Hey guys, what if we decided extremely complex, critical, issues requiring extensive study and expertise...

>hey guys, what if we decided extremely complex, critical, issues requiring extensive study and expertise, by a common vote of uninformed people whose expertise is totally unvetted?

youtube.com/watch?v=TArNqebm_Gg

>thinking they count votes

You vote for representatives who make these decisions, not directly for policy you fool.

When you reject democracy you reject self-rule. Maybe political cucks like you think daddy in the state knows what's best for you better than you know yourself, but I disagree.

Democracy means you are ruled by the masses, not by yourself.

These anons are correct.

If you get bent out of shape thinking that dummies are screwing up voting you should probably read up on how the American political system works

That's why sensible nations have concepts like a constitution, representatives, division of powers, individual rights, freedom of the press, etc.

whose fault is it that the populace isn't educated on these issues?

also, what does it matter?

Stop distancing yourself from the masses, you literal pleb. Democracy is the closest there is to self rule.

But most educated people vote liberal, due to being brainwashed by liberal teachers and media and then they go out and vote incorrectly.

As opposed to some jackass who only got there through virtue of being popped out of the right vag000?

Stop identifying with the masses, that's mob mentality.

It's the apprentice system for occupations, applied to politics.

When everyone in a "mass" has a say on the trajectory of their life and all decisions are collated into universal law you get "ruled by the masses". There's no way around that.

Either you don't have a society at all i.e. universal law no longer applies and maybe some sort of smaller tribal community is put in stead, or you have rule by the elite other whom you hope knows better than you about what's best for you, or you have mass consensus.

That doesn't really matter when the jackass stil gets the seat even if he's known to be a total incompetent, like Willy.

Monarchs generally have a lot of advisers, it's not like they deliberate on decisions on their own.

Germany should have kept monarchy, desu, it would have been better, even though Willy was awful.

But that's kind of the whole thing isn't it?

Monarchies seem to work until the entire country falls apart, which happens quite often historically.

Mob mentality would be telling the minority to shut up and be ruled. I'm telling you to not lose track that you are part of the public discussion as much as anyone else, so you are part of "the masses".

You could say the same about democracy, see the Weirmar Republic.

That's like telling a grain of sand, "You play a part in shaping the beach." Well, yes, technically, but it's infinitesimal.

I distrust the Democratic Republic model as much as the next guy, but to claim it has caused as much bloodshed as Monarchy and Autocracy is absurd.

Well, there are plenty of examples for any given political system of it crashing and burning. It's all class struggle really. :^)

You are right, you are a special snowflake that could solve all of the worlds issues if you just didn't have to worry about the several billion people you share a planet with.

Totalitarian dictatorships are what *replace* monarchies. Monarchies are authoratarian, but far from totalitarian. If the monarchies of China, Russia, Italy, and Germany didn't fall, the 20th Century would be have been a lot better.

I don't claim I could anymore than every other non-specialist.

And if Rome hadn't split and fallen, the whole planet would be a lot better.

But I guess we can't prove that because that's not how history works.

Democracy is rarely self rule, usually there are loop holes that allow power units to take authority. The USA for example has very easy access to their political positions and elected officials, thinking this openness gives a common citizen more access to the government.

But it practice incorporated units benefit much more to this ease of access then any individual since they can afford the time, energy and directed agenda to approach the government on multiple fronts to get policy passed.

Voting also requires so much energy from a populous to be effective. If a democracy was serious about being a democracy then voting would be required, there would be no conditions that revoked suffrage, election voting would not be limited to a 24 hour period, and all forms of education would be funded by taxes with access to said education given to all current voters. Anything short of this is just meme-teir oligarchy pretending to give the population some government influence.