3 ms·

> In my opinion that's a stupid saying because democracy isn't a "form of Government". What is it then?

hutzlibu 5y ago
A system to create a government? (not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions, but I think there is a point, that in most democracies, there is no more power for the demos, once the government has been elected, until the next election. There are exceptions and nuances of course, but direct democracy like in switzerland is quite rare)
- consumer451 5y ago
  >not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions Sir, this is a Hacker News thread. Pedantic discussions, heck yes! I see your point. We seem to be talking about representative vs direct democracies. I would argue both are systems of government. I can see why most implementations are representative. A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? But the Swiss example is interesting. I need to read up on that more. Some factors for the Swiss model may be a much smaller and more educated population? On the face of it direct sounds ideal. I would love to hear a Swiss HNer's gripes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? " True, which is why I prefer small states.
bloak 5y ago
> What is it then? I'd say it's a property of forms of government, or of constitutions: some of them are more democratic than others. Sometimes it's obvious which of two systems is more democratic; sometimes reasonable people will disagree. There can be different opinions on which criteria are most important. For example, how much does it matter if convicts are not allowed to vote, or if homeless people find it almost impossible to vote in practice? But also it's not really the formal rules that matter. How things work in practice can be more important. How are the rules interpreted? Do people really follow them? What would happen if the government broke the rules? How would people behave in a crisis? Like I said, my feeling is that the UK has a relatively strong culture of democracy despite having a very bad electoral system and a monarch that could theoretically refuse to give royal assent. I think a government that was really hated by a big majority of the population would be removed without violence before too long. I think that's how one philosopher (Karl Popper?) defined democracy. But I'd still like to see things improved.

A system to create a government? (not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions, but I think there is a point, that in most democracies, there is no more power for the demos, once the government has been elected, until the next election. There are exceptions and nuances of course, but direct democracy like in switzerland is quite rare)

consumer451 5y ago
>not that I want to engage in pedantic discussions of definitions Sir, this is a Hacker News thread. Pedantic discussions, heck yes! I see your point. We seem to be talking about representative vs direct democracies. I would argue both are systems of government. I can see why most implementations are representative. A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? But the Swiss example is interesting. I need to read up on that more. Some factors for the Swiss model may be a much smaller and more educated population? On the face of it direct sounds ideal. I would love to hear a Swiss HNer's gripes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "A truly direct democracy would not scale well, would it? " True, which is why I prefer small states.

bloak 5y ago

> What is it then? I'd say it's a property of forms of government, or of constitutions: some of them are more democratic than others. Sometimes it's obvious which of two systems is more democratic; sometimes reasonable people will disagree. There can be different opinions on which criteria are most important. For example, how much does it matter if convicts are not allowed to vote, or if homeless people find it almost impossible to vote in practice? But also it's not really the formal rules that matter. How things work in practice can be more important. How are the rules interpreted? Do people really follow them? What would happen if the government broke the rules? How would people behave in a crisis? Like I said, my feeling is that the UK has a relatively strong culture of democracy despite having a very bad electoral system and a monarch that could theoretically refuse to give royal assent. I think a government that was really hated by a big majority of the population would be removed without violence before too long. I think that's how one philosopher (Karl Popper?) defined democracy. But I'd still like to see things improved.