3 ms·

I think you misunderstand the point of democracy. Democracy is not a mechanism for selecting the best ruler or the wisest policies. Democracy serves as a soluti

I think you misunderstand the point of democracy. Democracy is not a mechanism for selecting the best ruler or the wisest policies. Democracy serves as a solution for the succession problem without revolutions and civil war. It is a mechanism that places the process, the system, above the ruler, and provides a strong and formal mechanism for replacing the old ruler with the new one. Totalitarian states nearly always descend into chaos and violence when the dictator dies. Without clear succession rules, they rarely have an undisputed successor ready. Monarchies are historically more stable, but every so often a ruler dies without an undisputed heir, or one is such a blatantly bad ruler that civil war breaks out. Some dictatorships are able to maintain stability and prevent revolutions or civil war with more or less extreme repression. Democracy is meant to solve all this. There is no need to take up arms against a bad king, if you know he or she will be replaced in 4 or 8 years. People who were at least consulted about the choice of ruler (in the form of elections) are less likely to dispute the ruler's legitimacy. Succession isn't disputed, because it's the system and not the ruler that chooses the successor. Revolutions and civil wars are bad, they used to kill millions every other generation. The system we have maintains itself with minimal repression. So yes, one down side of democracy may be that people get to decide about issues they don't really understand. It's totally worth it.

visarga 10y ago
> People who were at least consulted about the choice of ruler (in the form of elections) are less likely to dispute the ruler's legitimacy. You say that like it's a good thing. Every 4 years we are called to legitimize the next crop of corrupt politicians sold to the financial interests. We can even choose who we like best between two corrupt candidates. Yay, democracy! I don't think voting is the greatest thing. Voting silences the minority, instead of integrating it. Voting is blunt. Stamping a paper every four years don't make someone involved or responsible for a country. Another vice of the voting election system is that one candidate might have a foreign policy I like but an educational platform I hate. That would force me to pick which is more important for me, say, education or world politics. It's sad to choose between two things when both are essential. My political will is so poorly expressed such by kind of voting, it's as if I am only allowed to say part of what I wanted to say.
- wobbleblob 10y ago
  You know what happens when a ruler's legitimacy is widely questioned. See the legitimacy question as separate from the question whether the ruler is popular or good. In the past armies have been raised against perfectly fine rulers whose legitimacy was questioned, and armies have been raised in defense of horrible tyrants whose legitimacy was not in doubt. My enthusiasm for representative democracy is that it has largely done away with these internal conflicts, without a need for repression. The vices of voting that you mention are more an artifact of a first past the post, two party system: over time, any idea that has a plurality will get all of the influence. Any idea that never has a plurality will never have any influence. In a system with proportional representation and a tradition of coalitions, over time, an idea that has 20% of the vote will gravitate towards about 20% of the influence. With many parties to choose from, the choice for your educational platform may not be automatically bundled with a choice for a foreign policy.

visarga 10y ago

> People who were at least consulted about the choice of ruler (in the form of elections) are less likely to dispute the ruler's legitimacy. You say that like it's a good thing. Every 4 years we are called to legitimize the next crop of corrupt politicians sold to the financial interests. We can even choose who we like best between two corrupt candidates. Yay, democracy! I don't think voting is the greatest thing. Voting silences the minority, instead of integrating it. Voting is blunt. Stamping a paper every four years don't make someone involved or responsible for a country. Another vice of the voting election system is that one candidate might have a foreign policy I like but an educational platform I hate. That would force me to pick which is more important for me, say, education or world politics. It's sad to choose between two things when both are essential. My political will is so poorly expressed such by kind of voting, it's as if I am only allowed to say part of what I wanted to say.

wobbleblob 10y ago
You know what happens when a ruler's legitimacy is widely questioned. See the legitimacy question as separate from the question whether the ruler is popular or good. In the past armies have been raised against perfectly fine rulers whose legitimacy was questioned, and armies have been raised in defense of horrible tyrants whose legitimacy was not in doubt. My enthusiasm for representative democracy is that it has largely done away with these internal conflicts, without a need for repression. The vices of voting that you mention are more an artifact of a first past the post, two party system: over time, any idea that has a plurality will get all of the influence. Any idea that never has a plurality will never have any influence. In a system with proportional representation and a tradition of coalitions, over time, an idea that has 20% of the vote will gravitate towards about 20% of the influence. With many parties to choose from, the choice for your educational platform may not be automatically bundled with a choice for a foreign policy.