Would you prefer a **dictatorship **run by a political party that closely matched your views, or a **democracy **in which the political party you oppose won the elections every time?
To put it another way, if you’re a liberal, would you prefer an authoritarian regime that promoted all the liberal causes you supported, or a democratically elected conservative government that opposed your views?
If you’re a conservative, would you prefer an authoritarian regime that promoted all the conservative causes you supported, or a democratically elected liberal government that opposed your views?
Edit: Sorry, as you all can see, there’s a typo in the poll. Option 2 came out as “I choose the democratically elected government that opposes my political ideals.l ideals.” I can’t change it now.
Hmm. What if democracy is one of my ideals?
Yes, but that’s the catch. It’s a poll of, “Is dislikable democracy still better than dictatorship?”
Not caring for democracy made this easy: would I prefer a pleasant government or one which made my life a misery and sent me into the gutter ?
Decisions, Decisions…
Either way my views won’t count ( even in the most pure democratic process most people are utterly powerless ), and being beset by weak-minded domineering socialists forcing social liberalism on one side and scavenging class-based conservatives forcing economic liberalism on the other, a dictatorship agreeable to me would at the minimum put both sides up against the wall.
Plus old buildings would not be knocked down under an easy-going, nonconformist regime.
I don’t trust a dictatorship. No matter how benevolent they’re being today, they could change tomorrow. If nothing else, the current President-for-Life (who everybody agrees is a great guy) could die and be replaced by the Vice President (and we all know what that bastard’s like).
I disagree. That’s the strength of democracy. People as individuals may have virtually no power. But most people collectively can change the government. Which means the government cannot afford to do anything that will harm most people. And as an individual who is generally a member of most people, I approve of a government that seeks not to harm me.
Even a dictatorship is limited in what it can do. Oppression only goes so far, an out-of-hand autocracy either enacts reasonable balance or eventually fails. “Democracy” is overrated.
Since my primary ideology is collaboration and compromise (no on is ever correct), a dictatorship based on those kind of principles would not be horribly oppressive. And none of that hereditary monarchy type stuff.
Good luck keeping Net Neutrality out of the greasy little hands of the corporations and their lickspittle stooges in Congress.
Good luck convincing most people that net neutrality is an issue they should care about. It might seem like an important issue to you but if you went out and asked a hundred random people for their opinion on net neutrality, ninety of them would say they didn’t have one.
But if ninety percent of the people really opposed net discrimination then Congress would be falling all over itself to make it illegal. No lobbyist can convince a Congressman to vote for something that will hurt him when he runs for re-election.
However in a dictatorship, re-election is not an issue so nobody has to care what the people think. As long as you can keep things below the level of armed revolution, you can ignore public opinion. (And if you’re having a hard time getting people to step into a voting booth once every two years, just try to convince them to jump in front of a tank.)
Since the second is all I’ve ever known, I went with it.
It depends on what is meant by democracy. The modern usage applied to first world governments implies some level of respect for universal rights. But the basic word democracy doesn’t imply any of that necessarily. If 60% vote to make virtual slaves out of %40 percent of the population it is still democratic, but one I want no piece of.
Quoted for truth.
It’s nice to see so many people are willing to sacrifice freedom so easily
I choose democracy, even if the government in power does not align with my political liking.
The first, obviously.
It never ceases to baffle me that anyone would choose the second, but apparently some people do.
I don’t see why stupidity is better just because it’s popular. I’ve been told for decades that I should accept the opinions of “most people” and accept that* I *am wrong.
But “what most people believe” changes with the sample boundaries.
Democracy isn’t one of my ideals. Sustainability is. In the present era, a democracy that is committed to environmental collapse is going to be a force for evil in the world, however idealistic. To live there would be acceptable primarily as an opportunity to try and destroy it from within.
I choose the dictatorship, all else being equal. Sorry, populists.
I’d say, in general,
likable dictatorship > likable democracy >> unlikable democracy > unlikable dictatorship.
I voted for the dictatorship. Some things are more important than the opinion of a 50%+1 majority. So when, for example, 51% of Americans say the CIA was justified in raping and torturing prisoners, the right thing to do is not the democratic thing to do.
I find it interesting to see this thread, knowing full well that one of this weeks conservative talking points is to bring up how Obama is a “friendly dictator” for trying to pay for tax cuts to the middle class by increasing the Capital Gains tax.
Quoted for truth and wisdom.
I hold my nose…and prefer the democracy. Maybe the people will come to their senses. Under a dictatorship, they won’t be heard, but under a democracy, reform is always possible.
(And, yeah, democracy is one of my ideals – but I have a lot of other ideals that might not be shared by a majority of the voters.)