Hypothetical: an insane, evil and unjust feature of society that is hated by the majority abides because it’s locked in by procedural barriers that a small number of obtructionists have just enough clout to maintain. If democracy can produce this result, should democracy be abolished and replaced by a system with the authority to institute what’s good and right?
Absolutely not. You may be able to do the right thing quicker in an autocracy, but it’s also much easier for the wrong thing to be done quicker down the line.
Democracies are slow by design, but eventually, the holdouts will either die off, or people’s opinions of the situation will change one way or the other. I’d much rather a system that takes 10 years for the right thing to be done, than a system that can get the right thing done in one year, but then spends the next nine doing the wrong things.
A great big fat “it depends.” But mostly id say no, lets just fix the problems.
Absolutely. Democracy is an inefficient system that often prioritizes short-term gratification over longterm gain, or enables popular evil to defeat unpopular good.
It depends. The hypothetical requires me to believe there’s an alternative that “produces the right results”. That makes it fundamentally flawed, as I don’t believe that is possible.
No. Even if a non-democratic ruler does what’s “good and right” - what’s the incentive for them to keep doing what’s good and right?
Not to mention the fact that “good and right” is subjective.
Not to resist the hypothetical, but abolishing democracy is not how I would go about implementing the will of the majority.
Regards,
Shodan
Right. So many low hanging fruit to choose from: Electoral College, District Gerrymandering, Super Delegates…
But the OP’s hypothetical is fundamentally flawed. If an obstructionist minority can prevent a change desired by the majority, that’s not a democracy, to that extent.
Fuck no.
Um, no? If a democracy gets sufficiently broken, I might advocate that that democracy be overthrown, and replaced with a more functional democracy, but the problems inherent in a broken democratic system are 100x worse in an autocratic system, even one run by an autocrat I personally like.
Those examples are kind of different. I don’t think, for instance, that the electoral college is hated by the majority - not by enough of a majority to amend the Constitution, certainly, but that’s how it works in a Constitutional republic. A feature, not a bug, IMO. No doubt we could both name things that are supported by a majority of the populace but not allowed by the Constitution.
Gerrymandering is also something that can be addressed without removing democracy, or rather under a republic - elect a majority of representatives and you are good to go. I don’t know enough about super delegates to comment.
Regards,
Shodan
Depends. Just what kind of democracy are we talking about? Direct, representative, social? And just who is/will be/has been franchised?
This thread reminds me of what I was just reading about Lord Robert Salisbury, a three-time British Prime Minister back in the late 19th and early 20th century. He was a staunch supporter of the monarchy and dedicated to the proposition that upper-class educated people should make decisions about government policies, since the common folk could not be trusted.
““First rate men will not canvass mobs, and if they did, the mobs would not elect the first rate men.” - Salisbury
Back then it was working people who were equated with ‘‘mobs’’ - now it’s Trump supporters.
Be careful who you’re looking down your nose at.
Democracy is not the problem. Capitalism and insane, runaway greed are the problems.
We had to destroy the village in order to save the village.
Since one of the “right results” is in my opinion that everyone living in the society should have a say* in how things are done, a certain contradiction would arise.
- a say. Not the say, which wouldn’t be possible.
[ETA: didn’t vote.]
How is this a problem with democracy? This sounds like a lack of democracy.
But looking past the badly-written scenario in the OP, I’ll hypothesize that there’s some evil that is supported by the majority. Should we abolish democracy in order to get rid of the evil?
I’m going to say no. Abolishing democracy might solve this problem but historically we’ve seen that a lack of democracy leads to many other problems. Those future problems will probably end up outweighing the current problem.
And I maintain my faith that democracy works. I feel people are generally good and that the majority will eventually figure out what it’s doing wrong and make things better. I believe Locke was right and Hobbes was wrong.
‘Democracy’ eventually leads to the rulership of the lowest common denominator, a true idiocracy. If you don’t believe me, just look at our current state of affairs.
I would support some sort of aristocracy over what we have now.