The best arguement against this I can think of is practicality. How does everybody vote emergency relief money after a hurricane? Or decide to send in National Guard troops to help cleanup?
BIG questions with this… who decides whether a decision is needed? How does a question get on the ballot? Or how is it kept off? Could we vote to imprison all Afghan foreign nationals living in the US?
How about letting only informed people vote? Maybe by renewing your license to vote every once in a while by taking a test to make sure you’re on the ball with current issues. If you don’t take the time to become educated about the issues, you shouldn’t vote. And then you could have periodic voting sessions. Say for instance, the first Sunday of each month, where the month’s issues would be voted upon. But then again, these are just my ideas which don’t count in this day and age.
erislover: I have no knowledge of Denmark’s voting system. Do I even want to know?
yojimboguy, i was trying to judge this situation anticipating that practicality is not big issue here…
Well, if you put aside the question of practicality…
how about the question of protecting minority rights? Is there anything we can’t vote to change? Repretentative government provides at least some protection to decision makers on controversial subjects. So leaders can do the right, if unpopular, thing. I’ll admit representative government hasn’t done too well along these lines.
I think you’re really asking whether every social issue can be resolved by a popular vote. I’d say no.
Palve, I’ll try and dig up something comprehensive, but it is a very complex system from top to bottom, and it was only explained to me once (by my boss, who is Danish, when we were discussing the Electoral college). I’m not the man to ask how it works, apart from it being a proportional voting scheme based on multiple parties, geography, monarchy, a little debating about elected persons “forming a government” and all sorts of messiness. I believe it was based off of works of a French mathematician working on voting schemes.
Ah, This site seems to lay it out. Eesh… :eek:
yojimboguy, I think that representative democracies have done a whole hell of a lot in the past two hundred years or so that they’ve been implimented, versus the thousands of years that they weren’t really around in bulk. Anything specific troubling you? 
[going back]
Originally posted by Sailor:
I haven’t put words in your mouth. Don’t put them in mine either. But, if a dictatorship satisfies this:
Then nobody has a right to argue about it.
[/going back]
Practicallity is always an issue when dealing with a government. One of the U.S.S.R.'s major problems was the immense beaurocratic mess it created and tried to deal with centrally. The U.S.S.R. was really too large and varied for this to be efficient, and therefore impractical.
try to concentrate on voting system as such… ok?.. try to say what is it good for… the first try: it ensures that making particular decision represents majority of voters… this ensures some stability in some critical number of voters in case that the majority is much greater then minority… no one from little majority would do anything offensive against powerful majority…
no one from weak minority would do anything offensive against powerful majority…
there were times, when i felt like many of you that it is something righteous and logicaly justified on voting… now i am quite puzzeled that i ever felt like this about it… yes it feels bad when someone alone makes anything againts a will of many… though i am afraid that the former and the latter are not opposites… this is strange psychological phenomenon…
The serious problem with this argument, is who gets to decide who’s informed. This problem ties to the problem with all arguments against democracy – the moment you start restricting who gets to have a say and who doesn’t, you’re separating the world along very partisan lines.
Are university professors informed? The idea of my professors running the world from their ivory towers terrifies me, and since these are the people who teach the university-educated, I don’t put much stock in a diploma. Are people who hold a certain political or religious view informed? We all know, from the sad examples of history, what kind of nightmare scenarios that idea produces. Will we make people pass a test? Who gets to decide what’s on that test? Our political leaders? The aforementioned professors?
Part of the problem is that we’re still thinking like medieval aristocrats. There’s the Common People. Then there’s the Elites. But the distinction just doesn’t hold anymore. The people who work in my magazine store and hold high-level diplomas – are they the elite, or the commoners? What about the sheltered and uneducated rich? In discussions about democracy, someone always raises the spectre of “the masses.” But we’re all somebody’s masses, somebody’s excuses for distrusting democracy.
But it’s the most secure system we have. Its flexibility makes it more adaptable than any dictatorship, monarchy, corporate state, or theocracy. Its universality ensures that things are more likely to be resolved by words rather than revolution.
We see democracy is sick, and we assume it’s a failure. The truth is, we’re failing it. A vote is just a control mechanism. The real process of democracy is debate, peaceful protest, genuine concern – that is, it has to be made a part of our lives, and we’re just too lazy to do that, nowadays.
It’s not perfect. It never will be. But it can be a lot better than it is now, and it has a lot more potential than any other system yet conceived.
hamish, why are you so sure that for all good things we experience in our lifes in so called democratic states we should thank democratic system?.. this is wide spread simplistic view… what if the main factor of it is constant rise of technical level of societies of the whole world?.. i assure you that life in my east block native country was not bad at all… crime rate was substantialy lower than in usa… after reviewing the democracy algorithm i am quite surprised that nothing evil is hapening by now… remeber nazism… it could be be quite direct consequence of democracy in germany that time…
Just a thought, but there does seem to be a correlation between quality of life and democratic states and standard of living. Or at least those states that have democratic for a significant amount of time.
I know little about Slovakia, but if your experience is anything like the other countries of the former Communist bloc, I can understand your pessimism.
But I live in a democracy old enough that it gets taken for granted – 134 years to be precise, 83 of which we’ve had universal adult suffrage. I live in the country’s second-largest city, and feel fairly safe walking almost any part of it at 3am. I do not feel I’ve sacrificed my security for my freedom. I think rather we’ve found a balance of security here – I do not have to be afraid of people on the streets, nor do I need fear (usually) my government.
As for the US, they’re a case to themselves. They’re in the grip of radical ideologies such as the “right to bear arms” and a fear of taxation. Here in Canada, most of us have never seen a handgun, let alone had one pointed at us.
I have known more than a few people who left behind countries held by dictators – of both the fascist and the communist varieties. I think most of them would disagree with your assesment of security in a less-than-democratic society. I know I consider myself very, very fortunate that I can disagree with the government, that I can make point about morality, and feel safe.
Police states will usually be better about cleaning up street because they spread their nets wide – and catch plenty of innocents in the process. I know I wouldn’t want any part of that kind of security.
It’s been a while since I’ve had a history class, but I seem to recall that Nazism was losing popularity at the time Hitler became chancellor. According to my History of the Modern World Since 1815, the Nazis had lost 2 million votes and 34 seats in the last election. This alarmed the aristocrats who were worried that, if the decision was left to the People, the Communists would take power, and two of these aristocrats, Franz von Papen and General Kurt von Schleicher, convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to stem the tide of Communism. In the final election, the Nazis won only 44% of the vote.
Hitler made it perfectly clear that his National Socialism was intended as an alternative to democracy. Except for the racist ideology, it was modelled on Mussolini’s “corporate state.” An aspect of the war that’s often forgotten these days is that the participants saw it primarily as a war about democracy – those who rejected it versus those who supported it.
So bringing Hitler up, in this context, undermines your point. What I see there was a newly-minted democracy whose elites, mostly aristocrats, ran for totalitarianism at the first sign of socio-economic problems. The tragedy is the result.
I think the only problem with democracy is that half the people don’t take the right they have to vote. I think that underminds democracy.
Some people exercise the right to not vote. That doesn’t undermine democracy; it is part of the process.
Interesting story about democracy in Kuwait. The popularly elected Parliament has voted to segregate university students by sex, and is being blocked by the more liberal royalists. Some other scary examples too.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nyt/20011123/ts/democracy_s_uneasy_steps_in_islamic_world_1.html
voting makes sense only in a situation when there is not clear what is right or wrong decision and when every single voter thinks so… this is kind of a lottery which insures stability if this is the case…
i was lucky today to find some web page against democracy… i am not sure if i can agree with arguments out there… we will see later…
“Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of ‘democracy’ with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straight away.”
–Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant