Adjust it, don’t abolish it.
Getting the right results now doesn’t mean they will continue. It is foolish to champion short term gains over long term improvements.
Until there is another system that’s even better than democracy that can replace it, I will champion democracy.
No, democracy at worst means rulership by the lowest fifty-one percent of society.
Any other system based on minority rule - including an aristocracy - allows for rulership by a smaller group of idiots.
If you’re unhappy with our current state of affairs, don’t blame democracy. The people voted for Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. It was a small group of EC voters who picked Donald Trump and George W. Bush.
Yeah, this.
“No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” – Winston Churchill
Now I’ll admit, it sure sounds like it would be lots better if only the smart, educated people got to choose our leaders - like the founding fathers intended. (That was the actual intent of the electoral college, you know - to be smart people making their own decisions, not to be an unjustly weighted scaling factor of a popular vote.) The problem with this of course is that once you have your meritocracy in place, they may decide to go all Republican on you and decide to tax the plebes to gild the elite.
If I am to be the autocrat who sets everything right, I think this is a splendid idea. If not, then fuck no.
I think a society run by super intelligent AI that constantly receives feedback via a variety of methods and is constrained to place the well being of citizens first would be superior to democracy.
Who gets to choose which “variety of methods” to be used? Who gets to define “well being”? Who gets to set up this “well being” program that is downloaded into the AI computer? Who designs the program that fairly “constrains” the AI computer?
In other words, humans will ultimately decide. Humans that could turn out to be just like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. Maybe, at first, genuinely altruistic individuals will be in charge, but how long do you really think that will last?
This. A hypothetical perfect dictator (like the proposed superhuman AI) would try to implement the will of the people; which he, she or it would have to find out by some kind of poll; which would* be *a vote in all but name. So the end result is just a less workable form of democracy under another name.
That depends on how that result is obtained.
If it is because of rules such as “this law cannot be eliminated unless 100% of eligible voters vote in favor of removing it”, what needs to be fixed is the procedure.
If it is because that minority group is managing to time and again be a “hinge party” which gets courted by whomever is in the majority, then this is how democracy works. If you want other parties or interest groups to be the ones making deals, tell their decision-makers so until their ears burn just from seeing you coming.
We don’t always want rationality.
Suppose you have five people who are terminally ill. All need an organ transplant (for five different organs) or they will die within three months. But if they receive the organ transplant, they will make a full recovery and live a full healthy lifespan. All of them are young and can expect to live for decades if they receive the transplant.
But all of them have a rare gene and the potential organ donor pool is very small. And because of their health problems none of them can be used as a donor for any of the others. However, a donor with the right genes is found. He’s in good health and could supply all five of the patients with the organs they need to live. The problem is that the donor also needs these organs to live; if any or all of the organs are transplanted to another person the donor will die.
Rationality would say that the life of one person should be sacrificed to save the lives of five people. But hardly anyone would agree with doing this, even as an abstract hypothetical. Pretty much everyone would say that the potential donor should be allowed to keep his organs even though this means five other people will die. And nobody can give a rational reason why they feel this way. Our reasons for feeling this way are irrational.
So would we want a computer to run our society? And do so in a strictly rational way that benefits the most people? The scenario I gave is only one example of how people sometimes don’t want what is rationally the best for the most people.
And I feel that a society made up of humans should incorporate the irrational views of humans, even when we acknowledge that those views are irrational.
I don’t think believing in the importance of bodily autonomy is “irrational”. It may not be the most utilitarianism viewpoint, but utilitarianism isn’t the only “rational” approach to deciding issues like this. Kantianism is a rational alternative.
Winston Churchill got it right. Democracy is a dreadful form of government. But it’s better than the other systems that have been tried. America became the world’s great inspiration largely due to democracy. Some countries in Northern Europe and East Asia are happier and more prosperous than they’ve ever been, due in large measure to democracy. Sure, there are a few dictatorships in history thought to be outstandingly good (e.g. Persia under Cyrus the Great) but those regimes were often militaristic and with huge inequalities.
And yet … America’s democracy is now failing, along with 1 or 2 of the other great anglophonic democracies. Some non-anglophonic European countries with outstanding governance may be about to follow the U.S.A. down the rabbit-hole. There are huge systemic problems, but no easy solution.
Another quote (wrongly?) attributed to Churchill is “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
But the problem is not ignorance or stupidity, per se. Humans are probably smarter than ever, with information just a Google-click away. Yet the Information Age has transmogrified into the Age of Disinformation. 
(Part of the problem is that people used to be humbled by their own ignorance, but the 'Web now gives them the illusion they’re well-informed.)
Yes. Now if only we could agree on how to adjust it. Boycotting Zuckyface until he bans political lies would be one teeny-tiny step in the right direction, but Dopers can’t even agree on that.
I voted “it depends” …on if the alternative is absolute rule by me. If that’s not the case, then I’d like to keep democracy, thanks.
Democracy by definition is the right results.
PS: we haven’t arrived at it. We’ve made some respectable progress towards it over the long haul but it’s still very much an oligarchy.
There is no provocation that excuses concentration of power in the hands of fewer people and removal of the small voice we do have, short of survival of the species (and lack of, in its absence), and it’s far more likely that survival of the species will depend on moving in the other direction.
We have a tremendously flawed democracy now. Lots of problems with getting fair representation, problems even counting the fucking ballots accurately. There are better systems for us to use if we can just get the entrenched minority to stop using a system designed to give an obstinate minority the ability to stop meaningful change.
I saw another post in this thread advocating for even more disenfranchisement. Shame.
Abolish it. Put me in charge. That should fix things.
I have to point out just how ironic what you’re saying is combined with your username…
I agree with you- but the problem isn’t so much inherent to democracy, as it’s a consequence of low information/low motivation voters. Too many people today either don’t feel that their votes count enough to overcome whatever minor inconvenience voting is (apparently voter turnout changes significantly with bad weather!), and if they do vote, they don’t know what the hell they’re voting for or why.
So my thinking is that maybe we don’t abandon the idea of representative government, but rather go back a step in time to *less *direct democracy, and have more things chosen by our representatives rather than by the populace directly. Like having state legislatures choose Senators, for example.
I feel like the point of properly-implemented democracy is not so much that the (expressed) will of the majority is morally just, per se, but that it is the least likely system to result in open conflict / civil war.
The majority get what they want and are unlikely to upset the apple cart; the minority recognize that they are (currently) in the minority and would be at a disadvantage in open conflict, but (assuming the “properly implemented” qualification above) have reason to believe they may prevail within the system, given time and/or changing circumstances.
People generally misunderstand how miserable civil wars can be. Historically they have been just about the worst experiences shared by large numbers of people. Absolute bitter hell that can ruin multiple generations.
Well-designed democracy significantly minimizes that sort of conflict. Even if we only sublimate our aggression into the political arena, that’s a substantial improvement.
Of course democracy could turn out to be morally enlightening and offer all sorts of progress and benefits, but I think the crux of the matter is it provides a moderating influence against internal conflicts that is lacking in other forms of government.
Can the naysayers give a single example where it has worked well?
Take Castro, for example. I think that when he became the Cuban dictator he was well-meaning. And he did some good things. But as time went on his rule became more and more an exercise in his remaining the ruler. The result is the dreary dictatorship we see today.
I am not sure Lenin was ever well-meaning, but even if he was, you see how that turned out. And even if he was his successor was an absolute butcher.
Although Trump is pointed out as a failure of democracy (and is) it is the result of the little people feeling their interests were ignored. And they were, largely by the money-men and lobbyists who are the real rulers. And Trump has certainly not done anything (except for being a racist) to represent their interests.
I wished there was an unequivocal “no” option as that’s how I would have preferred to vote as opposed to “not turned out well”.
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely!!