Is democracy actually the best system ?

Is democracy actually the best system ?

Im not trying to go full /pol/ mode saying we should just get rid of the poor/black/whatever minority but I dont think the vote of everyone is the same.

Most of the time the less fortunate ones dont even know what they want or what is good for them or society.

There is even cases where you cant even say they are as intelligent as the average human being.

Im not gonna start a "are all races the same" debate but you can just look at drug addicts with brain damage or people who are intellectually handicapped because of poor nutrition at a very young age or whatever reason.

I dont think either we should just let them die because they have the same right to live a plenty life as everyone else but I think instead they should be taken care of like you do with your childs because they dont have the resources or even know what the fuck is good for them (for example you see poor people having tons of children even when they dont have the money to do it).

I neither think you should just have a bunch of very "qualified" (define qualified as whatever you want) people decide our destiny by themselves because history has shown us that can lead to some severe shitstorm.

But wouldnt a system in which some qualifications are required to vote, being the amount of qualifications not "too much" to prevented those in the top of our society from settling a tyranny and that also took care of those who couldnt vote be better ?

Also you would expect to diminish the amount of people who cannot vote by improving the education, health care, etc so theoretically everyone could achieve the requirements needed to vote.

>I neither think you should just have a bunch of very "qualified" (define qualified as whatever you want) people decide our destiny by themselves because history has shown us that can lead to some severe shitstorm.

Democracy is a horrible idea, and it's a major reason the Constitution was set up the way it was. It necessarily leads to tyranny. The classical liberals/libertarians of the enlightenment knew that and saw the preservation of natural rights as the ultimate political good. It wasn't until 19th and 20th century socialists re-framed "good government" to mean "democratic government"

People are guided by self-interest, and even if your first few enlightened despots are good rulers, the system stagnates and the powerful exploit their position and you're left with no system to keep them accountable. Democracy may be an ineffective mess most of the time, but it allows for the peaceful, orderly transfer of power and at least theoretically forces the needs of the people to be addressed by those in power.

Voting should be made by the direct affected by something. Many micro-votings and general voting for issues affecting averyone. This said some things are not for voting.

"can" implies possibly not necessarily

You can set some requirements like "graduated from college" so you restrain the bottom of the society from voting but you have a large enough group that makes a tyranny practically impossible.

Democracy certainly has its problems (case and point what happened today) but its a much better system than any of its alternatives. If someone is fucking up the country all you have to do is wait until their term is up and vote them out, in any kind of autocratic state you either have to wait for him to die (with no guarantee that whoever succeeds him will be any better) or start a violent revolution that will kill many innocent people and throw the country into chaos, and then IF it does actually succeed there's STILL no guarantee whoever comes into power will be any better.

Oh yeah, sure, good idea.

And then you start tightly controlling who gets to graduate from college and who doesn't.

Perfect. Flawless victory.

>You can set some requirements like "graduated from college"
>You can set some requirements like "graduated from college" so you restrain the bottom of the society from voting

Because locking the voice of a very large portion of the people behind a door that says "You must pay this much to vote" couldn't possibly backfire.

You have to have some kind of democratic element to the government, but letting people vote for laws or for all government posts is just asking for trouble. It should work on a ground up approach: the people elect their local representatives, who enact local laws and vote for say state representatives, who enact state laws and vote for national representatives, etc. etc. (Expanding on the Constitution had an aspect of this when it had Senators being elected by state legislatures instead of a direct popular vote, but that was changed by the 17th amendment.)

That way you separate the "rabble" from too much influence on positions of greater power, but you still have a democratic mechanism to expel tyrants and promote the general welfare.

The problem wouldnt be the requirement then but corruption, dont you think you should fight corruption instead of doing nothing because it can be corrupted ?

I didnt say they didnt matter. Read original post. I said they did matter but that you should take care of them like kids or the elder.

PS. Graduating from college was a bad example, forgot you actually had to pay to get education in murica, but you get the idea.

>here's a terribly thought out idea
>this idea is bad because [obvious potential for abuse]
>ok that was a bad example, but you get the idea
no, I don't

Right- and the primary features and functions of American democracy at the time of the country's founding were 1, to allow for personal freedom, and 2, to provide as much insurance against potential tyranny as possible. It was very clearly important to decentralize power in nearly every way for this purpose. In your later post you say that we should just try real hard to prevent corruption, when even with as many checks and balances as we have corruption is widely evident despite all efforts. You have to do both, and very well, to be effective.

>mfw democracy can't cope with the average person being able to create and disseminate all kinds of niche propaganda with their smart phone

pack it in boys

NatSoc probably is, assuming that physical borders are carved out with respect to less tangible ones.

Democracy is the road from Monarchy to Socialism and nothing more.

>Im not gonna start a "are all races the same" debate but you can just look at drug addicts with brain damage or people who are intellectually handicapped because of poor nutrition at a very young age or whatever reason.

You might have a point if voting was mandatory, but as the system is in America today, those people by and large simply don't vote. Only a bit over 1/3rd of all Americans voted in the 2016 election. This fear that 'my intelligent vote' is being drowned out by 'hordes of the uneducated & politically illiterate' doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Anyway I urge you to read The Myth of the Rational Voter to get a better idea of the mechanics of our electoral system and your place in it.

said the socialist.

Democracy works best when it is direct and kept at a local level, and the ability to vote is restricted for the oldest and wisest citizens and those who own land, like in Ancient Athens.

Ancient Athens was a shit show (see: Pericles). It's one of the reasons the Founding Fathers didn't WANT direct democracy, as is this election. They didn't want to moneyed interests to be able to use their wealth to scream the loudest and direct mob rule.

Yes, only land owning males over the age of 35 should be able to vote, surely this one demographic will vote in the best interest of everyone.

The US election is not democracy at a local level so what you said hasn't got much to do with my post

I agree

>Direct Democracy
Majority of people vote for the subjugation for the remaining number of people. Majority of people can vote to remove freedoms of the rest of the populace and the future freedoms of their descendants, therefore rendering future majorities who are against such laws obsolete as it has already passed into law.

>Representative Democracy
You vote for individuals who will gradually erode your privacy and vote in laws which will negatively effect you in order to protest themselves and garner more profit.

>Constitutional Monarchy
Logically inconsistent. Especially in the susceptibility for monarchs to be manipulated in old and young age and the strange necessity for a parliament to exist in restricting a monarch implying that parliament is of higher knowledge or rationality yet simultaneously maintaining the monarch.

>Autocracy (Absolute Monarchy and Dictatorship)
Inability for citizens to properly affect change and express their opinions, can be open to brutality in order to maintain established order and too easy for it to be abused by a corrupt individual. Leads to instability when revolutions are formed or coup d'etats resulting in many deaths. Also suffers from the previous problem outlined or susceptibility in young and old age.

>Technocracy
Far too reductive. Forgets that scientific methods and knowledge is always changing and to base laws and decision-making on science is too reductive as it is constantly in a flux and changes based on new evidence and methodology or lack thereof and is too flippant in its denial of ethical and moral philosophy.

Deppends on what type of democracy it is and ti what degree the people have a say in political decisions and on the country
For example democracy for Russia simply does not work

>Anarchy
Reduction in the standard of living, open to abuse, tendency towards acting like a state whilst rejecting such a title. Unlikely to be considered by the majority of people as they are unwilling to give up a level of living they have worked towards. Essentially requires individuals to organise and engage in communal tasks, allocating resources etc. which is significantly more difficult than having a state and more difficult to deal with considering current population levels, could result in chaos, famine, starvation and a multitude of other problems.

>Meritocracy
How is this measured? Too subjective.

>Theocracy
Problems exist for obvious reasons, don't need to measured out.


Wtf, all of these systems are shit!

Only employed people should be allowed to vote.

I propose a standardised test to be carried out before every election or referendum that outlines that you must have a basic to intermediate knowledge consisting of economics, social issues and their interactions with each other, foreign affairs, law, a brief summery of the main policies being contested and the relationship these all have with each other. wether or not you passed would be revealed after tests are completed as to not have answers leaked. This is only in theory though as this test can be easily manipulated to have a bias however, i think it is the best way to keep extremism out of elections by needing the voter to have consistent knowledge of both sides of the coin

>Is democracy actually the best system?
Do we even have democracy?

Democracy is the best system if you let it play out long enough. It creates involvement, effective social mechanisms and lets people and nations learn through their own mistakes. It can enter crises when the government fucks up, or when it has not been established for long enough. But there is development - or at least constant change - in democracy, while other systems result in stagnant cultures.

>people in charge of making the tests designs them so that people who agree with their ideals are more likely to pass

next

>Most of the time the less fortunate ones dont even know what they want or what is good for them or society.
No, but at least they actually WANT what they think is best for them, which is more than what you can say for systems where a person's fate is in the hands of elites that may think of them as of lesser importance.

Only because they set up a flawed election system that allows easy manipulation of the vote tally from a central location.

History has proven the triumph of democratic institutions over authoritarian ones time and time again. The issue is that democracy (In the sense of that practiced by the modern first-world) requires a certain degree of groundwork before it can be attempted. This includes having some semblance of a national identity, a tradition of somewhat centralized government that can provide services to the people, a public idea of the "rule of law" instead of might makes right, and a populace that maintains at least some level of education and literacy. The reason the so-called democracies of the third-world have failed is because they had none of the aforementioned. They were cargo-cult governments that that tried to ape the end point of the first-world without all the necessary components.

>who do you want to get cucked by? The government or the corporations?

Is this really what all politics boils down to?

>Most of the time the less fortunate ones dont even know what they want or what is good for them or society.
That's true, but they're at least as likely to vote for what's really good for them as people who, if given the chance, would be likely to completely disregard their interests, i.e. the rest of society.

>But wouldnt a system in which some qualifications are required to vote, being the amount of qualifications not "too much" to prevented those in the top of our society from settling a tyranny and that also took care of those who couldnt vote be better ?
That's how it started, you used to need to be a landowner to vote, but good luck putting the universal suffrage genie back in the bottle.