Voting - The Illusion of 'Choice'?

'Voting (or democracy) is the illusion of choice and therefore futile - it matters not who we vote for because an agenda exists among the elite, of whom intend to ultimately carry out this agenda regardless'

Firstly, do you agree with above statement? If so or if not, elaborate.

Secondly, my personal view is that democracy can work, but it has to be absolute - effectively either all or nothing. I do not believe our current, half-hearted system of democracy represents that. Either supreme power lies directly within the hands of the people, or it does not. For me, there should be no in-between or cherrypicking in a healthy democracy. In other words, I believe the way forward is direct democracy rather than what we have now - representative democracy.

I otherwise see no reason to believe that the above title of this post is untrue.

Thirdly, to those who may ask what I mean by 'the elite', I refer to 'the few', AKA 'the 1%', AKA those who hold very high, international and influential positions, sit at the top of the hierarchy and execute their decisions from behind closed doors. You know who I'm talking about - the Rothschilds, Rockafellas, some might say the Barlcay Brothers, to name a few etc. and who knows - maybe the devil himself for all I know.


Thanks for your contributions in advance.

'Voting (or democracy) is the illusion of choice and therefore futile - it matters not who we vote for because an agenda exists among the elite, of whom intend to ultimately carry out this agenda regardless'

Firstly, do you agree with above statement? If so or if not, elaborate.

Secondly, my personal view is that democracy can work, but it has to be absolute - effectively either all or nothing. I do not believe our current, half-hearted system of democracy represents that. Either supreme power lies directly within the hands of the people, or it does not. For me, there should be no in-between or cherrypicking in a healthy democracy. In other words, I believe the way forward is direct democracy rather than what we have now - representative democracy.

I otherwise see no reason to believe that the above title of this post is untrue.

Thirdly, to those who may ask what I mean by 'the elite', I refer to 'the few', AKA 'the 1%', AKA those who hold very high, international and influential positions, sit at the top of the hierarchy and execute their decisions from behind closed doors. You know who I'm talking about - the Rothschilds, Rockafellas, some might say the Barlcay Brothers, to name a few etc. and who knows - maybe the devil himself for all I know.


Thanks for your contributions in advance.

'Voting (or democracy) is the illusion of choice and therefore futile - it matters not who we vote for because an agenda exists among the elite, of whom intend to ultimately carry out this agenda regardless'

Firstly, do you agree with above statement? If so or if not, elaborate.

Secondly, my personal view is that democracy can work, but it has to be absolute - effectively either all or nothing. I do not believe our current, half-hearted system of democracy represents that. Either supreme power lies directly within the hands of the people, or it does not. For me, there should be no in-between or cherrypicking in a healthy democracy. In other words, I believe the way forward is direct democracy rather than what we have now - representative democracy.

I otherwise see no reason to believe that the above title of this post is untrue.

Thirdly, to those who may ask what I mean by 'the elite', I refer to 'the few', AKA 'the 1%', AKA those who hold very high, international and influential positions, sit at the top of the hierarchy and execute their decisions from behind closed doors. You know who I'm talking about - the Rothschilds, Rockafellas, some might say the Barlcay Brothers, to name a few etc. and who knows - maybe the devil himself for all I know.


Thanks for your contributions in advance.

I don't agree. Representative democracy is the least worst option, IMO. Direct democracy risks being the tyranny of the majority. The public can have a tendency to react instinctively and irrationally to moral panics, lashing out with consideration. We'd never have legalised homosexuality, and the death penalty would be back. Quite possibly specifically for sex offenders, too.

Additionally, the public can be quite bad at being internally consistent. Policy would be everywhere; look at California, a State which has been in a terrible condition for the last decade or so precisely because the public kept voting for lower taxes but also for increased spending. Nobody balanced the books.

Ultimately the problem is that direct democracy leaves nobody to be responsible for government. At least in representative democracy we have someone to hold to account and punish electorally. If it's the fault of the people through a referendum, then nobody's at fault, really; what do you do? It's the tragedy of the commons: nobody wants to step up to the bat because they'll get all the blame and none of the credit, even though the reverse is likely true.

Even the Ancients recognised these problems, which is just why representative democracy came about. Direct democracy can be unfair, too. In Greece, it basically helped the 1%, as they were the ones with the best location and free time to attend the legislative assembly, while the workers were busy working, and the farmers were too far away to join in. Hence why Greek democracy was erratic and short-lived, while the Roman Republic survived for centuries.

Libya?