- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,920
- Reaction score
- 22,245
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
You should check out the election rates of the more heinous rulers in the history of the world in "free" elections.
Hitler's was somewhere around 97%, I believe.
I think I'd qualify that as democratic.
I notice that some people on the board do not support democracy, so I was curious to see what the overall opinion is.
You'll excuse me if I scoff at the notion that a national database categorizing every eligible voter on the basis of topical literacy could be created or managed in an efficient or objective manner.Seeking only those who understand the topic well, filtering can be done efficiently in stages.
For example, I know you don't understand mathematics well if you can't even get past arithmetic or elementary algebra. Other topics can be handled similarly.
Correct. The Right doesn't like the fact to be known that an enormous minority is capable of subverting a democracy because it would be a reflection on them.......................
Tough question as democracy can often times boil down to "mob rule" can't it?
Isn't there some kind of quote about democracy being not unlike two lions and one lamb deciding what's for lunch that day?
(grin!) I forget which, but either Kim Il Sung or Enver Hoxha was once elected with over 100% of the eligible vote.
They were both incumbents, though- I don't think Hitler was able to pull that off, given that he didn't need to be re-elected.
Representative democracy - NO
Direct democracy - YES
Precisely my point. If there was a strong monarch in Germany, Hitler would never have risen to power. Republicanism is the problem.
Ah, but Monarchies/dictatorships have their own problems. Well strong and the most efficient, they rely upon the knowledge and benevolence of one or a few. Is there any actual proof that those two necessities for a monarch/dictator have been common traits of the breed throughout history?
Perhaps the 5 "wise" Emperors of Rome might serve as a positive example, they are just 5 out of how many throughout time? What is the historical ratio of "good" monarchs/dictators to bad? It's kind of like going to Vegas, yes, you can win sometimes, but the odds are stacked against you.
I live under a monarchy, it's working pretty well.
An absolute Monarchy or a limited Monarchy?
Limited constitutional monarchy, I'm Australian. Works better than a republic because the head of state is removed from the political process and is able to make objective decisions when required, but when not required is invisible to the political process.
How would such have prevented Hitler from rising? For that matter, other than popular influence of the voters, assuming media cooperation, what real power does the Queen have?
Well, imagine at the end of WW1, instead of getting the Weimar Republic, Germany had instead become a constitutional monarch, with a legislature to temper Kaiser Wilhelms idiocy. Things would probably have turned out better.
From that point of view, I guess it might have some validity.
When I saw your first post, I thought you were not really a centrist but a crown loyalist who wanted to restore actual political power to the crown.
There are plenty of local issues (at least here there are) that are decided by popular vote. Even being local, most people can't understand all the consequences. At the national level it would be almost impossible for people to be able to see the other person's point of view to try and come to a consensus. The only way that can really work is for our representatives (elected by popular vote!) to negotiate with other representatives to come to an agreement.I see from this thread that most people really don't want to be involved in the decision making that affects their lives.
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?