George Bernard Shaw claimed, "Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
Whether liberal or conservative, everyone has observed incompetent or corrupt politicians. In addition to them, there are many people who are vastly misinformed or uninformed. For example, there are people who believe Obama is the antichrist and that shape-shifting lizards are taking human form to control our society.
And, many of these people vote. Unfortunately, their decisions are anything but rational, and yet their votes count the same way as those who are more informed and don't believe in religious superstition or sheer unsubstantiated nonsense. So combine bad politicians with insane voters, and disaster is destind to result.
We all know the famous Churchill quote about democracy, but I often wonder if there is a better way.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Take away peoples right to vote for whatever reason and you will be going down the road to dictatorship.
Why assume more authority is the answer? We could move towards more decentralization, so uninformed voters are not making decisions for the other 290 million.
Isn't that what already happens with state and local government?
Here in the UK we vote for local councils to govern locally.
The main problem with democracy as i see it is that most political parties are undemocratic yet expect to operate a democratic system of government.
I mean radical decentralization. Concentrating more power in state and local governments doesn't solve the problem of the irrational voter, though it does reduce their power.
I see your point but what if the state you live in has a large number of irrational voters?
Wouldn't that exasperate the problem? And allow radical parties and politicians to take control of individual areas more easily?
Democracy is the ad-populum fallacy writ large. The only appropriate solution is to revert to a system of self-government.
I wrote that in a paper once, and the professor told me I needed to explain myself. I wondered whether she understood what the fallacy was.
What level of self-government?
That is how we started. Then, starting from family/clan, and up, folks got tired of living by the "might equals right" standard, and stepped up to the next level of government. Ans so on. Until we have our present form.
So what level of self-government do you have in mind? And how would you guard against the issues that caused it to be abandoned the first time around?
Maybe people need the right to form their own governments in neutral territories (like not building a nation right over an oil field), and then people can choose what kind of government they want to live under (socialist, capitalist, mix, etc) with free travel among them, just in case an individual changes his/her mind.
I'm just thinking out loud though.
I understand what you are saying, but ...
It is something we have already tried, but human nature interfered.
What happens when one group succeeds, and it's neighbor - not so much so.
You are right back to the "might makes right" problem.
Or what happens when a prosperous group practices isolationist policies, which for whatever reason, is to the detriment of it's neighbors? There goes the "free travel" choice.
and using your thought about neutral territories - who determines what's neutral?
Reality dictates that, (on a contiguous landmass), an expanding union is the ideal concept for the growth of its people.
It is our management of that union that is the problem - not the concept.
So for now, and probably the foreseeable future, I think Churchill nailed it. It is not the system that needs to change - it's human nature.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/10/r … -man-made/ Here's an example of someone not qualified for office (he's also the one who apologized to BP).
by AnnCee5 years ago
Just wondering. I'd like some extra money for a Mediterranean cruise.
by My Esoteric4 months ago
In both the Federalist Papers AND the Constitutional Convention, it is extremely clear the distaste most of those involved in creating today's America had for democracy, which they saw as mob rule which allows...
by Kathryn L Hill4 years ago
-today in the Forums, it was stated that socialism offers freedom and low taxes. This is what we have learned today, 3/9/13 from advocates of Social Democracy for the United States (A Social Democracy promotes a gradual...
by Dan Harmon3 years ago
I picked up a FaceBook post today that I find very interesting:In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh,had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://biggovernment.com/rlaurie/2011/0 … o-success/Lol!This is hilarious because it's sooo true!
by kerryg6 years ago
Just read a really interesting article on social democracy by Tony Judt called "What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy."I recommend the whole article, but this is one passage that stood out to me...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.