4 ms·

> Unless the people want representational democracy but are forced into direct democracy. That's a category error; you're comparing a decision-making process t

> Unless the people want representational democracy but are forced into direct democracy. That's a category error; you're comparing a decision-making process to a decision. A totalitarian dictatorship is not more democratic than a body of elected representatives, even if the people voted to implement that dictatorship. It's like the XKCD comic which claims the number 4 is random, because it came up in a die roll. > Or, in theory (and I can't stress that enough that this is theoretical), representational democracy could better represent people than they can represent for themselves Sure, but what has that got to do with the relative level of democracy between those systems? "Democratic" isn't a synonym for "good" or "best". It's perfectly possible for a more democratic system of governance to produce outcomes which are "worse" (according to whatever measure we care about). The rest of your comment seems to be further conflation between "democratic" and "good".

pbhjpbhj 5y ago
I don't think I made a category error, the process is not democratic and the continued decision making by the demos would be contrary to their desire (to have a less direct democracy) so would remain undemocratic. Votes within the system would be democratic inasmuch as they were 'by the people' but they wouldn't have supreme power -- as they couldn't choose to change the system -- and so it would fall short of being democratic. It was, and remains, a cutesy and non-productive comment. >A totalitarian dictatorship is not more democratic than a body of elected representatives, even if the people voted to implement that dictatorship. // To press the useless point: yes, a dictatorship is less democratic as the people no longer have the power vested in them (and would have to reclaim it by a coup, or similar). On your second point, you're right. My go to for reflecting on democracy is 'government by the people and _for_ the people' and that has coloured my response. I do think there's an element of necessary agency, which suggests a qualitative aspect, however. But strictly, I concede, government to the utmost detriment of the demos could be democratic in the primary sense of the word.

pbhjpbhj 5y ago

I don't think I made a category error, the process is not democratic and the continued decision making by the demos would be contrary to their desire (to have a less direct democracy) so would remain undemocratic. Votes within the system would be democratic inasmuch as they were 'by the people' but they wouldn't have supreme power -- as they couldn't choose to change the system -- and so it would fall short of being democratic. It was, and remains, a cutesy and non-productive comment. >A totalitarian dictatorship is not more democratic than a body of elected representatives, even if the people voted to implement that dictatorship. // To press the useless point: yes, a dictatorship is less democratic as the people no longer have the power vested in them (and would have to reclaim it by a coup, or similar). On your second point, you're right. My go to for reflecting on democracy is 'government by the people and _for_ the people' and that has coloured my response. I do think there's an element of necessary agency, which suggests a qualitative aspect, however. But strictly, I concede, government to the utmost detriment of the demos could be democratic in the primary sense of the word.