4 ms·

Even if people are misinformed, it’s still democracy. There’s simply no other way. Maybe it will destroy the country, but at least they will have done it themse

Even if people are misinformed, it’s still democracy. There’s simply no other way. Maybe it will destroy the country, but at least they will have done it themselves.

CodeMage 6y ago
You're right that it's technically democracy. You're wrong that there's simply no other way. I don't know what that other way is, but the society needs to keep evolving. The current state of democracy in countries like UK and US brings to mind that famous Churchill quote: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The common conclusion seems to be "oh, okay, guess that's it, then" rather than "maybe it's time to try something we haven't yet".
- worik 6y ago
  ...and perhaps we could make it better
worik 6y ago
You are confusing democracy and elections. Elections are some times a democratic institution, but not always. Democracy is government for and by the people. Considered decision making is a very important part of it. By fetishising voting proponents of referendums cast aside all the important bits of democracy - consultation, consideration, listening to other views, expressing dissent.... and replace it with a brutal contest of propaganda. Voting is important, but it is not the most improtant part of a democracy and if all yu have is voting and elections you do not have democracy.
- guntars 6y ago
  Those are some nice and lofty ideals, but I’m talking about the implementation and not the ideal. It’s implemented according the constitution which is just a piece of paper and as such cannot make anyone consider or consult about anything. Instead, it does the next best thing and says “One man, one vote*” regardless of how misinformed anyone thinks they are. There are no provisions for “the electorate was misled” scenario because nobody can be trusted to determine that. So you don’t think that’s democracy? Well, that’s totally fine, it doesn’t care what you call it. To me, if people just voted for whoever was the sexiest, that would still be democracy.
  - worik 6y ago
    What you are describing is not democracy.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
I disagree with the sibling, it's not technically democracy to coerce a vote through fraud. If you tell people R will give them S, and they vote to get S, but it turns out R doesn't give S at all and you knew it all along; that doesn't mean people voted to get R. They voted to get S, giving them R is not therefore "technically" democracy (or any other weasel way of saying it).
mithr 6y ago
I don't think it's quite as clear as that. Let's start with the simple case: in a democracy, people vote to affect policy. There's a referendum, and the will of the majority of the people voting in it determines the outcome. Easy. Now, going in a more sci-fi direction, as a thought experiment: imagine that an evil mastermind invented mind control, and used it to ensure the majority of people voted a certain way in said referendum. Technically, I guess this would still be a democracy -- but in name only. In reality, the will of a single person determines the outcome. Pulling back into reality, obviously we don't have mind control, nor an evil mastermind concocting schemes. We do know that if trusted people in positions of power abuse that power to outright lie, and spend very large sums of money to pursue a specific goal, then the will of these people will end up having a noticeable effect on the will of the population. If someone manipulated you and convinced you of something that wasn't true for their own hidden goals, is it still really your will that you're enacting by voting for it? or have you been tricked into enacting someone else's will? So while by a surface definition of democracy, any of the above processes are democratic because they allow people to vote, a functional democracy relies on a well-informed populace -- we knew this even in Jefferson's time ("wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government").

Even if people are misinformed, it’s still democracy. There’s simply no other way. Maybe it will destroy the country, but at least they will have done it themselves.

CodeMage 6y ago

You're right that it's technically democracy. You're wrong that there's simply no other way. I don't know what that other way is, but the society needs to keep evolving. The current state of democracy in countries like UK and US brings to mind that famous Churchill quote: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The common conclusion seems to be "oh, okay, guess that's it, then" rather than "maybe it's time to try something we haven't yet".

worik 6y ago
...and perhaps we could make it better

worik 6y ago

You are confusing democracy and elections. Elections are some times a democratic institution, but not always. Democracy is government for and by the people. Considered decision making is a very important part of it. By fetishising voting proponents of referendums cast aside all the important bits of democracy - consultation, consideration, listening to other views, expressing dissent.... and replace it with a brutal contest of propaganda. Voting is important, but it is not the most improtant part of a democracy and if all yu have is voting and elections you do not have democracy.

guntars 6y ago
Those are some nice and lofty ideals, but I’m talking about the implementation and not the ideal. It’s implemented according the constitution which is just a piece of paper and as such cannot make anyone consider or consult about anything. Instead, it does the next best thing and says “One man, one vote*” regardless of how misinformed anyone thinks they are. There are no provisions for “the electorate was misled” scenario because nobody can be trusted to determine that. So you don’t think that’s democracy? Well, that’s totally fine, it doesn’t care what you call it. To me, if people just voted for whoever was the sexiest, that would still be democracy.
- worik 6y ago
  What you are describing is not democracy.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

I disagree with the sibling, it's not technically democracy to coerce a vote through fraud. If you tell people R will give them S, and they vote to get S, but it turns out R doesn't give S at all and you knew it all along; that doesn't mean people voted to get R. They voted to get S, giving them R is not therefore "technically" democracy (or any other weasel way of saying it).

mithr 6y ago

I don't think it's quite as clear as that. Let's start with the simple case: in a democracy, people vote to affect policy. There's a referendum, and the will of the majority of the people voting in it determines the outcome. Easy. Now, going in a more sci-fi direction, as a thought experiment: imagine that an evil mastermind invented mind control, and used it to ensure the majority of people voted a certain way in said referendum. Technically, I guess this would still be a democracy -- but in name only. In reality, the will of a single person determines the outcome. Pulling back into reality, obviously we don't have mind control, nor an evil mastermind concocting schemes. We do know that if trusted people in positions of power abuse that power to outright lie, and spend very large sums of money to pursue a specific goal, then the will of these people will end up having a noticeable effect on the will of the population. If someone manipulated you and convinced you of something that wasn't true for their own hidden goals, is it still really your will that you're enacting by voting for it? or have you been tricked into enacting someone else's will? So while by a surface definition of democracy, any of the above processes are democratic because they allow people to vote, a functional democracy relies on a well-informed populace -- we knew this even in Jefferson's time ("wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government").