-making skills are. It is in direct contrast with elitism, which argues that leadership selection should be made by the most qualified people because less qualified people are likely to make poor decisions

When you talk with some really really stupid people you can't help but question democracy. I think more qualified people should be in charge, but they can't be driven by personal interests to make themselves richer, which is the case with most "democratic" leaders today. The democratic leaders strive to get re-elected so they can help themselves and those who financed their political campaign (usually big evil corporations).

[Darth Wong]

Yes, in an ideal world the truly stupid would not be allowed to vote. Take this guy for example. He tried to steal gasoline by siphoning it from a car at night, he was clumsy and spilled a lot of gasoline on his pants, and then he used a lighter to see how much gasoline he'd gotten on himself. Enjoy those third degree burns, genius. This kind of idiot should never be allowed to vote because he is clearly too stupid to do so.

[David Deas]

Everybody agrees with that. Problem is, how would the actual screening be done? Who or what seperates the worthy voters from the others?

[Yorkshireman]

Everybody agrees with that. Problem is, how would the actual screening be done? Who or what seperates the worthy voters from the others?

Not everybody. Thats quite an arrogant statement. What gives anybody the right to decide what is a "worthy" vote. Is there a given that the "worthy" alway's make the correct decisions. We had a system like that 200 years ago in Britain, where only the landed gentry were allowed to vote. Commoners and women were thought not "worthy." Did'nt America fight a war of independance to garuntee democracy for all Americans ?

It's strange how it's normally the more liberally minded people that think that their intellect gives them the right to decide what's best for everyone, because other people don't have the brains to do it for themselves.

Or are people who are not "worthy" of a vote just the one's on whose politics you don't agree with ?

[Denny Crane!]

Not everybody. Thats quite an arrogant statement. What gives anybody the right to decide what is a "worthy" vote. Is there a given that the "worthy" alway's make the correct decisions. We had a system like that 200 years ago in Britain, where only the landed gentry were allowed to vote. Commoners and women were thought not "worthy." Did'nt America fight a war of independance to garuntee democracy for all Americans ?

It's strange how it's normally the more liberally minded people that think that their intellect gives them the right to decide what's best for everyone, because other people don't have the brains to do it for themselves.

Or are people who are not "worthy" of a vote just the one's on whose politics you don't agree with ?

How about the fact that for some people politics does not exist? Most people don't know or give a damn about politics who I meet so no they should not be allowed to vote on a whim or cult of personality. Why was it a very real fact that IDS an WH were at a very real disadvantage because of there height and baldness? Why would that affect there political acumen? Because people vote on image, personality and catchy songs or slogans.

How is this idea worse than what New Labour and to a certain extent previous governments have done where they ignore what people want and do what they think best for them. It is elitism and a very similar idea to elitist voting rights.

If we want true representative democracy then capital punishment would be a reality as the majority of the British public support it (hence the biggest criticism of Baroness Kennedies POWER report was that people might actually get what they want).

PEter

[Yorkshireman]

How about the fact that for some people politics does not exist? Most people don't know or give a damn about politics who I meet so no they should not be allowed to vote on a whim or cult of personality. Why was it a very real fact that IDS an WH were at a very real disadvantage because of there height and baldness? Why would that affect there political acumen? Because people vote on image, personality and catchy songs or slogans.

Why should you have to be immersed in politics or politically astute to be entitled to vote. Should only the minority political activists decide what is best for us. I'm sure all black South African's were not interested in politics but that did'nt make it right that only whitemen could vote on their behalf ? Maybe not all women are interested in politics, but the suffragettes fought long and hard so they were entitled to vote.

Of course people vote on image and personality, but thats their right, as is voting for the BNP, Socialist Workers or Monster Raving Looney Party. Most people don't take a great interest in politics because their sick of hearing the same old drivel regurgitated by all sides. Politicians, quite rightly, are no longer held in very high regard by alot of people.

What I will say is that if you don't bother to vote, or just vote for the first name on the ballot paper, then don't complain if your views are never represented. But I still protect the rights of anyone who wishes to do this.

Btw I am bald and I would vote for me !

[Denny Crane!]

Why should you have to be immersed in politics or politically astute to be entitled to vote. Should only the minority political activists decide what is best for us. I'm sure all black South African's were not interested in politics but that did'nt make it right that only whitemen could vote on their behalf ? Maybe not all women are interested in politics, but the suffragettes fought long and hard so they were entitled to vote.

Denied the right to vote because of what? Ethnicity or gender. That is completely different to be being allwed to vote so long as you can prove an apptitude.

We deny stupid people the right to keep children, that is the law so how can we allow them to contribute to the fate of millions if they can't raise children? Now expand that idea to incorporate people who aren't incredibly stupid but have no knowledge or interest in voting.

It is almost an unworkable idea I grant you however the principle is right to me.

Of course people vote on image and personality, but thats their right, as is voting for the BNP, Socialist Workers or Monster Raving Looney Party. Most people don't take a great interest in politics because their sick of hearing the same old drivel regurgitated by all sides. Politicians, quite rightly, are no longer held in very high regard by alot of people.

The right to vote should not be automatic. It should not be something that you can lose interest in then vote one way merely because you feel like it on the day. People have the right to vote but do they have the right to waste votes? I personally don't think so.

What I will say is that if you don't bother to vote, or just vote for the first name on the ballot paper, then don't complain if your views are never represented. But I still protect the rights of anyone who wishes to do this.

Then we get the situation where a party can remain in power merely by propaganda, spin and a money rich electoral campaign. Is that not almost verging on banana republics.

Btw I am bald and I would vote for me !

Welcome to the minority, don't worry I'd vote for you to.

Peter

[Bwaho]

If we want true representative democracy then capital punishment would be a reality as the majority of the British public support it

Hmm? that's not the image you get from the British. I never heard that before, are you sure or are you just guessing?

It is almost an unworkable idea I grant you however the principle is right to me

yes, I agree. Some people just have no idea what they're voting for, they can be persuaded if a famous singer performs at a political campaign. They could vote for the most stupid, non-progressive, civilization threatening ideas.

[David Deas]

Not everybody. Thats quite an arrogant statement. What gives anybody the right to decide what is a "worthy" vote. Is there a given that the "worthy" alway's make the correct decisions. We had a system like that 200 years ago in Britain, where only the landed gentry were allowed to vote. Commoners and women were thought not "worthy." Did'nt America fight a war of independance to garuntee democracy for all Americans ?

It's strange how it's normally the more liberally minded people that think that their intellect gives them the right to decide what's best for everyone, because other people don't have the brains to do it for themselves.

Or are people who are not "worthy" of a vote just the one's on whose politics you don't agree with ?

Certainly not. And I think you understand what we're saying here. Why do you think its a good idea for misinformed individuals, or misinformed masses to select unqualified leadership? What good does that do? I even challenge why thats necessarily fair.

(*) Remember. This hole in our system is exactly how Bush got into office.

[Bwaho]

Speaking as the average joe, my friends don't support it but the people I work with and the people I meet tend to think along the lines of, "hang or castrate all paedophiles"

oh, I hear stuff like that all the time. "hang those lying polititians" or "hang george bush!" I don't think it truly reflects a persons opinion when he just screams it while he's angry.

No system is perfect, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an improvement.

I don't think of it as an improvement, it's more of a desperate and inefficient action.

Mozart probably wasn't a mathematical genious, but he wrote operas when he was 12.

Also, Einstein had terrible grades in math when he was in school...

[Darth Wong]

I don't think of it as an improvement, it's more of a desperate and inefficient action.

You have been unable to show why it wouldn't work; only that it wouldn't be 100% effective. Even if it only skimmed off some of the idiot voters it would still be an improvement. And forcing people to know the platforms of both parties is an improvement over not caring whether they know what they're voting for.

Mozart probably wasn't a mathematical genious, but he wrote operas when he was 12.

On the contrary, I'm sure Mozart was intelligent enough to learn basic math.

Also, Einstein had terrible grades in math when he was in school...

That's totally untrue. It is a myth spread by people who dislike education. Einstein showed particular aptitude for math and science, which is why he continued into higher education in that area and got his PhD.

[Denny Crane!]

oh, I hear stuff like that all the time. "hang those lying polititians" or "hang george bush!" I don't think it truly reflects a persons opinion when he just screams it while he's angry.

Well I am talking about actual reflections of peoples opinions, I have seen surveys, I have talked to people myself and I have heard politicians opinions and popular commentators opinions of the public attitude.

THere is no way to truly know but I am going to make an intelligent guess and say people are in favour for it. Until such time as someone can come forward and offer sources to unvalidate my opinion then I will not be changing it.

Peter

[Yorkshireman]

(*) Remember. This hole in our system is exactly how Bush got into office.

I'm not an American, so I won't comment on the American government. But just because you don't like Bush's policies does'nt mean that others should'nt or want or be entitled to vote for him. I'm sure Republicans felt the same way when Bill Clinton was in office, but thats democracy for you.

You might then as well have a one party state with rigged elections, so one set of views goes unchallenged forever.

Or in other words people who don't hold a certain political view should'nt be allowed to vote. Elitism or what we call in Britain class snobbery. The poor hicks are too stupid to vote as we want so we'll do it for them.