I think that if a nation can create a truely democratic soiciety than it must have representation from all social classes and all groups within the society. The real problem is how can we do this?

THe problem we have today is that only people with lots of money or with wealthy benifactors be elected to public office. Whats more, the process is dirty and corrupt and only the worst kinds of people are attracted to political careers.

Imagine if Congress is comprised not only of wealthy and priviliged lawyers, but how about allocating certain percentages of, say the House of Representatives to ordinary people, Electricians, Truck Drivers, Housewives, cooks, unemployed people, disabled people, teachers, nurses and so on and so forth.

Now how can this be done? Well we can have people who are members of those classes be elected by their own peers. For instance there can be elections in which only office workers willl vote to elect one of their own, maybe have nurses elect a nurse.

To make the elections fair, no money can be spent on advertizing but all candidates can have their views published in special election guides.

Good, albiet fragmented ideas. THEY WOULD NEVER WANT A DEMOCRACY because the scumbag lobby groups would have to give up power. It would be so easy with the technology of today.

To make the elections fair, no money can be spent on advertizing but all candidates can have their views published in special election guides.
half of American wouldn't be able to read/understand a guide. duh.


on a side note, voters should have to take some sort of test to prove they are intelligent enough to vote.

True democracy is mob rule. This is why the framers chose to form a republic to oversee, interact with and defend a group of smaller, similar republics. It's a far better way to prevent one group from gaining too much power than a straight democracy.

They had just thrown off the rule of an Imperial monarchy, and they knew from experience that absolute power, or too much power in any area of government would lead to despotism, tyranny or dictatorship eventually.

I think we've done very well with what they left for us. It's not perfect because nothing is, and certainly no government will ever be, but compared to the rest of the world, the US obviously has a far better system of government. There is a reason that people flock to this country, and it's called freedom.

True democracy=anarky light.

True democracy is mob rule. This is why the framers chose to form a republic to oversee, interact with and defend a group of smaller, similar republics.I tend to agree. A straight democracy could work in small groups. But it is impossible for it to last in governing any nation.

Democracy is a nice idea. Just like communism is a nice idea. But, I don't want to live under either when it comes to practicing them.

What is important is rule of law based on a constitution that gives everyone equal rights. Then you must have a free judiciary, free from government control. Then you have to kill all the lobbyists.;); and then force term limits on the congress.

If by Democracy is meant: everybody has a say in govt - lots of luck. Once we vote we have no more power, and have to rely on our system of govt to follow a corruption free path; again lots of luck. But if we have a system set up, as we do when it's working properly, the 3 seats of govt can keep each other from attaining too much power.

i think it can work, if you educate people properly.

What is important is rule of law based on a constitution that gives everyone equal rights. Then you must have a free judiciary, free from government control. Then you have to kill all the lobbyists.;); and then force term limits on the congress.

If by Democracy is meant: everybody has a say in govt - lots of luck. Once we vote we have no more power, and have to rely on our system of govt to follow a corruption free path; again lots of luck. But if we have a system set up, as we do when it's working properly, the 3 seats of govt can keep each other from attaining too much power.

If you eliminate the lobbyists, you must also eliminate the right of every citizen to call or write their representatives. That's what lobbyists do, and we all have the right to be lobbyists.

As it happens, certain lobbyists have made it a career and have been heavily financed by those they represent. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on where you fall on the issues at hand.

There is nothing stopping any American from pursuing this type of work, or doing it themselves. I've lobbied my representatives many times over the years.

If you eliminate the lobbyists, you must also eliminate the right of every citizen to call or write their representatives. That's what lobbyists do, and we all have the right to be lobbyists.

As it happens, certain lobbyists have made it a career and have been heavily financed by those they represent. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on where you fall on the issues at hand.

There is nothing stopping any American from pursuing this type of work, or doing it themselves. I've lobbied my representatives many times over the years.

I don't think your lobbying your congressman is in the same league as the corporations with billions corrupting the political system.....and you know it. Rich lobbyist entities are in the business of bribing, which means they corrupt, and rich lobbyist entities represent miniscule special issues, which often are contrary to the general public good: such as Oil company profits.
Look at Jack Abramoff!!

True democracy=anarky light.

I gotta agree. As much as I like the idea of democracy, the human stupidity factor can screw things up. Occassionally there are times when a minority does know better than the majority.

As I see it, the right to participate/suffrage should be earned, not given upon the 18th birthday.*dons flameproof suit*

Heinlein had a very interesting take on it in one of his books.

Democracy isn't the tyranny of the majority.

As long as you're part of said majority.
Democracy itself is wonderful, but pure democracy does cause problems. Don't forget who won the 2004 presidential election, and by popular vote despite conspiracy theories.

1. True democracy lasts only until people figure out they can vote themselves access to someone else's wallet.
2. Corruption is possible only to the extent that government has authority to be auctioned off. Reduce government's authority over various spheres of activity, and you reduce the possibilty (make that inevitability) of corruption. We have become accustomed to the idea the government has or should have authority over EVERY area of our lives. How many times have you heard or thought, "there ought to be a law"?

I think that if a nation can create a truely democratic soiciety than it must have representation from all social classes and all groups within the society. The real problem is how can we do this?

Mussolini's version of Corporativist fascism attempted something like this, I believe. Everybody was theoretically shoved into a group of some sort based upon their theoretical "class," there was even some sort of a "Department of Corporations" to theoretically ensure that the interests of all parties was at least heard, if not necessarily put into practice. Not really sure where it stood vis a vis the Grand Council of Fascism, possibly it was focused more on economic than political matters. And of course the difference between the theory and the reality was about as wide as could be but, there ya go, you've possibly got yourself a model to work off of.

THe problem we have today is that only people with lots of money or with wealthy benifactors be elected to public office.

When was this not the case in American politics? Hell, until the turn of the 20th century or so Senators were not even directly elected, but were voted into office by state legislatures.

Whats more, the process is dirty and corrupt and only the worst kinds of people are attracted to political careers.

Not that I disagree but I see nothing that can be done about this...at least in something approaching a representative regime the hope at least remains that you can vote out one set of rogues and replace them with an equally corrupt one.

Imagine if Congress is comprised not only of wealthy and priviliged lawyers, but how about allocating certain percentages of, say the House of Representatives to ordinary people, Electricians, Truck Drivers, Housewives, cooks, unemployed people, disabled people, teachers, nurses and so on and so forth.

Why split on occupation? Why not by religion or race? Or gender? Or age? Or by the sports team(s) you follow?

on a side note, voters should have to take some sort of test to prove they are intelligent enough to vote.

And who would make this test and determine what's "intelligent"? My version of intelligent probably isn't everyone's. Plus, you know a test like that would go corrupt in a heartbeat. :(

Good thought in theory, though.

1. True democracy lasts only until people figure out they can vote themselves access to someone else's wallet.
2. Corruption is possible only to the extent that government has authority to be auctioned off. Reduce government's authority over various spheres of activity, and you reduce the possibilty (make that inevitability) of corruption. We have become accustomed to the idea the government has or should have authority over EVERY area of our lives. How many times have you heard or thought, "there ought to be a law"?

+1 :nice:

+1 :nice:


What he said.

if a minority in some cases knows best, they should be able to explain that to a majority too.

Majorities don't often predicate their decisions on the basis of a rational assessment of the facts.

if a minority in some cases knows best, they should be able to explain that to a majority too.

Assuming the majority is willing to listen.

true, no guarantees. but thats democracy i guess. what you gain, is that you get to have a say.

if a minority in some cases knows best, they should be able to explain that to a majority too.

That's why we have a representative form of government and not a true democracy. The minority (elected officials) are supposed to decide what is BEST for the country, not just follow the wishes of the people (the majority). They are not doing a great job of that right now.

And often they will do the wrong thing because it's popular and the majority will vote for them again.

Individuals are often pretty smart, but as a group, people are morons. And the larger the group, the more moronic.

Now think about what happens when a huge group of morons gets together to vote. :eek3:

1 of 2 things
1. They put a moron into office.
2. A conman goes into office because all those morons were so easy to fool. Afterall, he only had to fool slightly more than half of them.

Sometimes, you get both.

but if a democracy is open enough, and this person messes up, or shows he was a conman, after some years, then people will have lots of options as an alternative. thats something you americans dont have. and thats what messes up your democracy. if all voices are really heard, and people can, by voting, actualy shape the leadership, then democracy grows all by itself, people wil learn that if you vote for a moron, you get bad leadership.
you need alternatives.

but if a democracy is open enough, and this person messes up, or shows he was a conman, after some years, then people will have lots of options as an alternative. thats something you americans dont have. and thats what messes up your democracy. if all voices are really heard, and people can, by voting, actualy shape the leadership, then democracy grows all by itself, people wil learn that if you vote for a moron, you get bad leadership.
you need alternatives.
I kinda agree with you, but you have a lot more faith in the people than I do.
In the meantime...
|
|
|
|
V:|

That's why we have a representative form of government and not a true democracy. The minority (elected officials) are supposed to decide what is BEST for the country, not just follow the wishes of the people (the majority). They are not doing a great job of that right now.
I'm not sure there is any such thing as 'true democracy' or at least 'true democracy' is not a useful term. Any government in which the people freely elect representatives to lead them, IMO, is a 'democracy.'

on a side note, voters should have to take some sort of test to prove they are intelligent enough to vote.

They did that in the old south to keep black people from voting. It was later outlawed by Constitutional ammendment.

True democracy=anarky light.

Anarchy rocks!

I kinda agree with you, but you have a lot more faith in the people than I do.
In the meantime...
|
|
|
|
V:|

yea maybe i have too much faith... :hmm: thing is, holland is a small country, and things happen a lot faster in a small country then in a big one like the USA.
weve had big powerblocks in the past, that shared the power. weve allso had our democracy open up, weve had populists beeing elected, and weve seen them fail. and well probebly have more populism in office in the future.

anyway, i donteven think we have true democracy here eighter. we elect eladers who decide for us, and they try to keep us from having a system with more referendums about issues. its pretty infantile, still. like people cant decide themselves about certain issues. weve had one big referendum, on Europe, and people shot it away. so the next time there was a proposal for a eu constitution, they just didnt bother asking us, the basterds.
its pretty pathetic when you elect peopele, and they act against you. thats not democracy in my opinion.