Is the human species too stupid for democracy? The u.s...

You lack reading skills

You lack reading skills. Why the fuck would you think i am a leftist?

>Is the human species too stupid for democracy?
Whites can manage, though after repeated attempts in the Middle East we can conclude Muslims are too stupid for democracy

• Democracy works only when people are educated in current events.
• People rely on the news to supply them with actuate information about current events
• Past decade news has become more and more bi-partisan and bias, but it still worked because local news is very unbiased
• Just recently local news is being bought out by large news corps which force them to run their paid for partisan news stories (deliverables)
• Country was hit with the most successful propaganda campaign in modern history

It's not a problem of people not having enough information.
It's a problem of people being given misinformation. Misinformation is MUCH more dangerous. America would actually be safer if they were stupid babies or never watched a single news story in their life than if they were fed misinformation all day long.

>Is the human species too stupid for democracy?
This is what Russia wants Americans to believe. It's Russia's goal (as it has been for many decades) to destroy democracy and capitalism.
Make no mistake, Russia has openly admitted on live TV they're at war with the United states and the United States has confirmed Russia attacked the democratic system. If democracy faltered, it's because GREAT efforts were made to destroy democracy.

>Whites can manage
>import millions of savges into your own country
>elect Muslim mayor
No

The average citizen cant be properly informed about every relevant subject and is therefore unable to make the decision society would benefit most of.
There are also many other flaws. Democracy has. Like parties focusing to hard on middle class since they make the majority of voters.
What are viable alternative political systems?

Sure. Let's enact a policy:

>only people over the age of 21 can vote
>In order to qualify, you have to fulfill one of two criteria: be a net taxpayer (pay more into the system than you take out), or pass a basic knowledge test that covers politics, law, and history.

Guess which party would win the election every single cycle.

Thanks for being the first person to actually understand the point of this post btw

I actually think this would be a step in the right direction. However i am not talking about fixing democracy i am talking about a new system that does not have democracys essential flaws while not being repressive autocracy

that's big talk when lefties are more educated and live in the areas that produce more gdp per capita

I think you've been fed a distorted angle. Republicans own the $30,000 and up demographic while Democrats own $30,000 and less.

"Areas" means nothing. The top earners of an area may be right wingers but if they are out-manned by concentrated poverty (like in cities) it will be a futile effort.

Also, it's no secret that Democrats rely on the low-information, low-stake vote and they are always pressing hard for sheer voter turnout because that is how they get their victories.

The past election has moved dynamics in a weird way thanks to the drive for the formerly Democratic blue collar, working class white vote but according to exit polling the result is the same.

Democrats think requiring a mere driver's license is an affront on civil rights and grounds for filibuster. Just wait and see what the reaction would be if what I just mentioned would be proposed.

...

>shrek image
>misinformed
>spelling and grammar errors out the wazoo
>we, I, he
You're either a minor, a foreigner, or this is bait.

Ok so I think if you got rid of any age restriction and just had 2/3 of these qualifications;
>high school diploma or equivalent,
>Pay more into the system then you take out
>Be fully self supported financially

I think an age limit, especially a higher one is a bad idea. If your country can draft you to fight you should be able to vote.

Random pic
Tell me where i am misinformes i am open to changing my oppinion
Posting on handy+not a native english speaker

Well I got that info from here so you could be bullshit too.

>high school diploma
>"fully self supporting financially"

These are stupid and you know it. If we're going to have an actual, proactively educated voting population it is going to take consistent learning and effort, that's called being a stakeholder. You can sleep through high school and get a diploma with all D's.

I think the draft age should be lifted or removed anyway. Why do we restrict drinking and smoking now?

When you get drafted to fight you only have to follow orders. When participating in politics you are required to have a good understanding of many complex subjects why i think a somewhat high age restriction isnt that bad of an idea. Not saying duty does not deserve respect tho

How about valuing a-grade graduates votes higher than d-grade ones?

Suffice to say there is an education issue in the US. To have a proper democratic republic, requires education, and said standards have been going nowhere but down.

On the other hand, in this case, the populous was made to choose between someone widely perceived as extremely competent, but pure evil, and another individual, who had no experience at all and was basically a clown feeding on hate and fear.

If you have to choose between competent evil, and a clown, the US choice was actually the logical one.

The GOP tried to Ron Paul Trump early on, but had been feeding on a hate frenzy for so long that they lost control of their party to that passion they created, coupled with forgetting that nothing can stick to showman like Trump, and that most of their party base, and platform, was based on anti-establishmentism, which Trump represented incarnate.

Any GOP candidate would have won against Hillary, since the Democrats Ron Pauled Sanders, their only anti-establishment candidate, and probably would have won by a much wider margin. You can count the number of times an establishment candidate has won against a non-incumbent in the US on one hand. The US just loves a rebel, regardless of how well things are going - it's fundamentally ingrained in the culture. It's also why Obama won, both times.

In short, the GOP lost control of their electorate, and won the election. I suppose the Democrats might have stood a chance, had they done the same.

Maybe, I don't see the problem with a very general (and current) test that has to be taken every 4 years to stay registered though. Could take like a few hours to study for and most of it would be straightforward.

Or you could make decent money and pay your taxes and not have to worry about it. That's two clear avenues for your average American to take and would drastically improve the decision making in the voting process. As a result politicians would clean up their acts since low hanging fruit issues would become moot.

I think its hillarious that politics barely matter in presidential election->average voter is a dumbfuck->average voter shouldnt get to decide in matter like this

>average citizen cant be properly informed about every relevant subject

People only vote on what they care about, and and if people care about something they usually are informed about it somehow. Voting isn't like a multiple choice test where you don't know the answers so you make random guesses. That'd be horribly stupid and no one does this.

>Like parties focusing to hard on middle class since they make the majority of voters.
The middle class mob has large numbers, but the 1% has all the money. Money does make a difference in politics. It all evens out, most of the time.

>Is the human species too stupid for democracy?

No, the basics involving it are easy to understand. The problem is unless you monitor the system properly it is fairly easy to manipulate if enough of the players have ulterior motives.

>The u.s. just elected a president solely because of the impression he did in the media not for his political views.

They do this all the time, nothing is new about that. The problem is this time around the guy they selected is a snake oil salesmen and his voting base is mostly comprised of bandwagoners who blindly follow him because they're stuck in a semi-permanent sunk cost fallacy involving identity politics.

Which is explicitly why Steve Bannon kept mentioning that. It's not just the media that's obsessed with it but also the american people. They too addicted to their own drama which is a problem because America's narcissism will probably be rewarded with a sucker punch via nuke because they're too distracted with the White House performing they're weekly circus act.

>Is the human species too stupid for democracy?
Yes. Most of the Greek philosophers came to a similar conclusion. Many of them viewed democracy and its as an inherently degenerate state, which could only further devolve into a form of tyranny. Whether tyranny of an ignorant majority, plutocracy, oligfarchy, or whatever else. Interesting however is the definition of a "timocracy", rule by the honorable, which would be a devolved ideal aristocracy.

They didn't have a solution either. Most settled on forms of aristocracy that would temporarily be rule by wise, moral, intellectually honest people. They readily acknowledged this state could not be endless.

>and its
derivatives*

This. It's a democratic republic. Or an oligarchy. Or a plutocracy. I dunno. It's not a democracy.

The biggest problem with democracy is that it's not even possible. After all, someone is deciding on what to vote on. Whoever determines what can actually be voted on is really in power.

State governments are democratic.
Federal government is republic.

If the Federal government were democratic, Hillary would be the president cause she won the popular vote. That little clarification makes this WHOLE thread moot, doesn't it?

>blame poorly working democracy for electing Trump
>Trump wasn't even democratically elected
>Hillary won the democratic vote
When do we get to blame poorly working republic for electing Trump?

>State governments are democratic.
Last I checked, state governments still govern via representatives, and only a handful of laws are ever decided by democratic vote.

...and then there's the gerrymandering.

i agree completely, even though i am angry at Bernie for not saying something against Hillary, he was still way better than the other candidates
no, the people should have the right to choose, even if they suffer for it.

The "popular vote" is just an aggregate statistic of what is really a state by state vote. If Presidents were elected purely democratically nationwide the outcome would be skewed differently as people in heavily red or blue states would be more encouraged to turn out.

Voting standards also differ from state to state.

>People only vote on what they care about, and and if people care about something they usually are informed about it somehow.

No. Sadly this is not reality. Go on the street and start asking passangers about political subjects that are more complex than "do you want the wall" or "do you want higher taxes". Around 9 out of 10 people will have 0 clue. Also good luck finding a someone who can cite current economic, education, etc. statistics

For fucks sake. I only took trump as an example about the society not being able to make peoper political decision based on facts and statistics. I dont have a problem with trump. I dont even live in the u.s.

Its a representative democracy. Not a direct one. However the representatives still have to make changes based on their voters oppinion or they wont be reelected

>no, the people should have the right to choose, even if they suffer for it.

Why? This makes no sense. The human species should thrive for perfection and not let everyone, including the stupid one of us, rule.

Its 2017 i think if the smart of us sit together we might be able to figure a better working system out

People voted for him because he was the only one who said he'd stop illegal immigration and prevent a refugee crisis happening in America, clueless moron. Kys.

Yea obviously those are the subjects that matter most lmao. But thanks for proving my point

Lmao literally this. Fuck off OP ya fag.

Talking about american president - human species. Hey brainlet, your question is about USA election system not humans themself

Its an example to help morons like you understand my point. Didnt work out sadly

Also i am talking about wether the human species is smart enough to make the political system democracy work. Its about humans AND politics

this is all stuff that's studied in economics (a science whether you like it or not) in particularly in public choice theory

Not all opinions are equal, despite what you're fed in childhood. Too many votes are cast based on emotion, blind following, or fear of the ever changing present.

All of this misinformation, emotional charging, and deflection from real problems is what is fucking over our voting. Thankfully, more young people aren't being like their parents or grandparents and don't follow MSM or even local news now thanks to the internet gradually superseding television. In contrast to that though, they do read a lot of clickbait, which has similar problems. Very few people, in any generation, want to find out the truth, only back their current opinion. This goes on both sides. Anti-AGW and the blind eye to refugees and an increased frequency of rape are both detrimental and prime examples of two sides who don't want anything but non-contrarian facts.

It's a pretty dangerous path.

>this is all stuff that's studied in economics (a science whether you like it or not)
economics doesn't use the scientific method (a fact whether you like it or not)

Oh boy the russians did it.

I sware democrats are sore losers.

prove it

>prove it
Feel free to provide an example of the scientific method being applied in economics.

>>prove it
>uh uh ehm no u
good job timmy

The burden of proof is on you. If you claim astrology is a science and I say astrology doesn't use the scientific method, the only way to proceed is providing an example

That's pretty unconstitutional

>economics doesn't use the scientific method
so no proof of your claim?
what part of the scientific method isn't used in economics timmy?

>so no proof of your claim?
see

i'll take that as an admission of being wrong.

>i'll take that as an admission of being wrong.
see

I live in Italy, when I graduated from high school I chose a kind of school that mixes Law with Sociology and Economy, I am not a good learner, so I will say this with a bit of hypocrisy, the things I learnt should be compulsory and here is why:

Why do we need a driver license? Because a reckless driver is a danger for society, but what about an ignorant voter or spender? Economy is not a science where we can perfectly predict how events will play out like you could with physics, people make it, if people don't even know what is inflation, that we are not a Capitalist system but live under Neoliberalism, if they don't know how our Democracy works, then what's the point? They are not ruling, they are spectators of their own society or at least not active citizens.

This I say as a lazy piece of shit neet (who is kinda looking for a job though), I am sure many would agree and are still stagnating in the same situation.

In a word: Education, 2 words, lack of education.

the burden of proof is on you. if you claim physics is a science and i say it doesn't use the scientific method, the only way to proceed is providing an example of how the scientific method isn't used.

see

see

see

see

see

see let me guess you're unfamiliar to economics you can't even tell me what part of the scientific method isn't used in it

see

...

What we have now is much better than being ruled by an oppressive king/queen

let me guess you're unfamiliar to economics you can't even tell me what part of the scientific method is used in it

This thread turned fucking retarded.

>Yea obviously those are the subjects that matter most lmao. But thanks for proving my point
Demographics are destiny.

No, this thread turned into burden tennis.

>No, this thread turned into burden tennis.
No such thing. Burdens of proof don't shift, the person making the claim holds the burden.

>democracy
>50.1% ruling over 49.9%

democracy itself is stupid

the entire scientific method is used in it, that's the point. tell me what part of the scientific method as explained here isn't used.

>the entire scientific method is used in it, that's the point.
Yes, that's your point, which remains unproven since you haven't given an example.

You can claim anything (religion, sociology, skydiving...) is a science and that that thing uses the entire scientific method, but that doesn't make it true.

From a scientific standpoint, I think Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye will agree with me here.

Only young metropolitan middle/upper class liberals which are progressive should get the right to vote.

Also all voting booths should only be allowed to be setup in Starbucks.

>an example
give me an example that proves the scientific method is used in chemistry

>give me an example that proves the scientific method is used in chemistry
Irrelevant to your unsubstantiated claim that economics is a science.

Next?

>make observations
>think of questions
>formulate hypotheses
>make predictions
>test predictions
>develop theory
which one of these doesn't apply to economics let us know

so chemistry isn't a science

Yes, that's a lot of greentext.

Now where does it apply in economics?

>so chemistry isn't a science
Burden of proof is on you.

Just one question do you know the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance?
because if you did, you would know that the U.S. is a Republic

>Now where does it apply in economics?
where doesn't it?

>>provide an example proving the scientific method is used in chemistry
>Burden of proof is on you.
see

>where doesn't it?
All of economics until shown otherwise.

Nowhere in this thread was the claim made that chemistry was a science, why would there be a burden on me to prove that it is?

so you don't think chemistry is a science

>so you don't think chemistry is a science
Irrelevant to your unsubstantiated claim that economics is a science.

>You can claim anything (religion, sociology, skydiving...)
i can readily point out why any of those aren't sciences in no time, something that you're having a lot of trouble with economics

>i can readily point out why any of those aren't sciences in no time, something that you're having a lot of trouble with economics
I can readily point out why any actual science is a science in no time, something that you're having a lot of trouble with economics

you're having trouble pointing out how chemistry is a science. so i guess it isn't accord to you

>you're having trouble pointing out how chemistry is a science. so i guess it isn't accord to you
Who said anything about chemistry being a science?

You're having trouble pointing out how economics is a science.