What is a properly functioning democracy?

Sig

But the question didn’t have ‘true’ in it.

To me ‘properly functioning’ would suggest running well, I’m not sure ‘mob rule’ would run well.

What constitutes’ intelligent’?

As to ‘critical thinking’ as has been highlighted on many occasions there are a number of seemingly intelligent and educated people on the forums promoting ideas that they seem unable to defend from criticism in anything like a rational or reasonable way. Or have mentalities and attitudes that they seem unable to question and refuse to examine.

They simply ignore any opposing view and evade answering.

I still have not worked out why such seemingly intelligent and educated people would act in such an irrational and even dishonest manner.

As said democracy isn’t the best of systems it just that it seems better than the alternatives.

What system would you have instead of democracy?

 

Why? Whats you're alternative?

 

Why? Because I don't think everyone deserves a vote, that is why. I have met people, on both ends of the political spectrum, who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a ballot box. My alternative is to restrict voting rights to only those who meet certain criteria. What those criteria are, though, is a complicated question.

 

Can't help but think of the society in Starship troopers for a sec

 

Heinlein was on to something....

 

It depends on what you want government to do. All governments currently function to one degree or another. Good governance of your own nervous system makes you personally adaptable to any clime. Growth occurs in a concentric fashion, that is from within and there will always be an inner circle having the capacity to assist those less fortunate. It is our adaptable nature that gives us access to nature, not our ability to control it. I don't think it is a good idea to attempt to govern behavior at large but a far better one to exemplify good behavior at home and in your own neighborhood.

 

Okay,as you havnt given the complicated answer I'll assume you mean that you would not give the far Right or the far Left the vote,maybe you might include Anarchists too & Religious extremeists?

One problem is that that in denying them democratic access they take it as an excuse to get nasty. One nutcase socialist group in the UK decided that 'there is no Parlimentary Road to Socialism' started advocating revolution (which was ridiculous) but also began donating to the IRA! No one told them they could not vote or stand for election,they,desparate for support,tried it as a tactic. It didnt work & they remain in obscurity.

Also it'd leave us open to them accusing us of being totalitarian & undemocratic & they'd have a point. Its better,I'd say, to allow them to participate & therefore be open to challenge & reasoned argument. Far Left/Right don't poll that high anyway.

 

Ehhh, I'd go beyond simply far left and far right. As I said, it is a complicated question and there are many variables to consider. Like I have said before, Heinlein was on to something.

ehhh, let them get nasty.

We are already accused of being totalitarian and undemocratic. The mob is just as capable of being tyrannical as a minority with voting rights.

Either way, what we have now isn't working.

 

So wheres your real answer to my question? As I understand it modern democracy isnt about the majority takes all. That its as much about addressing the issues of minorities insofar as that can feasibly be done within the idea of majority rule & available resourses. But I get the feeling I'm missing your point, you're gona have to be more specific. Also who's Heinlein & what was s/he onto ?

 

You asked a real question? I just saw general assumptions you made, which I replied with a general answer.

What you understand as a democracy isn't that at all but, instead, a republic. America is a republic in its death throws; all the "sides" are tired of compromising and there is less middle ground to be found. As such, we are being pushed further towards true democracy and the rule of popular opinion/the mob.

The mob is fickle and, in most cases, dumb. As individuals people are intelligent. As part of a mob, we are irrational and prone to acting from emotion, rather than logic. As such I am starting to come to the conclusion that the bulk of American's cannot be trusted with having a political voice/vote in this country. They are dumb, weak, emotional, selfish. Such people don't make good rudders, and yet we invest in them the "power" to choose those who helm our nation. This just seems like a recipe for disaster.

Robert A. Heinlein was an author.

 

Let's just let the people with the most money decide everything. Just figure out a cutoff amount to determine who gets the vote and who doesn't, thereby leaving the dumb, weak and emotional to their tractor pulls and Nascar races, averting any more disasters. That'll take us right to hunky-dory land.

 

Politic is using shrewdness, tact, and cunning to advance harmonious relations and to be politically active is to act the same. The vote is a lottery to see who gains access to privilege. The criterion for success in this endeavor is how you play to hero worship and taboo. We need the right or exceptional man for the job but he better not post peter pictures. These two things do not serve the same purpose. As it stands voting has not much to do with being politically active.

If there is a better system it seems it would arise organically from good sense. For instance geopolitical boundaries themselves are not representative of local conditions. Even in the state where I live geography, climate, life styles, and local concerns are dramatically different from east to west divided by a mountain range. Great polarization occurs because one government is trying to administer these senseless boundaries and forcing people together who are not vitally interested in each other. I would reiterate that the best government is self governing and the best administration is to lend your talent where you can. In such a state you are not in conflict with the powers that be but can simply walk around them. Ultimately no government shares your best interest and we must care for ourselves. As an individual I think that is the highest political contribution we can make.

 

No, I asked you a simple question,the response I got was vague so,as I said in my post I had to make assumptions to progress the discussion,I wasnt inviting another general vague answer. Since then Ive asked if you advocate a meritocracy??

Individuals,you say,are intelligent but the mob is fickle selfish & irrational. As I understand it people do vote as individuals,where do these or this mob gather that causes their loss of intelligence? I'd have to agree that 'we get the democracy we deserve' but theres a lot of influencial factors to that than mob mentality alone.

I won't comment on your Republic or Constitution but I'll keep to the threads title. Democracy,anywhere anytime,is a work in progress& you get what you put in. Seems to me that ,like the UK, Americans don't really have much choice to influence real change. That has to have a major infuence on election out comes. In the UK,as I guess in the USA, people vote the best way they can given the limited options put in front of them.

Therefore I'd suggest that removing peoples rights to vote is not the issue. Giving the voters more choice upon which to make an intelligent decision is the better option.

 

Do you mean giving more people the chance to run for office?

How about a more informed world view?

In considering what is the better option you need to decide what want government to do. There is a real possibility that we expect of government things that it cannot deliver like a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and therefor do not really know how to address the fundamental chinks in the system. In any social group there naturally emerges dominant figures but we have replaced native talent with marketing glitz. Good leadership is exemplary not promised.

 

At the state level, I have a choice between two radically different political options every other year. They agree on nothing. The national media makes the American Presidential race appear more important than it really is. So many important issues are decided at the state level; the majority of the things that impact daily life for ordinary people. A lot of change is going on at the state level in this country, and most of it is bad. It's hard for the media to keep up, because there are fifty states to cover.

No, one side is tired of compromising. It won't matter for long. The Republican Party is in its death throws. It's literally falling apart at the seams. Compromise with Republicans will soon become completely impossible, as it fractures into three parties (social conservative, old money, and libertarian factions). Willingness to compromise will become a non-issue, when we have only one party that functions as a political party.

Taking away the opportunity to vote from large blocks of Democrats is about the only strategy the Republican Party has left that has any reasonable chance of succeeding in the short term, now that they have taken gerrymandering about as far as it can go. Long term, demographics is going to do you in.

You want the poor and uneducated to stop voting? Find a way to make them apathetic. The "shut up and pay your taxes" approach is going to have the opposite effect. Everybody hates a bully, even other bullies.

We need for more people to invest more time learning about important issues, less time spent on mindless entertainment, and less time online arguing that anyone with a different point of view is a fool.

It's often hard to find factual information about important topics (especially international), but it can still be done, with a little effort.

I see signs that people are making more of an effort to learn about important matters, now that so many have very little money to spend on frivolous things that used to fill so much of their time. The wealthiest 1% didn't see this coming.

 

i would,nt know.. ? i,m in the USA.... lol.. but not really funny.

 

I'd say yes in answer to both of your questions and the same if your questions were about the state of democracy in the UK.

What Ive heard Americans say a lot is that its not necessarily radical change thats needed but persuit & enforcement of laws & Constitutional Rights that have already been passed & exist but have not been sufficiently acted upon,carried thru. Also that theres a lack of transparency in all levels of your Government,as there is indeed in ours.

I think that the current crop of professional polititians,in both US & UK, have it way too easy. As election night turnout figures continue to fall,certainly in the UK, the outcomes almost routine, then theres the self congratulatory statements like 'we're the Worlds greatest Democracy' and the preaching to the people of the Middle East on the virtues of democracy.

What I'm really for is more participation by the electorate demanding more transparency & accountabilityas of a right.

 

A properly functioning government; let's see they commit wars, tell everyone what to eat and live, legally take bribes from corporations, bail out banks, drone strike little children...and...do it in the name of the majority vote.

Now my "perfect" democracy, is so perfect, no government exists in it.

 

^^^That would be my ideal outcome & I daresay many others on this sites idea of utopia too. We got a long way to go before human nature,yours & mine & our enemies too,evolves enough to get there matey! 'Till then the age old conflict between the weak & the strong,the haves & have nots,continues.

But think of it this way,not so many centuries back you & I would probably have been deadly enemies & here we are now not necessarily agreeing ,some of the time, but we are talking & learning all the time. Thats progress. I may persuade you to become a neo-Redcoat commie yet (only joking) !