FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > An idiot's understanding of democracy
An idiot's understanding of democracy
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Why is democracy arguably the "least worst" form of government? What is the significance of majority decisions/approval/mandate? An idiot would say "x has a huge majority, therefore it's the will of the people, therefore it's correct/morally right". Of course, intelligent people, such as those of Fab, would reject such simplistic nonsense. The electorate can be manipulated and misled, vote emotively against their best interests, governments can change course or be dishonest. Voting systems themselves might not deliver popular results, through first past the post, electoral college or proportional representation followed by horse trading all leading to unintended results. So why do we in the West prefer this to, say, a benevolent dictatorship, theocracy or council of elders? Mostly because it's a system that's generally palatable widely in the electorate, which means that people might grumble, but grudgingly agree that it's not egregiously unfair and not worth overthrowing the government to change - another opportunity will present itself in n years. It's not perfect, but it mostly works. But the will of the people should in no way be presented as being correct. Respecting democracy involves accepting outcomes, despite knowing that they are based on stupid people voting for stupid reasons. Speaking up against them when necessary, protesting within the bounds of the law and being a responsible citizen who gets involved in the democratic process. Not blindly following the majority." ...you lost me at "benevolent dictatorship "...I can't think of one...can you?..(Disney doesn't count) | |||
"Why is democracy arguably the "least worst" form of government? What is the significance of majority decisions/approval/mandate? An idiot would say "x has a huge majority, therefore it's the will of the people, therefore it's correct/morally right". Of course, intelligent people, such as those of Fab, would reject such simplistic nonsense. The electorate can be manipulated and misled, vote emotively against their best interests, governments can change course or be dishonest. Voting systems themselves might not deliver popular results, through first past the post, electoral college or proportional representation followed by horse trading all leading to unintended results. So why do we in the West prefer this to, say, a benevolent dictatorship, theocracy or council of elders? Mostly because it's a system that's generally palatable widely in the electorate, which means that people might grumble, but grudgingly agree that it's not egregiously unfair and not worth overthrowing the government to change - another opportunity will present itself in n years. It's not perfect, but it mostly works. But the will of the people should in no way be presented as being correct. Respecting democracy involves accepting outcomes, despite knowing that they are based on stupid people voting for stupid reasons. Speaking up against them when necessary, protesting within the bounds of the law and being a responsible citizen who gets involved in the democratic process. Not blindly following the majority....you lost me at "benevolent dictatorship "...I can't think of one...can you?..(Disney doesn't count)" Kazakhstan, until a few years ago, was pretty close. | |||
"Why is democracy arguably the "least worst" form of government? What is the significance of majority decisions/approval/mandate? An idiot would say "x has a huge majority, therefore it's the will of the people, therefore it's correct/morally right". Of course, intelligent people, such as those of Fab, would reject such simplistic nonsense. The electorate can be manipulated and misled, vote emotively against their best interests, governments can change course or be dishonest. Voting systems themselves might not deliver popular results, through first past the post, electoral college or proportional representation followed by horse trading all leading to unintended results. So why do we in the West prefer this to, say, a benevolent dictatorship, theocracy or council of elders? Mostly because it's a system that's generally palatable widely in the electorate, which means that people might grumble, but grudgingly agree that it's not egregiously unfair and not worth overthrowing the government to change - another opportunity will present itself in n years. It's not perfect, but it mostly works. But the will of the people should in no way be presented as being correct. Respecting democracy involves accepting outcomes, despite knowing that they are based on stupid people voting for stupid reasons. Speaking up against them when necessary, protesting within the bounds of the law and being a responsible citizen who gets involved in the democratic process. Not blindly following the majority....you lost me at "benevolent dictatorship "...I can't think of one...can you?..(Disney doesn't count) Kazakhstan, until a few years ago, was pretty close." ...ah yes...all his political opponents annihilated, most of his family in top government jobs, schools, libraries named after him...sounds perfect...don't you agree? | |||
"Why is democracy arguably the "least worst" form of government? What is the significance of majority decisions/approval/mandate? An idiot would say "x has a huge majority, therefore it's the will of the people, therefore it's correct/morally right". Of course, intelligent people, such as those of Fab, would reject such simplistic nonsense. The electorate can be manipulated and misled, vote emotively against their best interests, governments can change course or be dishonest. Voting systems themselves might not deliver popular results, through first past the post, electoral college or proportional representation followed by horse trading all leading to unintended results. So why do we in the West prefer this to, say, a benevolent dictatorship, theocracy or council of elders? Mostly because it's a system that's generally palatable widely in the electorate, which means that people might grumble, but grudgingly agree that it's not egregiously unfair and not worth overthrowing the government to change - another opportunity will present itself in n years. It's not perfect, but it mostly works. But the will of the people should in no way be presented as being correct. Respecting democracy involves accepting outcomes, despite knowing that they are based on stupid people voting for stupid reasons. Speaking up against them when necessary, protesting within the bounds of the law and being a responsible citizen who gets involved in the democratic process. Not blindly following the majority....you lost me at "benevolent dictatorship "...I can't think of one...can you?..(Disney doesn't count) Kazakhstan, until a few years ago, was pretty close....ah yes...all his political opponents annihilated, most of his family in top government jobs, schools, libraries named after him...sounds perfect...don't you agree?" Despotic elements, sure. But you have to understand the region at the time! Dictatorships, by definition, need to be somewhat brutal. All things considered, he was overall okay. Benevolent, as far as most dictators go. Believed in progressing his country and making live for most better. He got a bit weird, of course. | |||
| |||
"Why is democracy arguably the "least worst" form of government? What is the significance of majority decisions/approval/mandate? An idiot would say "x has a huge majority, therefore it's the will of the people, therefore it's correct/morally right". Of course, intelligent people, such as those of Fab, would reject such simplistic nonsense. The electorate can be manipulated and misled, vote emotively against their best interests, governments can change course or be dishonest. Voting systems themselves might not deliver popular results, through first past the post, electoral college or proportional representation followed by horse trading all leading to unintended results. So why do we in the West prefer this to, say, a benevolent dictatorship, theocracy or council of elders? Mostly because it's a system that's generally palatable widely in the electorate, which means that people might grumble, but grudgingly agree that it's not egregiously unfair and not worth overthrowing the government to change - another opportunity will present itself in n years. It's not perfect, but it mostly works. But the will of the people should in no way be presented as being correct. Respecting democracy involves accepting outcomes, despite knowing that they are based on stupid people voting for stupid reasons. Speaking up against them when necessary, protesting within the bounds of the law and being a responsible citizen who gets involved in the democratic process. Not blindly following the majority....you lost me at "benevolent dictatorship "...I can't think of one...can you?..(Disney doesn't count) Kazakhstan, until a few years ago, was pretty close....ah yes...all his political opponents annihilated, most of his family in top government jobs, schools, libraries named after him...sounds perfect...don't you agree? Despotic elements, sure. But you have to understand the region at the time! Dictatorships, by definition, need to be somewhat brutal. All things considered, he was overall okay. Benevolent, as far as most dictators go. Believed in progressing his country and making live for most better. He got a bit weird, of course. " But apart from all that what had Vlad the Impaler done for us  | |||
"Why is democracy arguably the "least worst" form of government? What is the significance of majority decisions/approval/mandate? An idiot would say "x has a huge majority, therefore it's the will of the people, therefore it's correct/morally right". Of course, intelligent people, such as those of Fab, would reject such simplistic nonsense. The electorate can be manipulated and misled, vote emotively against their best interests, governments can change course or be dishonest. Voting systems themselves might not deliver popular results, through first past the post, electoral college or proportional representation followed by horse trading all leading to unintended results. So why do we in the West prefer this to, say, a benevolent dictatorship, theocracy or council of elders? Mostly because it's a system that's generally palatable widely in the electorate, which means that people might grumble, but grudgingly agree that it's not egregiously unfair and not worth overthrowing the government to change - another opportunity will present itself in n years. It's not perfect, but it mostly works. But the will of the people should in no way be presented as being correct. Respecting democracy involves accepting outcomes, despite knowing that they are based on stupid people voting for stupid reasons. Speaking up against them when necessary, protesting within the bounds of the law and being a responsible citizen who gets involved in the democratic process. Not blindly following the majority." "Those of fab..."  | |||
"Democracy is a promise that you can bring about changes in the laws and governance without having to indulge in violence. In other models like dictatorship or monarchy, if the populace didn't like what's going on, the only option was a violent revolution. And the outcome of the revolution could go either way after numerous deaths. In democracy, people are given a peaceful option - Convince others. If you can get the majority of people on your side, then you get the change you want. As for "stupid people voting for stupid things", it's a bit more nuanced than that. Different people prioritise different things in their life. Not everyone prioritises material desires over everything else. Agree that sometimes people get deceived by politicians who deceive people into believing that they will help them achieve their desires but won't. But yes, a political party winning the election doesn't mean that people should blindly consider everything they do to be right. We should still discuss the pros and cons of everything they do. What's legal and what's moral or two different things. The former is absolute and the latter is personal." Getting Brexit done clearly showed how one issue can override all others through the power of voting. I was for Brexit but not for the Tories, and that's how my vote went. I agree re pros and cons, but sadly most forum members here are right leaning aka incorrect leaning  | |||
"Oliver Cromwell knows all about democracy. You'll never get a true democracy until the whole nation votes, lots of folk didn't vote, if they did it might be a different story. I wonder if Starmer has got designs on chopping Charles' head off, probably not. He needs it to tax the balls off everyone. Gotsta tax that coin eh." Tax balls or chop heads? Hmmmmm close choice | |||
"Prefer a ‘good’ monarchy tbh , when there’s no option of ever losing your power and it really is your responsibility to serve the people & you’ve known it and been trained for it your whole life, you get some good results. Next best is probably federalism , democracy based on recent history of UK and America would seem a very poor choice to progress a country out of a bad place." Is that your experience in Dubai? I watched a programme about the citizens (those born there) and how they are well looked after. | |||
"Prefer a ‘good’ monarchy tbh , when there’s no option of ever losing your power and it really is your responsibility to serve the people & you’ve known it and been trained for it your whole life, you get some good results. Next best is probably federalism , democracy based on recent history of UK and America would seem a very poor choice to progress a country out of a bad place. Is that your experience in Dubai? I watched a programme about the citizens (those born there) and how they are well looked after." Well looked after. Like a pet? | |||
"Prefer a ‘good’ monarchy tbh , when there’s no option of ever losing your power and it really is your responsibility to serve the people & you’ve known it and been trained for it your whole life, you get some good results. Next best is probably federalism , democracy based on recent history of UK and America would seem a very poor choice to progress a country out of a bad place. Is that your experience in Dubai? I watched a programme about the citizens (those born there) and how they are well looked after. Well looked after. Like a pet? " Look it up. If I could recall I would have stated it. | |||
| |||
"...The ignorant masses are lulled into a false state of security, with promises of fairness..." This is the entire point of democracy. It's brilliant. Do you really want the ignorant masses to have power? Or just keep them happy enough to not revolt? Civil order is more important than right or wrong. | |||
"...The ignorant masses are lulled into a false state of security, with promises of fairness... This is the entire point of democracy. It's brilliant. Do you really want the ignorant masses to have power? Or just keep them happy enough to not revolt? Civil order is more important than right or wrong." Politics should be taught at school! | |||
"...The ignorant masses are lulled into a false state of security, with promises of fairness... This is the entire point of democracy. It's brilliant. Do you really want the ignorant masses to have power? Or just keep them happy enough to not revolt? Civil order is more important than right or wrong. Politics should be taught at school!" most leave school without basic reading writing and maths let alone adding poiltics | |||
"Prefer a ‘good’ monarchy tbh , when there’s no option of ever losing your power and it really is your responsibility to serve the people & you’ve known it and been trained for it your whole life, you get some good results. Next best is probably federalism , democracy based on recent history of UK and America would seem a very poor choice to progress a country out of a bad place. Is that your experience in Dubai? I watched a programme about the citizens (those born there) and how they are well looked after." given land and wealth ect basically keeping there money in there country and handing down to future generations | |||
"...The ignorant masses are lulled into a false state of security, with promises of fairness... This is the entire point of democracy. It's brilliant. Do you really want the ignorant masses to have power? Or just keep them happy enough to not revolt? Civil order is more important than right or wrong. Politics should be taught at school!most leave school without basic reading writing and maths let alone adding poiltics " Schools are too busy teaching their pupils to be politically correct. Maths and English are mere side issues. As for politics, teachers only promote liberalism. | |||
"...The ignorant masses are lulled into a false state of security, with promises of fairness... This is the entire point of democracy. It's brilliant. Do you really want the ignorant masses to have power? Or just keep them happy enough to not revolt? Civil order is more important than right or wrong. Politics should be taught at school! most leave school without basic reading writing and maths let alone adding poiltics "
Your typo  | |||
"...The ignorant masses are lulled into a false state of security, with promises of fairness... This is the entire point of democracy. It's brilliant. Do you really want the ignorant masses to have power? Or just keep them happy enough to not revolt? Civil order is more important than right or wrong. Politics should be taught at school! most leave school without basic reading writing and maths let alone adding poiltics
Your typo "good job i dont write for a living eh 😂 | |||
