What are the fundamental faults with electoral democracy. No, I do not buy the argument that this is a bad system but all other are even worse. A scholar of history would know this is not the case. So what exactly is wrong with the electoral democracy? I have identified the following: 1. Absolute lack of responsibility for politicians 2. The most expensive and inefficient system Let me explain the latter. I have conducted a brief study and found that there is a direct relationship between the level of democracy and the level of taxation. The more democratic a system of government is the higher are the taxes. Why is that happens? Because a party with any hope for forming a democratically elected government needs a large enough support group. In case of (labor, democrats etc) this group is "donots" and in case of greens this group is people with low mean IQ. Let me expand on that. Donots are people who do not contribute to wealth creation of the nation. Unemployed and government bureaucrats primarily. People who deep down realize that they are superfluous parasites which motivates their hatred towards "the rich" or rather people who create wealth and consequently support these parasites financially. The situation with greens is even worse,their support group are either people with low level of intelligence or mental disorders. Both groups are extremely numerous which explains growing support base for green policies. On the other hand wealth creation requires intelligence, personal responsibility and discipline. These qualities aren't that common which ensures that these group is most often a minority. Therefore under a regular electoral democracy, parasites and idiots form the majority. Governments that draw their support from parasites and idiots are doing whatever they can in order to increase numbers of these groups, hence continuous degradation of education, refugees and ever expanding army of bureaucrats. In order to support these groups governments must spent heavily and consequently tax "dos" as much as they can and make the shortfall by borrowing. This takes us to the second problem with electoral democracy, an absolute lack of responsibility for politicians. Politicians know that whatever they do to harm the nation no punishment will ever be brought on to them. No, not being reelected is not a punishment. Consequently we end up with the system run by representatives of idiots and parasites for the benefit of crooks who have an absolute immunity from prosecution, what a great system! I am realistic in the notion that democratic scam would remain. Is there anything that would make it slightly more efficient? Of top of my head I came up with two measures: 1. I don't see how politicians are any better than directors of public companies, who are fully accountable for their decisions. All that needs to be done is for the corporations law to be applicable to politicians. So every candidate runs for elections with a proper disclosure document and in case of blatant disparity of their policies with this document, they should be charged with deceptive and misleading conduct and acting in bad faith etc. These by the way are criminal offenses. 2. Voting should be done in proportion to the taxes paid. The government only redistributes and redeploys the wealth confiscated from people. Therefore people who contribute more should have more of a say. For instance, each voter gets 1 vote + 1 vote for every $5 thousand paid in taxes. Additional benefit would be a significant increase in votes cast by more intelligent people.
Very intelligent question ! I have been thinking to it since a long time already . I have got some answers , and I would be very honored to share it with you . but later , to day I can't )
That means that some people are gullible enough to vote for somebody like Newt Gingrich. Isn't that funny?
I am sorry , I posted a long reply yesterday , but it was lost when sending . I forgot my old habits , I did not practice forums for a almost a year. But may be it's not so bad . To write English , I need to think in this language , which is not my daily one . So , as I fear to be unclear, I write very heavy , to be sure to be understood . Is it possible to do it shorter ? I'll try.( don't hesitate to tell me if my UK writing is impossible to print ) ------------------------------------------------------------------- fundamental faults 1- The topic is so wide , refered to the number of components . First thing is to choose a map , and a Map-North , so we don't get lost in the woods. Which I won't try today. The main thing , ( what I found by searching this topic ) At starting point, it is necessary to sum up what makes the nuclei of democracy concept : extracting it's genuine definitions out of the massive spread of lies about it . So : Opposit to what opponents say : democracy is not an egalitarian system, in fact it is the exact contrary of it . Egalitarian system pretends to gives everyone and anyone the same life starting capital , and schedule the same trajectory the same way for all . ( at least in the caricatural image sold by opponent ) . It doesn't accept the different performances of peoples . It can only be a caricature. Democracy is the utmost elitist system ! So actually elitist , which terrorises the mediocrity . (this effect is important : mediocrity makes peoples gather against the guys of real superior capacity , you can check that in administration offices . They fear talent , and they protect them against real knowledge ) Democracy was thought to optimise the global population's performance . The aim is that the group of people become as efficient as possible in his choices and acts of power. The aim is that the amount of labor necessary for the survival of the group are carried out with the best performance . As you can see, this is far from an issue of comfort for all, even if ultimately it concerns one of them. So it is necessary to find out who has the best skills in a particular branch of activity or intelligence. The wisest mean to get that is to give to ANYONE the basic opportunity to learn , to understand and ... to show to his elder masters , that he has a quality of brain that the group needs . ANYONE : It is of utmost importance that this research of skills be conducted as widely as possible, and therefore the means to live and study and réfléction, are provided to ALL whatever the social origine ,choosen breed or cousins of the elected chief of the place or else. Annex icture / Sample : Arounf birth of 19th century , a bunch of old lords , rich & idle were fond of Egyptian graves . They spent lots of Esterling ponds travelling , talking a lot ,drinking more & built proud monuments to their own idea of their own pride .... but for more than a century long , they never understood the least thing of what were written on the walls of these graves. In 1825 , it is the most disgusting figur of human element that they could fancy , that gave them the solution : J. F Champollion , age 35 , he was born poorest among the poors ,not even baronnet but a worst commoner ,not even english but a continental native ... and a French ! It is this guy , whatever , who found the magic key and translated the hieroglyphics . His father was a peasant owning no fields, himself never traveled to Egypt , but worked on what the Egypt expedition done by Napoleon Army had brought back .(the " pierre de Rosette" ) J.F. Champollion had used the very first opportunity given by the very first results of French 1789 revolution , to help the young guys to study , even if they didn't have the first dime for that. How many Champollions are daily lost , for the whole world ,simply by the third World poverty ? It's a daily catastrophy ! An our world needs desperatly young genius of any origin . And it is this precise elite research , which provoke the first danger : You'd be surprised to know how many peoples believe in their own legitimate superiority by fact of birth, based on their race breed , ancestry ... . Those guys feel wounded by being obliged to show what they are really able to do .They feel it as an assault to their born dignity . My Father is Lord..., My grand grand father faught at Azincourt! This points to one of the two main ennemies of Democracy . The little kids of former monarchy, and the racial superiority . Its as dumb and stupid as that. The second danger , for the same reason that democracy makes them an affront when they are asked to pass an exam to enter high school , is the racist concept of human societies ! Once more , here , peoples don't believe how enormous is the number of people living on this idea of men's hierarchy. They both claim for a " birth hierarchy" = the place they deserve - according to them - is due their birth only !! Democracy denies all racist concepts . That's why Jewish movement ( zionists terrorism ) managed to destroy our democracies since 1992 . As the parasitic way of life they prefer was in total opposition to their neverending project for our world , they had to destroy it . Bank were the first to assault democracy , as early as 1800 , when Rothschild famuily grasped the power in UK just after Waterloo. They are today the first big wicked ones , those who destroyed it . Democracy just said : << proove you are the best , and we will admit you deserve our respect and we will give you the means to use your knowledge >> A very marvellous example of the efficiency of democracy was given by all the 8 years of work to reach the Moon , after JFK speech . A Corean author had written a genialistikus book depicting this great Human adventur. ( Bold ) It was the last one !! The respect of this law , only , abolish most of respect and power problems : when anyone can watch the superior job that a guy has been able to do , respect commes natural. And a chief who benefits of this natural respect , is a very powerfull man, and so ,this group becomes powerfull too. The second reason why we lost our marvelous democratic limmo, is the excess of optimism of our grand fathers in democracy . Lincoln an others : they had done their part , sure.! But they could not imagin that there were guys that hated the public wealth . They could not think that some minor human groups were living on a base of unifying hatred . Hatred against the " others" . They made the error to believe that any human had the same universal <<moral values >> . It was a dangerous mistake ! If you come from a place where there is no dangerous animal , if never met with a rattle snake , and you stroke it , you get easily a lethal bite . Nature shows us the perpetuel danger comming from the <<lack of knowledge >>.For a human group or for the whole mankind ,those laws are masters. I will tell more next . But it looks as if nobody had prepared any active defense to protect the fragile building of democracy , against it's enemies. First , by knowing who are those " ennemy" In fact , it is not difficult to kill a group of peoples who welcom the killer as a brother ..
I think your misinformed. A mass Amount of American Legislation is written and passed based on lobbyist influence from large corporations. Many super rich Americans are rich by inheritance not because they are smarter then anyone else. The problem with a republic is the same as any other form of governance. No human being is perfect neither is any human society. Our republic has serious benefits over oligarchy or other hereditary forms of government in the sense that we have checks and balances in place to prevent serious abuses of power. Our government also leaves room for people to rise through the class system based on their own intelligence though people who would not like to see wealth distributed try to put down policy to block this. Government officials are as responsible for their deeds as we allow them to be, that has nothing to do with the system, but who is using it and how. I could take a hammer and use it to make a shelf or i could take it and smash a window, a hammer is just a tool how its used depends on who wields it. Right now America does have serious responsibility issues, from politicians, to large corporate executives, to entitlement abusers to the people who complain but don't take action. Its not a flaw in the concept of the republic but in the personal habits of our societies individuals. People have various talents and most of them are important. Many Americans keep the common misconception that management type jobs are more important than labor type jobs. The truth is someone has to grow our food. Someone has to fix equipment. Someone has to organize. So why should a corporate executive make an extensively higher amount of money than a farm hand. Because hes smarter? Do you think that executive could succeed as a farm hand? Do you think he could think clearly for hours in the sun cultivating crops and fixing farm equipment? So is the executive really more intelligent or does he just have different talents? I think recognition of the importance of various talents is a severe problem in our society today. I also believe solving our problems lies with stronger and broader ranged educational programs. We also need to make it more affordable and secure to patent new idea's so inventors don't need to worry about being robbed by investors. Unfortunately at this time we don't have an established political party sporting a progressive belief system that would bring our country out of the fog, but it certainly is a possibility in the future. If entitlement programs and corporate ethics were properly regulated and our thinkers thoughts were protected it would be an incentive for productive self employment.
You are confusing Democracy with Capitalism. The two are not the same thing. Democracy has nothing to do with capital. Democracy is a political and social model. Capitalism is an economic model. .
Democracy IS egalitarian in the sense that everyone gets a vote. They are POLITICALLY equal, even if they do not have the same amount of money.
I'll make it shorter : The American democracy , as it was built from the beginning , was a very good system , but with the faults of youth. Peoples who feel really involved in a better life for all , can't imagine that there are noxious group of peoples for whom this wealth of the whole population don't mean anything !. While G Whashington or A Lincoln were fighting for a wider mind system for pulic wealth , they simply could not fancy that a simple family as Rothschild was fightingt against such goals !. Yet they were working very hard to ruin as well the USA and the Russia of Nicolas II . Nicolas II helped USA , warning them of this dangerous threat on federal bank. US capitalism is not a fundamental wicked system , but exactly all the contrary : peoples like Henry Ford or Dale Carnegie ( and lots of others such as Lindbergh funding PanAm ) were the capitalism who raised for peoples wealth . They were truely managing their factories in order to help the folks to live better .... taht was the precise opposit goal of the jewish capitalism : who fought for his own money ,his own power and at any price ... paid by american people . ( 1929 crisis was made by rothschild and they made lot of money ,buying at lo prices ..sending crowds of folks starving on the roads) But when jewish capitalism spread , it showed as being the worst ennemy of these specific american capitalists . Jacob Shiff , Louis Dembitz Brandeïs hated to death the genuine american capitalists who were involved in a better life for every citizen : the exact opposit of what was the jewish capitalism which never produced anything usefull for folks , but only speculate on worst events . Rothschild world lives on the peoples catastrophy ( wars , crisis ) it is their unic speciality since Napoleon 1st. In short , our young democracy staff could not imagine there was so dangerous peoples so close to their power , smiling to them , giving them advices , and who constantly flatter them . The power of money were used without any human feeling by those noxious Jews , and they attacked politiçal staff who lived on humanist ideas .The latters had no chance . Black mailing , hostiles take over , assasination of presidents ..there is no limit to the means when you are ruling all the popular newspapers . Such are our past & present faults . We are still about to pay a lot for it ! Democracy remains the best system of power ever ! The big genius of democracy is to count on the endemic faults , on the specific flaws of the human specie, to ensure a balance: giving to this system an hyper strong base ! Those craetors were really genius , using the human faults as a base to help mooving upwards to the best ! If one day , we triumph once more of the jewish evil , the survivors will have to learn from this present war : learn to protect the precious system from the wicked peoples : keep the bank as an help for country growing , and nothing more !! Money is a weapon , and as such , must be kept far from individuals .(*). It needs a specific study , because the appliance is not easy . Always the old balance between freedom and security has to be trimmed ! And especially , to be efficient in the protection of what is actually precious , needs a population who is not living in fear of anything . Individual instruction , individual courage and intelligence have to contribute . And , as a living stuff , all these concepts need no rest : a living thing always changes , mooves , mutes, so must be our minds ! Conservatism means death for living things ! ( *) A limitation to private property has clearly to be held . The Money which is necessary to live one life without starving and without working , forinstance . Experience prooved that excess of private money turns always noxious for the community ( fear industry & , armament , subversive bankstering as Rothschild did )
I'm having a bit of trouble following what you mean, but I suppose that my objection to democracy could be best shown as the "wikipedia problem" Both are egalitarian systems, and they both fail in the same sorts of ways. ON wikipedia, anyone can edit a page -- I can, your 8 year old kid can, nuclear physicists can, and so on. The problem comes quite frequently when a person tries to edit a page in a subject that he doesn't understand -- chances are that he'll make a mistake. He'll get an equation wrong or something. But because the wikipedia is egalitarian, his edits count for just as much as someone who has a ph.D in the subject at hand. The system therefore is more or less the "most popular" version of whatever page we're editing. You don't get locked out for knowing nothing, and I don't get extra credit for having knowledge -- even deep knowledge -- of the subject. Democracy works on the same principle. All of the citizens of any nation get to have a choice (at least indirectly) in every issue that the state deals with. You run into the same problem -- the solutions chosen are not the "best" but the most popular. But that's not always the "right" answer. The future of America might be better if we made use of nuclear energy or putting in a new pipeline. That may very well be what people who study our energy sources would choose, but they'll likely be outvoted by someone who misunderstands the risks of those projects. That's the problem in a democracy -- people are voting on issues that they don't understand. People who work at McDonald's are probably more numerous than CEOs, so when it comes to economic issues, the bent of the administration is going to lean toward the more numerous population who doesn't know what is going on, oftentimes at the expense of getting the best possible result. And when it comes to defense, I think that's the one that most democracies fail on, because unless you are a real expert on international affairs, you can't possibly know the right answer. And even under the best of circumstances, very very few of us are even rank amateurs on the subject. To shorten it up, I'd say that democracy is like having everybody vote on the best way to build an airplane, rather than letting engineers decide.
That is true. But they are more likely to be right than the solutions of a random individual. That is why majority decisions tend to work better than individual decisions in the long term. Yes, it is possible you will get an individual who makes better choices than the majority, but it is not statistically likely. In a free society, the smartypants individuals can have their say though. If nothing else, in the court of public opinion. If their solutions make sense to a lot of people (a majority) they will inevitably be put into practice. Smartypants people are also a lot more likely to be listened to by the people who make policy, since those people are elected and the smartypants people will provide solutions to problems that will make their re-election more likely. I would say it is more like having everybody vote for the engineer they like the most. Normal people do not make decisions directly in a democracy.
Quote: To shorten it up, I'd say that democracy is like having everybody vote on the best way to build an airplane, rather than letting engineers decide. I would say it is more like having everybody vote for the engineer they like the most. Normal people do not make decisions directly in a democracy. Its a good thing the United States isn't a Democracy Majority rule isn't that great especially with the human habit of generalization. If you look at the Roman Catholic Church and some of their horrific crimes against "heretics" (any minority belief different than theirs) you will find that the popular view isn't always the greatest. Oh yes and let us not forget slavery in the good old US of A. Popular but not really great. A good republic that basis itself on good laws isn't perfect but it does present a system that challenges some of the lesser choices a population finds enticing.
Maybe, but the effect is more like choosing the airplane design as the amount of pandering that goes on pretty much garentees that if the public thinks that six wings are needed and it should run on pixie dust, that's what will happen. That's a big problem in any society -- if your system will not let you make an unpopular but needed change in the laws (i.e IMO to really fix the debt crisis and avoid default, we probably need to gut most social welfare programs as well as raise taxes) then the society eventually falls apart because the popular solutions to those problems don't make the situation better and since can't politically make an unpopular decision.
One example is the most recent event in 2000, where the majority of the USA voted for a president, and the loser was chosen by the electoral college. As aresult the loser turned out to be a real loser, and here we are today, struggling with the results of corporate management of government for the past 12 years. The system of electoral is a idea/concept created in the days of the pony express. As times have changed and with broadcast media moguls trying to manipulate the internet and free information. We do not need a group of people who select the president for us. Grant it people in the USA are ignorant and simple minded. But the right for people to vote should be respected, as is the right to free and true information (not spined propaganda of the broadcast media). For without it, this is not a democracy.
I am guessing that if positions were reversed, and the Democrat was the one getting by only with electoral votes, that liberals would suddenly not have a problem with it. This is still technically democracy, because Congress supersedes the President, and Congress is directly elected. So it is majority rule after all. The President is not a king...he can be overridden by Congress, but the reverse is not true.
The key problem with democracy is that all the sources of information are controlled by the rich and evil, so the electorate is allowed no facts to work on.
