Would a Direct Democracy world government be a good thing or a bad thing?

>using the word "comfy" when describing ancient civilizations
Back to plebbit

Direct democracy could be a good thing, but only if suffrage was limited to the landowner class the way it was in Athens or in the early United States.

Universal suffrage was a mistake.

>any kind of democratic world government
>successful

Absolutely no fucking way. Despite what liberals like to think, democracy is not compatible with all cultures. Democracy would not work in China, and it's doesn't work in practice in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, etc.

At best it would be an extremely corrupt and flawed democracy and would collapse quickly. At worst it would have to retain power through being a totalitarian dictatorship.

Switzerland isn't a country at this point. It's a fortified mountain bank.

Thanks for your educated opinion friend, good contribution.

Direct democracy works fine in Switzerland, but it has some quirks that will prevent it from being used on a larger scale.

a) Switzerland has 3 levels of executive powers, communal, cantonal and federal, all direct democratic. Thats lots of layers for a very small country, and they are needed to keep everyone happy and represented.
You'd need several more for the entire world and that makes things complicated.

b) Switzerland has a concordance type government, meaning winner doesn't take it all but only a part and ministers are from all parties and are bound by law to work together no matter their affiliations. Thats unique and is hard to understand for everyone else

c) The Swiss have an intimate relation with "their" state, they are true republicans as they believe the whole nation is their personal property, they want to have a say with every decision that is made and will get highly emotional on this.

All in all it is a brilliant system but hard to adapt to. a confederated EU that incorporates such elements would be a nice thing, but not in the best interest of politicians, so it will never happen.

Not verbose enough? Seriously. You can't compare switzerland with regular countries. No one attacks it because of the terrain AND no one wants to lose their swiss bank account.

Again, thanks for your valuable input, I will notify the French that they did not successfully invade Switzerland back 1798.

>doesn't know about history
>doesn't talk about direct democracy
>just posts his IQ85 - hey I can read a tabloid world views

Direct democracy works in principle, but it requires setting initial conditions. Like a colony of ten thousand people who have already invested a shit ton in building the new society and can be expected to make meaningful contributions is going to fare much better than if our current society decided to undergo direct democracy, having never had to take responsibility for anything before and in most cases purposely trying not to.

How so? The greatness of its culture is reflected in the fact that even today, we are still parroting in our popular comedies, the same exact fart jokes that were popular in Athenian Middle Comedy.

>they weren't that great they only invented everything that we enjoy about our culture

How is concordance type of government hard to understand? It's pretty standard everywhere here in Europe, except UK.

It's just that power is distributed by the votes. If party A gets 20 % of all votes, they'll have roughly about similar amount of seats in parliament. Then it's for the winners of the vote to built a working government from parties and representatives holding the seats.

I find winner takes it all approach in USA and UK more complex. (Honestly, it's a bit dumb system)

Sorry if my english is hard to understand.

>Would a Direct Democracy world government be a good thing or a bad thing?
That'll be pretty bad.

People would just meme vote for their representatives.

China and India will win it numerous times.

>they wrote a few gay plays about buttfucking therefore they invented everything

Bad because it's suceptible to propaganda more than others

what kind of propaganda? From whom? Theres only one government

Everything modern comes from the Greeks. Everything else is medievalism.

Nobody in Euope has a concordance type government. Alliances between parties are not the same. In Switzerland you got executive ministers from all major parties, no mer who won the last parliamentary elections an no coalitions needed.
as said, hard to understand.

>Nobody else

I apparently misunderstood that term "concordance", I'm not english speaker.

But generally, it's common in Europe that who won the election, opens a discussion to form coalition that can build a working government. So that's pretty close anyway.

Concordance apparently leaves that part out, and the entire parliament works to built the government. So there's no opposition.

Did I get it right this time?

you have to stop user.

Please see pic for answer, spam filter objects my post for whatever reason

Interesting.

So it's sort of combination of representative democracy and "office government" (or whatever government of hired professionals is called in english)

...

depends on, the executive is indeed not voted into office by the people but by their representatives the parliament. On the other hand, the people have the right to vote about every law that comes into effect and come up with new laws and vote them into effect. By this mechano they hold a lot of power and can overrule the parliament and sink the politics of the executive entirely if needed be.

On the other hand the executive can use various means to water down stupid ideas, like delaying them until extreme measures are not requested anymore, chop big and ugly problems up in smaller chunks which are easier to swallow, or generally mellow things out a bit.

So it is a stabilizing factor, delaying things a bit when people need to sober up first, speeding things a bit and the public hasn't caught the drift yet and so on.

Yeah, have the wealthy and powerful make all the descision. That will surely lead to anegalitarian society.

Looks very comfy, might wanna visit myself sometime.

>Let's let China and India rule the world!: The Post

Heres the rub, a confederate direct democratic world government would only work if everybody has the same democratic standards, which in this case means China would have to give up their one party system and become truly democratic and pluralistic to be part of the confederation. This is not gonna happen anytime soon.

Most of the world population isn't educated enough.