Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Democracy people have to abide by the choice made by the majority. What if the majority is wrong?
In education for instance it is not rare to see 75 % of students failing a competitive college entrance exam.
If universities and colleges have to abide by democratic rules,then the dumbest who got the wrong answers on an Exam would be right and the standards would go down.
When it comes social issues,it is the same thing because many people do not even think that much before casting their ballots. The majority can easily get it wrong and vote for a jackass who in return would Fk up the country.
Yes, majority opinion can be wrong. That's why the founders invented the structures they did - to make sure that minority opinions could be squelched by neither the gov nor the majority.
It's the right approach, even if it doesn't always work as well as I'd like to see.
The majority maybe wrong in some cases but its the stability of the country that suffers if not and we know confidence plays a huge role in everything including the economy. The founding father saw this even by states when giving states so much powers not specifically given by them to federal government. Often its this growing role of Federal government that brings more and more conflict as regions and states differ so much; IMO.
In Democracy people have to abide by the choice made by the majority. What if the majority is wrong?
In education for instance it is not rare to see 75 % of students failing a competitive college entrance exam.
If universities and colleges have to abide by democratic rules,then the dumbest who got the wrong answers on an Exam would be right and the standards would go down.
Thats not even close to true. The majority picking the wrong answer does not then make it the right answer(which is what you are claiming), the same goes with democracy.
In Democracy people have to abide by the choice made by the majority. What if the majority is wrong?
In education for instance it is not rare to see 75 % of students failing a competitive college entrance exam.
If universities and colleges have to abide by democratic rules,then the dumbest who got the wrong answers on an Exam would be right and the standards would go down.
When it comes social issues,it is the same thing because many people do not even think that much before casting their ballots. The majority can easily get it wrong and vote for a jackass who in return would Fk up the country.
Is Democracy Getting It Wrong?
Long Story Short: No!
Short Story Longer version: Personally, I think our democratic processes are damaged. I think it's more likely we, as a Peoples, have damaged the conditions necessary for the potent democratic processes necessary for a representative republic.
Our election processes have been compromised. Fr'instance, present day circumstances, a 'seat in government' is sold to the highest bidder like a seat on the NYSE? Government seats are presently a highly sought-after commodity as they confer the ability to direct policy.
Should the ability to direct policies which effect the general welfare of a governments' constituents be sold to the highest bidder?
In Democracy people have to abide by the choice made by the majority. What if the majority is wrong?
In education for instance it is not rare to see 75 % of students failing a competitive college entrance exam.
If universities and colleges have to abide by democratic rules,then the dumbest who got the wrong answers on an Exam would be right and the standards would go down.
When it comes social issues,it is the same thing because many people do not even think that much before casting their ballots. The majority can easily get it wrong and vote for a jackass who in return would Fk up the country.
Winston Churchill said that Democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others.
Lets look at Communism. North Korea is one of the most backward countries in the world. Cuba is driving cars that I would have scrapped fifty years ago. The Soviet Union fell apart after the initial vigor fizzled out. Some of the initial five year plans in the USSR were successful.
Lets look at Fascism. Hitler was a communications genius but a military dunce. Mussolini got the trains to run on time but plunged his country into WW2 with WW1 equipment. The British kicked Italian butt at every encounter.
As long as Democracy is true, it discourages wars.
Actually, the U.S. is a Republic - although our voting process is a representative democracy that worked better when there were only 13 states in one region.
Our representative form of government is badly broken. This is because congressional and senate representatives are elected only by the constituents in the segment of the one state they represent. Therefore, they really only need to please that small group of people, in order to stay in office indefinitely. However, in order to 'bring home sufficient pork to please that small group of people, they must have the votes of other representatives who are trying to do the same thing. They must also please enough 'special interest groups' to fund an extravagant re-election campaign.
These representatives, who are primarily interested in getting re-elected ... not in what happens to the country, quickly learn to 'trade' their 'pork vote,' for the 'pork votes' of others. After only a couple of years in office, these 'porkers' get lifetime healthcare and pensions -- and are not subject to the same laws they pass for others.
This vast, segmented "representative form of government" is why, in spite of approval ratings in the 10-15-percentile range, the same do-nothing, self-serving politicians, manage to keep getting returned to office. IMO, the only solution is term limits that will prevent 'career politicians', which was never the intent of our founding fathers. Unfortunately, like so many things, that is unlikely to happen, because it would require the vote of the very politicians who benefit from not having term limits.
Thomas Jefferson summed-up the feelings of many today when he said, "May God protect us from politicians who take our money under the pretense of 'taking care of us'".
Representative democracy is just as bad. The time preference problem results in an ever expanding government. Who likes their legislative bodies anyway? Doesn't matter if it's congress, or state legislature, always extremely low approval ratings.
Plus most of your states practice direct democracy via the initiative process.
I think all collectivism gets it wrong. "Individual rights don't matter as much as 'the common good' or 'society as a whole' etc."
I don't want to violently control my neighbor, and I don't want them to violently control me. Sound like the Golden Rule...but in democracy, the majority gets to impose it's will on the minority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
