2 ms·

The party has a very clear highly racist agenda and yet they received upwards of 20% in some regions. It's quite depressing that people would give up their priv

• m_eiman 16y ago
  The interesting thing is that the places where they got a lot of votes hardly have any immigrants at all - it's a splendid example of being afraid of the unknown and how that fear is used by extremists.
  • gmlk 16y ago
    The same was true in the Netherlands, the party of Geert Wilders (with an unrealistic, but popular, national/socialist program, with elements from both far-right and far-left) received the most votes in places with the most homogeneous population, where there are almost no immigrants. In places with the most immigrants the socialists and progressives won. Interesting fact: The day after the elections Wilders dropped most of the left side of his election program. This makes me wonder if "voting" is actually any good, is it really "democratic"? Maybe if a vote was actually an informed choice, but most people just go with whomever is the most popular or promises them the moon on a stick. Realism, reason, legality, etc does not matter. Perhaps "voting" is not democratic at all if the people are basically ignorant, shortsighted, easily swayed by (the illusion of) popularity, fearful, during times of uncertainty and with many doubts about the future; We already see a kind of political aristocracy in most western democracies, the sons of presidents becoming presidents. Maybe that a demarchy would have been a better idea? [demarchy]: Democracy without voting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy