There is nothing like free and fair election, lets stop deceiving ourselves!

[Applechild]

Accusations and counter accusation thrills nations for election malpractice. What is the real problem with voting? Why malpractice? Even countries that have adopted democracy, you find out that there is form of malpractice to enthrone a particular set of people even when they may be incompetent. The leaders to-be also see that they stop at nothing to get into office and are ready to step on toes. Is it an unquenchable taste for power or they really want to make a change in their respective position of service or it is for what I term “stomach ministry” Because on a good day, you want to represent your people and they don’t want you, and you push tooth and nail to get past their rejection, for me you are going there for yourself not the people. No election is truly free or fair. Whoever brought such terminology to election book tried because it has taken over our minds and we start believing it even when we know it is not true.

Leaders you dont want force their way in and becomes a terror to the people. Just stop believing such terminology. It does not exist.

[1713949113]

1713949113

[1713949113]

1713949113

[1713949113]

1713949113

[hase0278]

It does not exist yet, at least for now since votes are being manipulated if not bought. The real problem with voting is that the one who can sway the public easily will win. The voting system is and will be exploited because there is a lot of money involved in politics. That's why they are so desperate to get into position. It might change though if decentralized voting comes to pass.

[Shaftdel]

No matter how a system might look, there will always be an imperfection. Election right from the grass root, i mean voting party representatives is not free and enough, is a do or die affair. That's the reason for such ideology. What then are you expecting?

[Jimbable]

I don't really know who is unironically against democracy now, (well, i can imagine a few people, but still) so what is this thread really about? In the era of Internet, moderately intelligent person can find all the info, and make their opinions about subj matter, nobody really is so pink-glassed to believe that democracy isn't without a flaw. But for now, it's the best that we got.

[BADecker]

I don't really know who is unironically against democracy now, (well, i can imagine a few people, but still) so what is this thread really about? In the era of Internet, moderately intelligent person can find all the info, and make their opinions about subj matter, nobody really is so pink-glassed to believe that democracy isn't without a flaw. But for now, it's the best that we got.

But how does a person find what he is looking for on the Net? He uses a search engine. The search engine programmers supply answers to queries based on the things that they politically like. So, the Internet is useless for finding something that is known to be truth.

Take Wikipedia, for example. Anybody can post to Wikipedia, and change articles. So, if somebody posts an article, somebody else can modify it so that the first article doesn't exist any longer. Which article had the correct info in it? It's all a judgment call. Editing is allowed by Wikipedia according to their political world view.

Same with any other search engine. The website you are looking for might be listed on page 10 of the search, but the search engine might only allow 5 pages of sites to show.

Google is working hard to look good, without allowing things that are against their political views, any more than they have to.

[Quickseller]

Both the Brexit vote and the 2016 US presidential election strongly contradict your assertions. Both of these votes went strongly against those in power, however they were both voted for and both are being implemented, although the former a little bit less than it should be.

[lockes007]

You are inescapably on point!!!
The stakeholders of elections are in to the  of using catchy words and phrases to entice and convince the electorates that there is no form of malpractices happen in so doing buying the media too such that they cover the elections as these deceitful stakeholders who want to capture power at all cost deem fit.

[BADecker]

Joseph Stalin, leader of Russia (USSR) during WW2, executed as many as 100 million people, many of whom were under his control, and citizens of Russia or one of its satellite countries.

One of Stalin's cute sayings was, "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything" - https://quotes.thefamouspeople.com/joseph-stalin-51.php.

So, is counting the votes part of the election? Or is only voting part of the election?

If the whole process isn't free and fair, guess what. None of it is free and fair.

Btw, many of the various social networks are eliminating people who they say post things that can influence elections. Well, isn't speaking your mind to people on some kind of a social network what it is all about? So, who is influencing elections? The people who speak their mind? Or the social networks who silence them?

[BlockTreeClub]

If men were angels, there would be no need for government.

[francishutch]

True democracy will always fail because you let the uneducated make decisions that forcefully impose the will of their often stupid decisions on the entire population.  What we need is a  small government where the only role of government is protecting the natural rights of all people in the state (defined in a constitution), protected by a republic, where only the educated can vote for officials responsible for protecting the rights of citizens.  Tyrants love democracy because their will can be imposed by manipulating the uneducated.


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

[francishutch]

If men were angels, there would be no need for government.

If men respected the natural and property rights of all other people there would be no need for government.

[BlockTreeClub]

If men were angels, there would be no need for government.

If men respected the natural and property rights of all other people their would be no need for government.

Hamilton, meet Mises.

[m.roth]

True democracy will always fail because you let the uneducated make decisions that forcefully impose the will of their often stupid decisions on the entire population.  What we need is a  small government where the only role of government is protecting the natural rights of all people in the state (defined in a constitution), protected by a republic, where only the educated can vote for officials responsible for protecting the rights of citizens.  Tyrants love democracy because their will can be imposed by manipulating the uneducated.


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

And how do you define educated? You think it's fair, uneducated people are also part of this planet and should be heard or not? And officials will never protect the rights of citizens, they will always decide for whats most favorable for them! I begin to think that goverments should run on blockchain fully democratic within a framework, which ensures a basic law and regulation.

[maksimukr1989]

Are you still going to the polls? It's time to become smarter) I can reveal the secret, even if you do not go to the polls, will choose the candidate that will be needed by the system.I don't urge anybody not to go to elections,I simply don't see the objective reasons to do it.

[francishutch]

True democracy will always fail because you let the uneducated make decisions that forcefully impose the will of their often stupid decisions on the entire population.  What we need is a  small government where the only role of government is protecting the natural rights of all people in the state (defined in a constitution), protected by a republic, where only the educated can vote for officials responsible for protecting the rights of citizens.  Tyrants love democracy because their will can be imposed by manipulating the uneducated.


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

And how do you define educated? You think it's fair, uneducated people are also part of this planet and should be heard or not? And officials will never protect the rights of citizens, they will always decide for whats most favorable for them! I begin to think that goverments should run on blockchain fully democratic within a framework, which ensures a basic law and regulation.

Educated  in this context means to have an education in the subject where the decision is being made.  In regards to politics, the minimum voting age should be increased back to 21 and require the voter to own property.  Ownership of property serves two purposes, people that own property have more at stake by being governed and deserve a higher stake than someone who doesn't have property, and it acts a requirement that someone will have to learn how to acquire.

Uneducated people do not deserve a voice for subjects which they do not know anything about.  When they're given a voice all they produce is noise.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
― Winston S. Churchill

[m.roth]

True democracy will always fail because you let the uneducated make decisions that forcefully impose the will of their often stupid decisions on the entire population.  What we need is a  small government where the only role of government is protecting the natural rights of all people in the state (defined in a constitution), protected by a republic, where only the educated can vote for officials responsible for protecting the rights of citizens.  Tyrants love democracy because their will can be imposed by manipulating the uneducated.


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

And how do you define educated? You think it's fair, uneducated people are also part of this planet and should be heard or not? And officials will never protect the rights of citizens, they will always decide for whats most favorable for them! I begin to think that goverments should run on blockchain fully democratic within a framework, which ensures a basic law and regulation.

Educated  in this context means to have an education in the subject where the decision is being made.  In regards to politics, the minimum voting age should be increased back to 21 and require the voter to own property.  Ownership of property serves two purposes, people that own property have more at stake by being governed and deserve a higher stake than someone who doesn't have property, and it acts a requirement that someone will have to learn how to require.

Uneducated people do not deserve a voice for subjects which they do not know anything about.  When they're given a voice all they produce is noise.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
― Winston S. Churchill

And how would you practically manage that only in-the-subject-educated voters can vote? And you don't see any interest conflicts when only property holders can vote? The world was not made for an elite, it is for everyone and it's hypocrite to think educated people vote for the best solution suitable for everyone (for the greater good for themselves). And what has the ownership of property to do with the decision if let's say cannabis should be legal or not?

Coming back to the beginning, how would you define educated concerning this question? We know that cannabis has many medicinal benefits but there are people prone to develop mental and other health issues, when smoking too much. Further there is a massive amount of "taxes" going to the black market instead of the state. Further the war on drugs is extremely costly and the money would be probably better invested in education of proper use. Sorry to go off-topic a bit, but you see the problem here, who is educated in such a complex question?

This is a question of opinions and attitudes, calculating pros an cons which are perceived differenty by everyone, but everyone should be able to express their feelings. So it's for the government or politicians to present us the facts as genuine as possible in a manner where everyone can understand the topic. We need better and more reliable facts and less propaganda and false promises, thats what we need.

[maksim65698858]

the eternal problem of fraud and almost complete falsification of the elections will not go anywhere, and this must be acknowledged. The results of any election are made by the one who leads the votes. All the rest, a pleasant polemic on the democracy of justice and freedom of choice .....! The only way to interrupt this deceitful theater of absurdity is through elections based on blockbuster technologies. Is this possible technically ?! YES. unconditionally. but what next ?? So far the answer to this question is not clear. And the game of democracy continues!

[francishutch]

True democracy will always fail because you let the uneducated make decisions that forcefully impose the will of their often stupid decisions on the entire population.  What we need is a  small government where the only role of government is protecting the natural rights of all people in the state (defined in a constitution), protected by a republic, where only the educated can vote for officials responsible for protecting the rights of citizens.  Tyrants love democracy because their will can be imposed by manipulating the uneducated.


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

And how do you define educated? You think it's fair, uneducated people are also part of this planet and should be heard or not? And officials will never protect the rights of citizens, they will always decide for whats most favorable for them! I begin to think that goverments should run on blockchain fully democratic within a framework, which ensures a basic law and regulation.

Educated  in this context means to have an education in the subject where the decision is being made.  In regards to politics, the minimum voting age should be increased back to 21 and require the voter to own property.  Ownership of property serves two purposes, people that own property have more at stake by being governed and deserve a higher stake than someone who doesn't have property, and it acts a requirement that someone will have to learn how to require.

Uneducated people do not deserve a voice for subjects which they do not know anything about.  When they're given a voice all they produce is noise.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
― Winston S. Churchill

And how would you practically manage that only in-the-subject-educated voters can vote? And you don't see any interest conflicts when only property holders can vote? The world was not made for an elite, it is for everyone and it's hypocrite to think educated people vote for the best solution suitable for everyone (for the greater good for themselves). And what has the ownership of property to do with the decision if let's say cannabis should be legal or not?

Coming back to the beginning, how would you define educated concerning this question? We know that cannabis has many medicinal benefits but there are people prone to develop mental and other health issues, when smoking too much. Further there is a massive amount of "taxes" going to the black market instead of the state. Further the war on drugs is extremely costly and the money would be probably better invested in education of proper use. Sorry to go off-topic a bit, but you see the problem here, who is educated in such a complex question?

This is a question of opinions and attitudes, calculating pros an cons which are perceived differenty by everyone, but everyone should be able to express their feelings. So it's for the government or politicians to present us the facts as genuine as possible in a manner where everyone can understand the topic. We need better and more reliable facts and less propaganda and false promises, thats what we need.

I really urge you to watch this video explaining Socrates views on democracy, as my arguments won't compare to Socrates criticisms.

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


The way I look at it, since everyone has the ability to own property there is no conflict of interest by only allowing property owners to vote and if someone can't figure out how to acquire property to increase their status in society they should not be able to make decisions that affects the lives and property of others.  Similarly, why should non-property owners have the power to vote on policies that affect property owners, when they themselves own no property?  

In my opinion this is a good measure.  Maybe a better one would be an increased minimum age and a question on the poll "Are you sure you're qualified to make this decision?  If you are not qualified, please do further research and come back to the next election."  Of course voters could be instructed to lie, but it's better than what we have today where many people are advocating against even requiring voters to have a valid ID.

The government has no moral authority to say what an individual does with their own body and property as long as the individual is not stealing from, directly threatening or harming someone else.  Politicians use fear mongering to bend the will of the people to vote on laws/policies that take rights away from minorities for the financial gain of their cronies, this is why we have a war on drugs.   The tax analogy is one people use to persuade governments to legalize something that they have a natural right to do as a human being.  The mob should not be able to decide what other people can and can't do.

Democracy has been idealized in society as the founding principal of the west, but what we really need is a Constitutional Republic, where the constitution is based solely on the natural rights of man(man as in mankind).  Democracy in the USA has lead to millions of laws being written and enforced daily that violate the natural rights of citizens that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were drafted to protect.  In Venezuela, democratic elections lead to a socialist dictator that ruined the economy and has left the population unable to feed themselves, had the voters been more educated on socialism they most likely wouldn't have voted for Hugo Chavez in the first place.

The governments only job should be defense and protecting the natural rights of all individuals in the country, anything else is a violation of human rights.  

[SkyFlakes]

It does not exist yet, at least for now since votes are being manipulated if not bought. The real problem with voting is that the one who can sway the public easily will win. The voting system is and will be exploited because there is a lot of money involved in politics. That's why they are so desperate to get into position. It might change though if decentralized voting comes to pass.

Yes, I also believe that there is no free and fair election as sometimes votes are being manipulated and/ bought which of course with the involvement of money. That's how unfair the system it. So as a youth, we should be aware of this things and try to do some actions and think of a solution to this as this only covers the benefits of just some people.

[joebrook]

It does not exist yet, at least for now since votes are being manipulated if not bought. The real problem with voting is that the one who can sway the public easily will win. The voting system is and will be exploited because there is a lot of money involved in politics. That's why they are so desperate to get into position. It might change though if decentralized voting comes to pass.

Yes, I also believe that there is no free and fair election as sometimes votes are being manipulated and/ bought which of course with the involvement of money. That's how unfair the system it. So as a youth, we should be aware of this things and try to do some actions and think of a solution to this as this only covers the benefits of just some people.

If you feel that that there is nothing as a free or fair election then I think the best thing to do is to boycott elections in general because they are going to do the same thing regardless of who is in power.