what's BAD about democracy(for once)?

[bipper]

The guy was an idiot, but not a politician

Quoted because I love the way it sounds

YEa I guess I coulda just said Castero. But none the less, I see any form of democracy being weak to manipulation. If we wanna tye that in with communism, look at the Wisconsin Senetor JOSEPH MCCARTHYl whom used the red scare to waylay his opponents and sieze hiw moments of glory. For several years, McCarthy terrorized American public life, and even Dwight Eisenhower, who detested McCarthy, was afraid to stand up to him.

Our "Democratic Republic" still holds that one hint of weakness it would seem.

Bipper

[Cloud No.9]

lets throw something in the air here.

if only the educated were able to vote in the german elections (the ones that understoood party manifestos and everything) would the nazis have been able to come to power? would the educated have decided upon such a party?

[bipper]

With that in the air, immagine the opression schools would have to create a caste system. The meek and powerless would simply be the uneducated workforce. No matter how you look at it, society will alwasy be built on the backs of the less fortunate.

Hitler's agenda was pretty subtle. I guess I can't answer with any accuracy what woulda happend. Curious though.

Bipper

[Teek]

I would have to read Hitler's actual platform. Does he even get into his anti-Jewish stance in Mein Kampf?

[jrgen]

Does he even get into his anti-Jewish stance in Mein Kampf?

He wrote down pretty much all of his opinions in that book.

[Cloud No.9]

oh yeah he rambles on about there being no jews in germany. only for the aryan race and killing all the slavs too.

[DarkLadyNyara]

if only the educated were able to vote in the german elections (the ones that understoood party manifestos and everything) would the nazis have been able to come to power? would the educated have decided upon such a party?

Unfortunatly, being educated does not rule out being a compleat idiot.

[lordblazer]

Which is why we all support a Constitutional Republic. True Democracy is just as bad as true, widespread Communism.

Depends on the scale in which Democracy is used.

In local areas. Like states, cities, and towns. Most likely Towns, and cities do this. They would vote on laws and really most of the people fromt eh city will know aobut it. They will vote, and do vote for it effects them as a whole.

Now to run a country. Democracy has been proven ineffective.

constitutional Republic is just perfect for me

[Gnostic Yevon]

The problems with democracy are pretty apparent actually.

First off in the current American system, the candidates must have the support of either Dems or Reps to even think about *thinking about* running for statewide office. That means that you aren't going to get people who aren't already diehard Dems or Reps. Not only that, but once in power, the parties must do what they can to keep power. If your party loses seats, you lose influence and more importantly campaign money.

Sencondly, mostly due to the media, we aren't interested in actual leadership ability, just the *appearance* of actual leadership ability. Same with the issues. For the most part, people don't pay attention to how people vote, just what they say come re-election time. We could have paid actors doing drama in washington and I don't think anyone would notice.

The third thing is that people tend to all vote in their own best interest. So in a nation where most people are rich, taxes are to be cut and all that wasteful welfare has to go. Where people are poor, the social welfare state must get bigger and better, damn the cost. If you live in the city, you vote for environmental issues, but if you live in the country, then you vote to cut down the trees and sell the wood. So if you're in the minority and really need the legislation to pass, it probably wouldn't happen.

[DocFrance]

The third thing is that people tend to all vote in their own best interest.

Well, duh. How else would you expect people to vote? In the interest of other people?

[bipper]

[quote]Well, duh. How else would you expect people to vote? In the interest of other people?[quote]

Yes. If someone said that they would lower my taxes, I would vote for them. Then I would find out that to make way for the tax cuts was to pull back funding on schools (or somthing i care about). People will tend to 'glance' at platforms, and not think them over. I know I am guilty of this.

Bipper

[DarkLadyNyara]

That means that you aren't going to get people who aren't already diehard Dems or Reps.

Which is irritating, because they tend to be more extreame than most.

Sencondly, mostly due to the media, we aren't interested in actual leadership ability, just the *appearance* of actual leadership ability. Same with the issues. For the most part, people don't pay attention to how people vote, just what they say come re-election time. We could have paid actors doing drama in washington and I don't think anyone would notice.

Sad, but true. When the big issue during an election is same-sex marriage (and not the economy, war, terrorism, and the like) something is wrong.

The third thing is that people tend to all vote in their own best interest. So in a nation where most people are rich, taxes are to be cut and all that wasteful welfare has to go. Where people are poor, the social welfare state must get bigger and better, damn the cost. If you live in the city, you vote for environmental issues, but if you live in the country, then you vote to cut down the trees and sell the wood. So if you're in the minority and really need the legislation to pass, it probably wouldn't happen.

It's not just who is in the majority, it's who has power. The poor and middle-class outnumber the rich, but due to donations, ect, the rich have a disproportional influence. Also, they are more likely to pay attention and vote.

[Gnostic Yevon]

The third thing is that people tend to all vote in their own best interest.

Well, duh. How else would you expect people to vote? In the interest of other people?

What I mean is that if you live in an area where 51% of the people are Republican, unless the Republican really Fs things up, You'll have a Republican senator or rep or governor. Thing is, Everybody knows that, so they draw voting districts so that whatever party is in power can stay in power.

People should vote in their own best interests. But one of the problems is that issues that the more powerful people don't care about never get addressed. So if the powerful want tax cuts or don't give a crap about illegal immigration, the rest of the people can bitch and moan all they want. Doesn't matter.

[Raistlin]

A preisdent here could be impeached for dishonesty, but it has to be blantant lying. Any president can claim that he couldn't help it, and then the charges would be dropped.

Clarification: a president can only be impeached for breaking a law or other government policy. The only simple way lying would fit into this is perjury - lying under oath, such as Clinton did.

[Traitorfish]

Democracy is pretty essential - even if it gives idiots a say, it's better than a oligarchy, dictatorship or monarchy. Then you have one or a few idiots or maniacs in charge.
At least with democracy, there's ussually enough smart people to cancel the idiots out.
Though, judging by the past 2 US elections, not quite enough smart people.

It's not just who is in the majority, it's who has power. The poor and middle-class outnumber the rich, but due to donations, ect, the rich have a disproportional influence. Also, they are more likely to pay attention and vote.

Unfortuanatley true.

Well, duh. How else would you expect people to vote? In the interest of other people?

Yeah. I would. It's called socialism.

...and, as of yet, no capitilistic society has developed into a communistic one.

Cuba. Admittedly, that was through revolution, but Castro's there, isn't he?