Democracy is dead and doesn't work!!! what about a one party system?

[BADecker]

in my opinion monarchies are fundamentally not different to dictatorships, except for their theistic character

I think it depends on which kind of monarchies. In England it's not a dictatorship (or a meritocracy if some of you prefer)  like in China but it is a monarchy on the paper ...
In Europe a lot of monarchies are just "democracies" with a King or a Queen.

In England, even the monarch is overruled by the 12-person jury.

[Tash]

Democracy is when you vote, paying someone (Politician) to vote for you is not a Democracy as he sometime does and sometime does not cast the vote you would have done.

[squatz1]

Now why are only 50 percent of the people happy with the vote at the end of this? I'd have to say it's probably because of the fact that that percentage of people that turn out to vote on Presidential years is typically only in the realm of 52-55 percent. Which you could take that and say wow -- 45 percent or so of people don't even vote during a time when the two most hated people are running for President (Trump and Clinton)

But this is for presidential election years, that's when people turnout. But when you look at the midterm election years, or regular election years (the ones inbetween the midterms) less and less people come out. Obviously, they're angry -- they didn't even get to pick the people that they elected. Even when they did, they mostly still suck.

[Tramirostronix]

Now why are only 50 percent of the people happy with the vote at the end of this? I'd have to say it's probably because of the fact that that percentage of people that turn out to vote on Presidential years is typically only in the realm of 52-55 percent. Which you could take that and say wow -- 45 percent or so of people don't even vote during a time when the two most hated people are running for President (Trump and Clinton)

But this is for presidential election years, that's when people turnout. But when you look at the midterm election years, or regular election years (the ones inbetween the midterms) less and less people come out. Obviously, they're angry -- they didn't even get to pick the people that they elected. Even when they did, they mostly still suck.

In France you have 3 official choices :

1) Candidate A
2) Candidate B
3) "White" which mean you don't vote for A or B

But you also have the number 4

4) Don't vote.

In the past "white" was counted, but many years ago we said "ok now we will not count it".
So many people are not voting because if they vote "white" or if they don't vote at all, the result is the same.
In France when you want to vote you need to go the place where you were "born" (usually).
Why should I moove to vote "white" if it will not count ?

Many people including myself are asking the government to count "white" as a vote.
But why the government is against it ?

Because like you said you need at least 50% to elect someone, with the "white" vote, we don't have them...

We should use a system where the last candidate is eliminated  and do it over and over (like TV show).

[Artemis3]

there is no such thing as democracy, if you look closer you will realise that all democracies where either plutocratic, oligarchic, or even monarchic.

there is always a financial elite with advantages.

I agree to an extent. It'll be hard to find a society without no inequality.

I would say we should be judging societies primarily on social mobility, property rights, and freedom of expression, etc. No point trying to better your life if everything can be taken from you out of a whim.

I disagree about the one party system, you basically just have a mafia running the country. A multi-party system, for all its flaws at least keep each other in check, since they tend to undermine each other and fight over voters.

snip

China: One Party System, check. No term limits, check.

What else can they take?

even ultra communist soviet union was unequal, there where the directors, and the state officials that where the rich of the society.

You should not worry about inequality, worry about poverty (lack of wealth) instead. You can have a very unequal society where no one misses a meal, and a place where everyone is equally living in misery.

Usually there is always an elite ruling over the impoverished masses, and that elite has everything while the masses have nothing. They change the names, the colors, but the end result is the same thing, an almighty State that squashes individual freedoms. What different makes a president that can never be voted out than a Monarch? Its all a facade.

But there are systems that won't even let you out, you are condemned to poverty by being born there, and this is something people can't choose: where they are born. Sometimes people can choose where to live, but the State is always preventing you, some for you to leave, and some for you to come. Some people attack immigrants, but ignore the root cause of it.

Do you make the system, or the system makes you?

[squatz1]

Now why are only 50 percent of the people happy with the vote at the end of this? I'd have to say it's probably because of the fact that that percentage of people that turn out to vote on Presidential years is typically only in the realm of 52-55 percent. Which you could take that and say wow -- 45 percent or so of people don't even vote during a time when the two most hated people are running for President (Trump and Clinton)

But this is for presidential election years, that's when people turnout. But when you look at the midterm election years, or regular election years (the ones inbetween the midterms) less and less people come out. Obviously, they're angry -- they didn't even get to pick the people that they elected. Even when they did, they mostly still suck.

In France you have 3 official choices :

1) Candidate A
2) Candidate B
3) "White" which mean you don't vote for A or B

But you also have the number 4

4) Don't vote.

In the past "white" was counted, but many years ago we said "ok now we will not count it".
So many people are not voting because if they vote "white" or if they don't vote at all, the result is the same.
In France when you want to vote you need to go the place where you were "born" (usually).
Why should I moove to vote "white" if it will not count ?

Many people including myself are asking the government to count "white" as a vote.
But why the government is against it ?

Because like you said you need at least 50% to elect someone, with the "white" vote, we don't have them...

We should use a system where the last candidate is eliminated  and do it over and over (like TV show).

The system you're referencing is known as instant run off system. Some countries use this on a district / provincial level, other use this on a full country level. People say that this is the best way to fix the issue of the two party system dominating all the votes because if you don't vote for one of the big parties your vote is -- essentially -- worthless.

The way to fix this would be to setup IPV, and to allow people to show their support for the smaller parties with their secondary votes (2nd ballot, 3rd ballot, etc.) A good system, but the people who would I have to set this system up would be people that current benefit from the system not being this way. So they're not going to vote for this to change.

[Balthazar]

1) Number of parties doesn't say anything about freedom, democracy or whatever. You can have one party state with all signs of civilized country, like religious and political freedom. The opposite is also correct, see Iran for the most notorious example.

2) There is no such thing as single-party system because party members don't share their brains. You may have it de jure, but it's merely an illusion. Each alive party has a set of factions with different agenda, sponsors and interests, which are effectively acting as different parties. Chinese Communist Party is not uniform, it has a moderate faction, liberal clowns and radical leftist idiots among its members. Same is correct for almost every political party in the world. Just compare Biden, Hillary and Sanders and you'll see the point.

Democracy really exist and is working very well in some developed country of the world no doubt about that fact. Op, why are afraid of mentioning your the name of your country so that one will be able to make a good analysis of what is happening in your country.

It only exists in the minds of those individuals, whose brains were consumed by the mass media. Having the people spending few minutes to fill their voting bill once every few years is not a democracy.

The point is that even a fairest implementation of civil society and electoral process is not a sign of democracy at all. Though the quality of imitation may vary, it would be correct to say that all modern "democracies" are just republics with some imitative democracy on top of their real decision making institutions. There are no exceptions, simply as that.

To have a real democracy, not imitative one, you need to have somewhat closer to 80% of population working for your government machine. Instead of "electing" either clown #1 or clown #2 they have to make decisions on all levels of power. Greek democracy worked exactly in this way, that's why it was a real democracy. It was normal for any citizen to dedicate some part of his life to work in the government institutions. Some of them have had combined two or three positions simultaneously, and were rewarded for their hard work. Serving terms were quite short, ranging from 1 month to 1 year, candidates for position were chosen randomly. Those who refused to do their work after being elected were labeled as "idiots".

P.S. If you need an example, then consider learning details of trust system on this forum. It's really similar to democracy in its original sense.

[franky1]

3) "White" which mean you don't vote for A or B
In the past "white" was counted, but many years ago we said "ok now we will not count it".

small corection.
france has blanc.. which although does english translate to white. it also references BLANK

they leave the vote blank, not white (in modern english terms)

[Balthazar]

they leave the vote blank, not white (in modern english terms)

Small correction... They're leaving vote blank to let some member of commission fill it.  

[Hilsgort_T]

Don't rush to conclusions, think well, do you really think that democracy once existed in modern society? We are given the choice of what will be beneficial to them. Behind-the-scenes structures rule the whole world, and all we can do is stop playing their game. And play the game according to our own rules. You can start by taking responsibility for what is happening in your life and with your relatives. Start acting conscientiously, start doing good deeds. And after a while, the space around you will become better, and other people will be inspired by your example and begin to act in the same way. Peace revolution!

[Tramirostronix]

3) "White" which mean you don't vote for A or B
In the past "white" was counted, but many years ago we said "ok now we will not count it".

small corection.
france has blanc.. which although does english translate to white. it also references BLANK

they leave the vote blank, not white (in modern english terms)

Yes you are right it's Blank mybad, thanks for the correction.

they leave the vote blank, not white (in modern english terms)

Small correction... They're leaving vote blank to let some member of commission fill it. 

In some countries maybe but not in mine or yourse I hope 


After it's funny how some people react when you ask them what they think about their country.

When I was in Slovakia, I asked people about their government and I was surprised when 95% were honest and called it a false democracy because of the corruption and murders ...
But it was sad at the same time because when I asked them "Hi guys when do you vote for your next president" the answer was : " Honestly I don"t know the date. No point of paying attention to it because the mob will put someone to help them".

 

[Balthazar]

In some countries maybe but not in mine or yourse I hope  

Well, Scotland independence referendum was the most notable example. There were a lot of videos on YouTube showing how commission members have filled dozens of bills. However, nobody cares for that because it's not some kind of extraordinary scenario. That's a natural way of counting in the so-called democratic regimes. It's even more funny that so-called autocratic regimes would never allow such a blatant manipulation.

[Tramirostronix]

In some countries maybe but not in mine or yourse I hope  

Well, Scotland independence referendum was the most notable example. There were a lot of videos on YouTube showing how commission members have filled dozens of bills. However, nobody cares for that because it's not some kind of extraordinary scenario. That's a natural way of counting in the so-called democratic regimes. It's even more funny that so-called autocratic regimes would never allow such a blatant manipulation.

Yeah ok so for you guys what is the country closest to the real democracy ?

Based on the democracy index the top 10 on 167 is :

1     Norway    9.87    
2     Iceland    9.58    
3     Sweden    9.39    
4     New Zealand    9.26    
5     Finland    9.25    
6     Ireland    9.24    
7     Denmark    9.22    
         Canada    9.22    
9     Australia    
10      Switzerland

UK: 14
France : 20
Slovakia : 42
China : 153

And the last one is North Korea 

[Balthazar]

Yeah ok so for you guys what is the country closest to the real democracy ?

Switzerland of course. Unfortunately, it's too small to be actually independent.

The truth is that in the modern international community no country may be democracy. Well, at least not while the big pseudo-democracies such as China, USA and Russian Federation are controlling everything.

You may have a pseudo-democracy, absolute monarchy or even a totalitarian regime and nobody will care about your country. But any attempt to establish an independent direct democracy will lead your country to sanctions and other aggressive actions by the pseudo-democracies, including military intervention.

[BADecker]

Democracy works when everybody agrees ahead of time, that they will obey whatever the majority decides, even if they are in the minority.

[maye5104]

Our democracy isn't perfect, but it's the only system, which is suitable for the USA. If democracy doesn't work, can one party system like communism be better? No, Soviet Union as the world's first nominally communist state proved its inefficiency. 

[Balthazar]

Our democracy isn't perfect, but it's the only system, which is suitable for the USA.

USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic. The word "democracy" is not even mentioned in its constitution. I bet that most of US citizens have no idea about that simply because they have no time to read the constitution and its amendments.

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it

If democracy doesn't work, can one party system like communism be better?

Exactly like modern two-party system works in the US. It would be hard to deny that these two parties are merely a formality created to split the public opinion in order to make manipulations easier and cheaper. This approach isn't unique, a lot of regimes are acting this way. Regular members may even believe that their parties are real, but top officials of both parties are directly linked to each other and their agenda is amalgamated to the point of indistinguishability. Even if one of parties would disappeared tomorrow, the system will continue to work as if nothing happened.

However, it's neirher good nor evil, it's just how the system works. Especially if you remember that parties are not uniform.

There is no such thing as single-party system because party members don't share their brains. You may have it de jure, but it's merely an illusion. Each alive party has a set of factions with different agenda, sponsors and interests, which are effectively acting as different parties. Chinese Communist Party is not uniform, it has a moderate faction, liberal clowns and radical leftist idiots among its members. Same is correct for almost every political party in the world. Just compare Biden, Hillary and Sanders and you'll see the point.

Each party has a set of factions as well as opposition for them.

No, Soviet Union as the world's first nominally communist state proved its inefficiency.  

You may be surprised, but joining the CPSU wasn't obligatory to run for office. In fact, councils of all levels had independent MPs and their share was ranging from 30 to 40 percent. Don't you think that these independents have acted like a second party? From the logical point of view, there is no difference between big party vs. independents and one big party vs. another big party. In fact, the second is even worse because elites of both parties may negotiate to form a unified agenda, effectively betraying their voters as the result.

The point is that number of parties is irrelevant. The only thing matters is a compromise between continuity and adaptability. If the system is balanced then everything will be fine, no matter how many parties are there. Shifting the balance to continuity will result with absence of changes, both "good" and "bad", leading to degradation and corruption on all levels of your state. As the result, its competitors will tear it apart. In opposite situation, shifting the balance to adaptability, the system will eventually destroy itself from within through the civil war or another violent scenario.

[KingScorpio]

democracy works only related to how the money payed by the tax payers are going to be spend.

outside of that there will always be an informal economic sector that spends money controlled by private groups

[Negotiation]

I don't think democracy is dead It is usually completed by voting. Many people say many things before voting, but then these things do not happen. They handle everything according to their rules In that case, the party system should act according to its rules and think carefully before voting.

[dhondiet]

I will say right away that this is just my opinion. But I think that my opinion is close to the truth. But I don't force you to agree with my opinion.

In my opinion, modern democracy (Europe, USA, Australia, New Zealand) is a political system in which it is forbidden to prohibit immoral actions. Modern developed countries where we live have advantages, such as: openness of people, etc.
But let's ask ourselves: in what world do we want to live, what kind of culture should people have, how should we live so that everything is good for everyone?
For myself, I answer like this:
- We need to understand what unites us all: we want peace, we want good and prosperity for ourselves and everyone in the world.
- Laws are just a set of rules that do not work in practice, because they have no basis.
- Conscience and justice. If everyone will act according to conscience and justice, then no laws are needed, because everyone has the same conscience, and it is from birth. Conscience comes from the heart and leads to the prosperity of man and society as a whole. Therefore, this can no longer be called democracy. After all, we have a conscience according to which each of us acts.
I think this is ideal.