Viking11
Banned
- Joined
- May 2, 2016
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 60
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
Read more: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say | Why the Best Candidate Never Wins | Psychology
The only major upside of Democracy is that feeling they have a say keeps people happy
I've often been told this is one of the reasons the framer's of the Constitution chose a representative republic form of government with an electoral college, rather than a direct democracy -though I can't speak to the voracity of this line of thought.The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
Read more: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say | Why the Best Candidate Never Wins | Psychology
People in democracies tend to be much more dissatisfied with the government then those in monarchies.
The average Saudi citizen is unlikely tobe critical of the monarchy, at least in important matters.
I'd like to say no, but....
Yeah. Looking at things historically, Democracies tend to fare rather poorly. Either people vote for something stupid that brings about their downfall, some particular voting block gains too much power, and basically uses it to turn the whole system into a self-serving tool aimed at forwarding their own interests and oppressing all others, or corruption and the accumulation of power in certain hands basically turns the whole thing into a de facto oligarchy.
I really don't see our own society bucking this trend. If anything, we're proving the rule.
The only major upside to Democracy is that feeling like they have a say tends to keeps people happy, and therefore minimizes conflict and frees up resources - that more authoritarian governments typically have to devote to keeping people in line - towards other, more productive, uses. However, if civil society breaks down due out of control factionalism, demographic rivalry, or irreconcilable ideological differences, that benefit kind of goes right out the window.
More indirect Republican systems of government were meant to keep such problems in check, by redirecting public sentiment towards productive ends, and limiting the amount of damage populist direct democracy can do. Unfortunately though, democratic pressure tends to slowly but surely erode such counter-measures over time, making the issues mentioned above more or less inevitable in the long run.
no... and i find the notion that" everyone else is stupid" to be extraordinarily hateful and ignorant
To be noted, no one ever makes the statement that they themselves are too stupid for a democracy to work, it's always on everyone else.
To be noted, no one ever makes the statement that they themselves are too stupid for a democracy to work, it's always on everyone else.
I would say too immoral for representative government to work. Things were fine until about the time prayer was forced out of public schools.
I would say too immoral for representative government to work. Things were fine until about the time prayer was forced out of public schools.
Are people too stupid for democracy to work?
Maybe people aren't too dumb or too immoral, maybe they're just too many.
You just hit the nail right on the head.
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
Read more: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say | Why the Best Candidate Never Wins | Psychology
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?