4 ms·

Show me the democracy that's supposed to survive, and then we can talk. I'm looking around, and I see quite a few different systems, but no democracy.

by M_Grey 10y ago

Filligree 10y ago
Your standards may be too high. It's a sliding scale, not binary. But... Norway?
- algesten 10y ago
  It's a monarchy with executive powers the king delegates. Although it's a "nice" monarchy like Holland and Sweden, I'm not convinced they are proper democracies.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    "Nice" is also highly situational... they're nice because they can literally afford to be.
    - algesten 10y ago
      Yes indeed. The swedish monarchy still doesn't need to account for how they spend their "appanage", i.e. tax payers' money. And they still get this money even though they are wealthy enough to not rely on state subsidies.
  - Filligree 10y ago
    The king has no powers, practically speaking. It's a monarchy in name only.
    - hashmymustache 10y ago
      Does the king work, rely on inherited wealth, or receive money through taxes?
      - ben_w 10y ago
        In what way is a monarch's taxes different from someone receiving rental income from inherited property?
  - lervag 10y ago
    Yes, it's a monarchy, but the king has no real power. Thus this is not a good argument as to why Norway is not a proper democracy.
benevol 10y ago
Switzerland.
turblety 10y ago
The problem is, there are loads of democracies. And they are democratic. Their people get to vote. But when the vast majority of the population of these democracies don't understand basic politics, economy and philosophy how can they vote for a fair and moral society. To quote Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
- ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
  "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Churchill Like, the vast majority of the population confusing a Constitutional Representative Republic; where voters vote for their representative who then vote on behalf of their constituents, with a Democracy where citizens vote directly.
  - sgift 10y ago
    Two different variants of democracy. Direct democracy, representative democracy. Both have inherit advantages and disadvantages. So, what's your point?
    - ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
      I suppose my point is the co-opting of the word "Democracy" by certain groups, to present a different idea of government than those they govern live under. Which leads to the general population not understanding: -Why there is an electoral college instead of a direct vote for the president. -Why there are two divisions of the legislative branch, the House which is proportionally represented, and the Senate which originally was appointed by the State-Legislatures. Companies like Facebook are pushing for more direct voting. Which should give you pause as the tyranny of the Majority is a very real thing, if you don't believe so look at California which voted down gay marriage despite being a liberal bastion. The average voter is not informed enough to vote on specific legislation, and find themselves easily manipulated by the mass media. Removing another safeguard to prevent the tyranny of the Majority is never a good idea. PS There is good reason when searching through the Constitution you will not see the Country defined as a Democracy, or even the word democracy used. Rather it is explicit in the fact that we live in a Republic
matthewmacleod 10y ago
That's a tedious argument at best. Most countries with free elections and effective rule of law can reasonably be called "democracies".
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
golemotron 10y ago
> I'm looking around, and I see quite a few different systems, but no democracy. Democracy is being hidden. They've renamed it and called it Populism.
return0 10y ago
It doesnt matter if its not pure extra virgin democracy, as long as its the best way for a community to be governed
- M_Grey 10y ago
  You can't really be arguing that we enjoy the "best way for a community to be governed" do you? Pangloss? Is that you?!
  - return0 10y ago
    What makes you think some kind of ideal democracy works best? Even ancient athenians were wary of crowds.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      >What makes you think some kind of ideal democracy works best? I never said that I did.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
Perhaps you are looking for a direct democracy, where citizens would take on the responsibility of the legislative branch and vote on each and every bill. I think there is a good reason why direct democracy doesn't work except on the smallest of scales. I wouldn't want to live in a society where all of our rules and laws are determined by popular vote. That is a tyranny of the majority. With all due respects to Thomas Paine, just because a majority believe something to be true does not make it so..."common sense" is bs. Also, calling our version of democracy a "sham" or an "illusion" is ignorant at best. That people are dissatisfied with the results or that opinions can be manipulated does not make it any less so. It is ultimately our own fault when we have things like single issue voters, a lack of voting and/or people who only vote during presidential election years, and those who fall for sloganeering. There is a reason that billions of dollars are spent on political elections and not simply rigged. It's because your vote does matter.

Show me the democracy that's supposed to survive, and then we can talk. I'm looking around, and I see quite a few different systems, but no democracy.

by M_Grey 10y ago

Show me the democracy that's supposed to survive, and then we can talk. I'm looking around, and I see quite a few different systems, but no democracy.

Filligree 10y ago

Your standards may be too high. It's a sliding scale, not binary. But... Norway?

algesten 10y ago
It's a monarchy with executive powers the king delegates. Although it's a "nice" monarchy like Holland and Sweden, I'm not convinced they are proper democracies.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  "Nice" is also highly situational... they're nice because they can literally afford to be.
  - algesten 10y ago
    Yes indeed. The swedish monarchy still doesn't need to account for how they spend their "appanage", i.e. tax payers' money. And they still get this money even though they are wealthy enough to not rely on state subsidies.
- Filligree 10y ago
  The king has no powers, practically speaking. It's a monarchy in name only.
  - hashmymustache 10y ago
    Does the king work, rely on inherited wealth, or receive money through taxes?
    - ben_w 10y ago
      In what way is a monarch's taxes different from someone receiving rental income from inherited property?
- lervag 10y ago
  Yes, it's a monarchy, but the king has no real power. Thus this is not a good argument as to why Norway is not a proper democracy.

benevol 10y ago

Switzerland.

turblety 10y ago

The problem is, there are loads of democracies. And they are democratic. Their people get to vote. But when the vast majority of the population of these democracies don't understand basic politics, economy and philosophy how can they vote for a fair and moral society. To quote Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Churchill Like, the vast majority of the population confusing a Constitutional Representative Republic; where voters vote for their representative who then vote on behalf of their constituents, with a Democracy where citizens vote directly.
- sgift 10y ago
  Two different variants of democracy. Direct democracy, representative democracy. Both have inherit advantages and disadvantages. So, what's your point?
  - ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
    I suppose my point is the co-opting of the word "Democracy" by certain groups, to present a different idea of government than those they govern live under. Which leads to the general population not understanding: -Why there is an electoral college instead of a direct vote for the president. -Why there are two divisions of the legislative branch, the House which is proportionally represented, and the Senate which originally was appointed by the State-Legislatures. Companies like Facebook are pushing for more direct voting. Which should give you pause as the tyranny of the Majority is a very real thing, if you don't believe so look at California which voted down gay marriage despite being a liberal bastion. The average voter is not informed enough to vote on specific legislation, and find themselves easily manipulated by the mass media. Removing another safeguard to prevent the tyranny of the Majority is never a good idea. PS There is good reason when searching through the Constitution you will not see the Country defined as a Democracy, or even the word democracy used. Rather it is explicit in the fact that we live in a Republic

matthewmacleod 10y ago

That's a tedious argument at best. Most countries with free elections and effective rule of law can reasonably be called "democracies".

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

golemotron 10y ago

> I'm looking around, and I see quite a few different systems, but no democracy. Democracy is being hidden. They've renamed it and called it Populism.

return0 10y ago

It doesnt matter if its not pure extra virgin democracy, as long as its the best way for a community to be governed

M_Grey 10y ago
You can't really be arguing that we enjoy the "best way for a community to be governed" do you? Pangloss? Is that you?!
- return0 10y ago
  What makes you think some kind of ideal democracy works best? Even ancient athenians were wary of crowds.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    >What makes you think some kind of ideal democracy works best? I never said that I did.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

Perhaps you are looking for a direct democracy, where citizens would take on the responsibility of the legislative branch and vote on each and every bill. I think there is a good reason why direct democracy doesn't work except on the smallest of scales. I wouldn't want to live in a society where all of our rules and laws are determined by popular vote. That is a tyranny of the majority. With all due respects to Thomas Paine, just because a majority believe something to be true does not make it so..."common sense" is bs. Also, calling our version of democracy a "sham" or an "illusion" is ignorant at best. That people are dissatisfied with the results or that opinions can be manipulated does not make it any less so. It is ultimately our own fault when we have things like single issue voters, a lack of voting and/or people who only vote during presidential election years, and those who fall for sloganeering. There is a reason that billions of dollars are spent on political elections and not simply rigged. It's because your vote does matter.