3 ms·

> 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 no

> 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.

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.