Bitcoin Forum

A single ruling party exists at all levels of government. No checks, no balances.

This isn't democracy. This isn't what our founding fathered envisioned.

I'm done with America.

If people are electing some party; it is very much democratic.  It is not the few people to decide who will rule the country.  It is the majority who decides it.
So if the citizens elect one party at all the levels ; I think there is nothing wrong with it.  And people are intelligent; they closely monitor the working of a government.  And if they find they are not working for the safeguard of the interest of the people of the country; they can elect the opposition in next elections.  This is well known to the Government too.  So  they have the option to work honestly; for the betterment development of the people; if they desire to win next elections.

If people democratically elected ISIS to rule in their country, would you still call it a democracy?

The meaning of democracy is not just majority rule, there are values that are integrate part of what you call a democracy. They have started evolving before French revolution. One of them is human rights and when certain groups of people have their rights trumped - I am sorry, that is no democracy.

Platon wrote, more than 2,000 years ago that: "Democracy is the tyranny of the ignorant people".
I'm afraid he was quite right. Democracy is based on the equality of the desition, but, in a society profoundly manipulated, uninformed and idiotic... can even democracy be a Democracy? Or just a joke?
I tend to believe it is the second one...

These are very good arguments and it's true for more or less all countries, no matter who you vote for, they always let you down or pull some crap from which just benefit friends which oil the system.

But the real question is what are the alternatives then?

Liquid democracy.

There are two main political parties in our country and they ruled the country nearly 70 years up to now since our independence. In the first time of our history, we elected our president from one of a major party while the majority of members in the parliament from another party. Then the executive president invited to other parties to rule the government with the association of two major parties. Now our country is ruling by a national government which created a lot of problems than the other way around.

Any decision was taken from a one party is criticized by the other party of the national government which leads lagging of taking decisions (Good decisions have a lot of fathers while when things have gone wrong they just blame each other party)

No constructive debates going on when submitting a bill/policies for the parliament since there is no strong opposition party, they just getting approved all most all the bills/policies even though some of the policies/bills didn't have any positive impacts towards people.

What I want to express here is we have tried an alternative (National government) for the mainstream politics, but the results seem to be worse than the other way around (ruling by one party). We couldn't change the way politicians thinking about their(our) country and they are just thinking only about how to maintain their power until the next election. Sometimes I felt that we can't just blame the politicians only, because when we have the power of voting we are not electing the right candidate to do the job for us. Instead, we just follow the popular ones even though they didn't have any political background or education qualifications at all.

Actually what we need more professionals for the political arena like Singapore to gain maximum output from their respective fields(economic, foreign affairs, health, education etc.. ).

---

"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything" - Albert Einstein

I do believe that there are too many people in this world, to begin with. But, as far as I've been able to observe, small communities are needed. I think that humanity needs to develop a network of small communities with self-government, based on merits. Platon also spoke about a type of Aristocracy based on philosophy, in where the ruler should be a philosopher. The way he/she should reach the power was based on merits, and on a strong educational system preparing greedless rulers.

Well, in an over-populated community, this is impossible to achieve, of course, for, how are you going to develop a trust-system between millions of persons? Of course not. But in small communities, it can absolutely be done. But, again, in an overpopulated world, that's kind of utopic. I do see a dystopian future, though, based on a punctuation system, a meritocracy, but in where, probably, ignorance and appearance will be voted, instead of intelligence and greedless. Maybe you just asked a pessimist woman.

IT was Socrates who oppose democracy and then end up punished by death.  What Socrates propose was that in order for you to have the right to vote you should be trained first and become a philosopher before you can cast a vote which means that vote has a substance and that it was wisely done. Not like allowing anyone to cast vote to someone who wants to be an official.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk

Thats what I understood.

I was talking about Plato's Republic books: https://www.iep.utm.edu/republic/
Of course, Plato did mention Socrates in his books and shared some of his ideas because he was his teacher, but the point I was quoting is in Plato's Republic.
In fact, the video is about these books too, but, anyway, what matters is the idea behind the mind... and how old it is. Democracy has been sold to us as the ultimate system, like a synonymous of "evolution" and "progress". But this is just mind-controlling, again. Democracy, from my perspective, is the perfect circus, the perfect way to have the masses controlled. Easy cake, you just need to educate the voters.

Democracy is a myth. It was created for the appearance of the importance of the population. All controls are behind the scenes of governments. States are only performers who are chosen for a specific period. Worker for hire. Change the mode, it is not real, everything has long been divided. The only way out, is not to play game, according to their rules.

If democracy is gonna die (debatable) it's not gonna happen due to a certain party or a certain person, it's gonna happen due to tantrum-based ignorance like this. Also I'm getting a feeling you wouldn't be creating this thread if the party in question was a different one.

There is a good chance that founding fathers envisioned people actually voting instead of whining on internet forums.

I think you are only saying this because
1. Your candidate/s and your party lost
2. What's currently happening there is not according to your subjective ideals

For you, democracy maybe dead but for others it is alive.

The day we stop believing in Democracy is the day we lose it. I know things seems to be screwed up a lot right now but we have to stand our ground there a lot of good politicians too they just need our back up.

Democracy is just a made-up idea that people are allowed to say what they want, think what they want and do what they want.
In fact, you are all puppets and there is no democracy! All who rule countries in most cases control all its structures and democracy this is only the beautiful the for people which thinks that he is free in this world.

Is democracy dying, or perhaps already dead? Is it really time to eulogise democracy, or are we rather on the cusp of a new phase in its long and varied life? – Jean-Paul Gagnon, University of Canberra

Majority of the country are implementing democracy but in the actual application by it, in most of them are not being applied properly or sometimes it was being controlled by those officials in the government who abused their authority for this system. Because as long as you are free to express your own freedom in your own country

Democracy isn't dead.  It's alive and well in California and many other states that will even allow constitutional amendments through ballot initiatives.  Some of you might think that's a good thing, but many have argued, with demonstrable evidence that it's destroying those states.

Pure democracy isn't any more practical than pure communism.  It doesn't work.  It subjugates minorities, and I'm not only talking about ethnic minorities.  I'm talking about political, ideological, and social minorities, regardless of their ethnic background.  But, obviously it can and has been used to subjugate ethnic minorities as well.

Most people have no idea what democracy really is.  They think the United States if America is a democracy, because we use a democratic process to elect representatives.  Those of you who believe that are wrong.  The USA isn't and never has been a "A Democracy."

A pure democracy is Majority Rule, and minorities be damned.  Look around you, all the people you interact with daily, the folks shopping at the supermarket, the guy pumping your gas, the girl ringing you up for a Big Mac...  do you want them deciding on public policy?  Do they have the education, insight, and forethought to really make decisions that will benefit society today and for the long run?  Might they be susceptible to the influence of a charming scammer, a despot, or a genocidal maniac?  Most people won't read the instructions on a bottle of Drain-O, let alone study the intricate legalese of a proposed initiative.

No thank you, I'll take my Constitutional Republic over a democracy any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_initiative_or_referendum

Democracy is not exist. In every time there are people who have more influence and power.

Ironic to read comments from people who live in authoritarian countries weighing in on whether democracy is real or not.

Democracy  is a scam. The winners from an oligarchy  or something close and perpetuate their ways.

First question so you fully Understand democracy?

Democracy, literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratiā, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and Kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century -Britannica

Now the statement said Rule by the people now let's take a look at the definition of people :
human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest

from the definition, you find out it makes a collective individual: make a people is that right?
so democracy can be a set of individual deciding on policies that will affect the other sets if you get that logic  8)

why you say its dead is because Democracy was never what you thought it was, not meant to be a free system for all  ;)
its just made to look so, Democracy is very much alife just among a set of individuals who controls the system  :o

Hope that makes sense to you

Democracy is just a thing I call illusion. It doesn't really exist, it is something the oligarch takes advantage with. They will give you what you called democracy and they will get what they want with their sneaky feet and hands. You will never ever notice them taking advantage of you because of that thing you call "democracy".

The systems that worked well in the past need modification to cope with extremes of population, communication changes etc..

There is no need to dispose of the democratic model, as it's most important attribute is that it seems to be more fair than other systems. It will always be easier to convince ppl that democracy is the fairest system  (or , to paraphrase WLSC, the most unfair system, apart from all the others) .

Taken to extreme, an 'absolute' democracy, where everything is decided by plebiscite, would throw up ridiculous decisions and anomalies, and would be controlled entirely by the popular (social) media manipulators.

A representative democracy, as exists in many developed countries, is still the most effective. The representatives need some boundaries and filters such as an upper chamber or a written/legal precedent constitution.

I cant remember the name of the movie but there was an interesting statement made there where one of the actors said something like:
Democracy is a system where the ruling 51% take away the rights of the opposite 49%

The USA is not now, nor has it ever been, a democracy. It has always been a constitutional republic. There is a huge difference between the two and it really saddens me that people are now taught to believe we are a democracy.

so true...this is why plato never wrote "the democracy"....he wrote "the republic"....democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner

Wasn't ever really real.

In some countries, democracy still applied, and in my idea that this system was implemented mostly in some Asian nation. And one of this are Philippines but sometimes our freedom of expression was being used most often in irrational reason, and being used for self - interest only to get what they want which is not good anyway.

Haha i've told my friends this before. With you. I hope we move away from a democracy.

hahaha i feel you dude. I tell my friends this all the time. america is a running joke to the rest of the world

“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”
― Mark Twain

This is about democracy

Democracy is rule by the people. Even the constitutional republic of the good old USA would qualify as a democracy. It is after all ruled by the people and not by a single monarch or dictator. The founding fathers recognized the God given rights of each and every individual and attempted to limit the dangers of having those rights infringed by the ruling class. I would urge all who want to understand what the founding fathers tried to accomplish to take the time and read some of the correspondence between them as they worked away on the final documents. They got it right; a rule by the people with limitations to ensure that the majority could not infringe the rights of the few. Now, whether the USA is able to fulfill those lofty ideals will fall on the shoulders of the citizenry who will have to keep the politicians in check. The ruling parties are trying to divide the citizens and pit them against one another. Unless the citizens take the time to educate themselves on all that has transpired to date and to contemplate the pitfalls that lie ahead the politicians will destroy the constitutional republic and eliminate rule by the people.

Is democracy dead? Not yet...but...it might just be on life support.

here, in France, we try to make democracy great again, but government fight us and lie.

Support us

And the Swiss is probably invented by fake news?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland

Support democracy by buying and reading newspapers with high standards of journalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Consortium_of_Investigative_Journalists

Sorry, but is this related to cryptocurrency? Cause it sounds like politics. I mean why are you so upset with the system of gvt?

Democracy is dead in all parts of the world. Its like rulers do whatever they want regardless of what people want.

Democracy only works if you have a sensible choice in the voting. In England we can vote for the Eton/Oxford elite, or for the Oxford/Eton elite. That isn't democracy. It isn't democracy when the government of the day decides to have a second referendum because the people got it wrong the first time.

These days, most of the candidates for election are chosen by forces above the nation. They aren't chosen by popular opinion.

Every country which admitted that they are democratically rulerld is simply lying to its citizens. It is just like to put pink glasses on everyone. In fact it is aristocracy which is smartly hidden under all this feelings about people's ruling of the country. We face with undemocratical cases like daily and Jet Cash gave brilliant example.