Is it time to ban democracy?

A technocracy. I agree with this. It's absurd that people with no knowledge of anything get the same say as people who have studied a particular field for decades.

It's even more absurd that we live in a society that looks down on education and the average person genuinely believes they know enough to make these decisions.

After first Brexit and now a Trump vote I am starting to go off democracy. Plato believed democracy was a terrible form of government and this latest result really proves his point about the stupidy of the average voter, showing why they shouldn't be trusted to make their own decisions. Instead I'd say a benevolent dictatorship led by someone like Tony Blair would be far better for the world, at least until voters become better educated.

Oh you mean the electoral college? That works fine. The whole point of it is to stop densely-populated states like California having a disproportionate influence on the result of the election. Had it not been in place, Killary would have won.

No, this is factually incorrect. The Founding Fathers set it up as a compromise between an appointed president and election by the people, because a charismatic tyrant (seem familiar, anyone?) could manipulate public opinion and get into office. It wasn't to prevent control by the larger states; California didn't even exist back then. The Senate is the institution designed to prevent disproportionate control by large states. The EC still gives disproportionate influence to larger states because the number of votes is the number of Representatives (based on population) + number of Senators (always 2 per state).

I stand corrected.

Then do you not agree that it is a flawed system? The fact that a candidate can win the popular vote but not win the presidency is absurd, no matter how much you like or dislike any individual candidate. Good God, imagine if the same thing happened during the EU referendum...

No, it's perfectly fine. Anything which stops lefties getting into office is wonderful.

I don't think that the majority should decide. I think that the electors should be in place to prevent a crazy socialist like Bernie Sanders ever being elected, just in case.

But in a democracy this is what happens. We vote, whichever side has the most is the one that we go with. Just because, in this one instance, the end result benefited your political leanings, it does not mean that the system isn't flawed. Imagine if it was the other way round. Let's say in this scenario Bernie was the Democrat's nominee, and he beat Trump despite losing the popular vote. Would you still be lauding it as a "wonderful" system then?

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but by any chance were you part of the 'Remoaners need to accept democracy' crowd? Whether or not you were isn't really relevant, because my point still stands. If you you don't think the majority should decide, does that mean we should remain in the EU? Of course not, because this is how democracy works.

I don't believe in democracy. I loathe the masses, but even a broken clock is right once a day, so in this case, I am very happy with the result.

If it had gone the other way I would have supported a military coup to overthrow the government, shoot all the lefties and put Trump or another Republican in power.

I agree that democracy does sometimes lead to sub-optimal results, but on balance I believe it aggregates to good outcomes for society. I posted a little while ago explaining why this is the case in greater detail, so you can read that if you want to save from repeating myself.

And I do hope you're joking with that last statement... in the event that you're not, then I will just play devil's advocate and ask you why the left-wing crowd shouldn't also do the same, now that Trump is victorious? You're confusing process with your political leanings. Sometimes democracy will go your way, other times it won't. But overall it produces a stable society with governments that are broadly accountable to the people, and this is important because it prevents the worst kind of government: tyranny.

I'm not joking. Tyranny is a wonderful system of government under great men like Napoleon Bonaparte or Augusto Pinochet or Julius Caesar.

The left-wing could certainly try to launch a coup, but I hope they fail.

But benevolent dictatorship is never guaranteed, and there have been plenty of examples throughout history of dictatorships under dreadful rulers. Sooner or later, a corrupt, self-interested leader would emerge and this would be bad for all in society. What if they came after you, specifically, would you still support them then? I have no idea what you look like so let's just say you have brown hair. If they made a policy instructing people to lynch brown-haired people in the streets, with no democratic checks to stop this, would you still support them? People as great as Bonaparte, or whatever other example you want to use, are not in the majority. Even if they were, I would still argue that democratic accountability is the best way to protect the broad interests of society as a whole.

Well, at least you agree with your principles being applied the other way round.

Ofc I would not support any government that went against my self-interest (i.e., made it a policy to lynch people like me). But that is much more likely to happen under "democrazy" than under a benevolent dictatorship.

I have more admiration for those who come to power through heroic deeds like military coups rather than through voting.

Then you're confusing your political leanings with process! Let's say continuous governments, all democratically elected, put into practice policies that you completely agreed with (let's say the same ones as your 'great leader'. Surely, using your logic, democracy is therefore the perfect form of government because it gave rise to your perfect policies? Can you not see that the two issues are disconnected? Just because one dictatorship happened to bring in good policies, that does not mean that dictatorship on the whole is a good form of government (due to the things I mentioned previously).

And no, lynching policies are not more likely to happen under a democracy because there are checks and balances to stop such things from happening. Unless a policy affects a single person, people who would be affected by such a policy can club together and have an affect on the political landscape. On the other hand, a dictator could quite easily decide to do that and nobody could stop him. A democracy doesn't guarantee that all groups will be protected, but they have ways of making this less likely that a dictatorship simply doesn't have.

Respect isn't really relevant to how good or bad a political process is.

Democracies are not consistent. You never know when the people might decide to repudiate Brexit, etc. In which case a military coup will be in order.



Checks and balances have more to do with the concept of liberalism than the concept of democracy.

And a dictator could be stopped. Via a military coup, or an uprising, or via assassination, or foreign invasion. There are many ways.

Democracy breeds weakness. It splinters society into groups fighting for control of the state so that they can use it to promote their own brand of identity politics. I would prefer a regime led by a glorious, heroic leader.

No, this is factually incorrect. The Founding Fathers set it up as a compromise between an appointed president and election by the people, because a charismatic tyrant (seem familiar, anyone?) could manipulate public opinion and get into office. It wasn't to prevent control by the larger states; California didn't even exist back then. The Senate is the institution designed to prevent disproportionate control by large states. The EC still gives disproportionate influence to larger states because the number of votes is the number of Representatives (based on population) + number of Senators (always 2 per state).

And you can't guarantee that a dictator will be a good one. My point was hypothetical; I was illustrating the disconnect between outcomes you perceive to be good and the political process itself. You support a dictatorship led by a great leader, but not by a bad one. In the same vain, a democracy that hypothetically always produces the perfect outcome for you would also be a good thing. The political leanings that result from an outcome aren't relevant to the process itself. Democracies, however, are broadly stable (not necessarily consistent, but stable), and governments can't act too far out of the remit of the public lest they risk poor electoral outcomes. This ensures that policy is never extreme, whether that be to the left or right. Dictatorships, again whether they are left-wing or right-wing, have no such checks. They are less likely to produce a good aggregate outcome than a democracy.

I don't know why you're advocating military coups, or foreign invasions (even worse) as a desirable alternative when you aren't satisfied with the outcome. Killing people for having a differing political opinion is horrendous....

Except when the constitution was written populations were vastly different, thus Virginia had 10 representatives while Rhode Island and Providence Plantations had only 1. It may not be CA, but the inequality was still there.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You may not be able to guarantee it, but I think it's worth the risk in some instances.

And sometimes extremism is a good thing.