4 ms·

People got what they voted for. The alternative here is some political cabal subverting the results. Your disagreement is with democracy itself, not a particula

by blfr 6y ago

People got what they voted for. The alternative here is some political cabal subverting the results. Your disagreement is with democracy itself, not a particular style of voting.

jquery 6y ago
This. It’s okay to oppose democracy, btw. I think republics are greatly superior, myself.
- chr1 6y ago
  I never could understand the argument about republic vs democracy. Some people say republic protects rights of minorities because representatives are voting on laws, and there is a constitution. But if majority wants a law that is unfair to a minority, amending the constitution and electing representatives who dislike the minority is not much harder than voting for a law democratically. The only way this kind of argument works, is if representatives keep lying to get elected and then not keeping their promises. And from history we know this kind of lie never ends well. There can be systems where different people have different amount of votes, but the system of determining this should be known, and accepted by the people, to not cause instability.
lultimouomo 6y ago
> Your disagreement is with democracy itself Nope. GP is disagreeing with direct democracy, a very specific type of government which is not usually in favor nowadays. Most democracies in the world are representative democracies, where you vote for people who then vote on issues.
- chr1 6y ago
  For the system to be a democracy the representatives have to represent the desires of the people who have elected them. In ideal case the results should not be different from the results of direct vote. If there is no way to elect a representative that would support certain idea, then the system is not a democracy but something defined by the method which is used to restrict the pool of available ideas or representatives. For most democracies in the world such a method was control of mass media, but now they have either to become real democracies or find another method of pretending to be a democracy.
  - lultimouomo 6y ago
    > For the system to be a democracy the representatives have to represent the desires of the people who have elected them. Not necessarily. It is very well possible for people to vote for representative they hold in high esteem even though they do not agree with them on several matters. It is very possible for representative to go against what is the current majority opinion, and even be reelected afterwards, because in the meanwhile theirs choices have bee proven right. That's why in representative democracies there are elections for a certain role only every several years, to decrease the relevance of immediate issues on the vote, and give more importance to other factors such as broader ideals and the trustworthiness of the candidate. You can very well prefer direct democracy, but it is not the only, or the one true, kind of democracy.
    - chr1 6y ago
      For that to be democracy people would need to vote explicitly for that "monarch for four years" scheme, but people vote for campaign promises which are not being kept.

by blfr 6y ago

People got what they voted for. The alternative here is some political cabal subverting the results. Your disagreement is with democracy itself, not a particular style of voting.

jquery 6y ago

This. It’s okay to oppose democracy, btw. I think republics are greatly superior, myself.

chr1 6y ago
I never could understand the argument about republic vs democracy. Some people say republic protects rights of minorities because representatives are voting on laws, and there is a constitution. But if majority wants a law that is unfair to a minority, amending the constitution and electing representatives who dislike the minority is not much harder than voting for a law democratically. The only way this kind of argument works, is if representatives keep lying to get elected and then not keeping their promises. And from history we know this kind of lie never ends well. There can be systems where different people have different amount of votes, but the system of determining this should be known, and accepted by the people, to not cause instability.

lultimouomo 6y ago

> Your disagreement is with democracy itself Nope. GP is disagreeing with direct democracy, a very specific type of government which is not usually in favor nowadays. Most democracies in the world are representative democracies, where you vote for people who then vote on issues.

chr1 6y ago
For the system to be a democracy the representatives have to represent the desires of the people who have elected them. In ideal case the results should not be different from the results of direct vote. If there is no way to elect a representative that would support certain idea, then the system is not a democracy but something defined by the method which is used to restrict the pool of available ideas or representatives. For most democracies in the world such a method was control of mass media, but now they have either to become real democracies or find another method of pretending to be a democracy.
- lultimouomo 6y ago
  > For the system to be a democracy the representatives have to represent the desires of the people who have elected them. Not necessarily. It is very well possible for people to vote for representative they hold in high esteem even though they do not agree with them on several matters. It is very possible for representative to go against what is the current majority opinion, and even be reelected afterwards, because in the meanwhile theirs choices have bee proven right. That's why in representative democracies there are elections for a certain role only every several years, to decrease the relevance of immediate issues on the vote, and give more importance to other factors such as broader ideals and the trustworthiness of the candidate. You can very well prefer direct democracy, but it is not the only, or the one true, kind of democracy.
  - chr1 6y ago
    For that to be democracy people would need to vote explicitly for that "monarch for four years" scheme, but people vote for campaign promises which are not being kept.