It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is democracy a failed system?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Godabove09

Nice post.




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Godabove09
a reply to: BrianFlanders
It's that part about 10 million being effectively ignored because the 50 million want something else that is my main concern.

If you can have a situation that sees millions of people consistently denied their own way and power given to those they feel are against everything they stand for, believe in, approve of, is it possible that democracy is destined to fail as the system of choice for the "West" and non Islamic or Communist countries?

As an example the Socialist on the far left, Bernie Sanders, has a vision for America, a personal belief system, that is seen as extremist, divisive and anti-capitalist, even anti American.
On the other side you have a Trump or Cruz who are seen by the liberal media and Democratic base as, you guessed it, extremist, divisive, and even anti American.

How long would conservative voters be willing to watch what they perceive as the destruction of everything good about America, by leftists and their allies, before they decide that it's failing them?
4 years?
8?
Two terms and then more of the same?
How long before they decide that they can never live like this and that there are such irrevocable differences that they need their own, dare I say it, country where they can govern according to their principles and traditions and not watch everything they love be dismantled?

If you get the reverse how long would liberals be willing to live in a world that they see as utterly incompatible with their morals and philosophy?

It happens all the time in other parts of the world.
New countries are born from differences in religion or politics or race/tribal/ethnic loyalties all the time.

I don't even think it's about bad people corrupting a sound idea.
If the majority always squash the voice and traditions of the minority it can never truly be sovereign.
Is it the best we have?
Best of a bad bunch?
Something refined and tinkered with, and fought for by generations, that is the most civilised way to govern large numbers of people?
Maybe...maybe not.
How far does it go?
You can't guarantee the people in the same street would agree unanimously, hell, even the same house????

Democracy may not be a "failed" system, but it certainly is "failing".




I hate to break it to you but the socialists are not in the minority. Not by a longshot. Not when you account for the number of blatant socialists in the established power structure. The media, the universities, the public education system, science, art and literature in general. And more than that, socialists have a long history of being just as devious, diabolical and brutal as they can get away with at any given time. If they have their way, they will create a global tyranny.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:37 AM
link   
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

Samuel Adams

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

Charles Caroll

[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.

Oliver Ellsworth

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Ben Franklin

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

James Madison

It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.

Richard Henry Lee

[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.

William Penn

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.

George Washington

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.

Robert Winthrop
edit on 7-2-2016 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

I don't think I ever said Socialists were the minority.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Some illustrious names quoted there.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Godabove09
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Some illustrious names quoted there.
and there are many more besides; but i didn't feel the need to belabor the point more than i already had.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Godabove09

Is democracy a failed system ?

Do I get a vote ?

As long as the strong have the same voice as the weak
And the power bill is paid in information currency



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Gabriel69

Do you get a vote on whether democracy is a failed system?

The irony is you probably would.
Using democracy to do away with democracy...a bit like the Nazi's did.

People use tyranny to install democracy, but they also use democracy to install tyranny...it's just the way we are.

No doubt whatever replaced democracy would become diluted, dysfunctional and unfit for purpose.

Unfortunately the docile acceptance of the masses leave the powers that be arrogant and dismissive.
Then, when things erupt and all that repressed anger and frustration comes at the establishment they use police, military and psychological warfare to quell unrest.

They make promises, apologise, usually make one or two bold and visible policy choices...and then everyone slips back into social conditioning and the docile sheep are herded back into their pen and it's business as usual.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Godabove09

What would fix that
Or how should a proper system look like
What would you do how would you change it

thank you for your above reply I like it a lot
If you feel like writing I would like to know what you think



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Yeah democracy fails.

Mob might makes 'right'.

Everyone loves it when they are in the majority.

Not so much when they are in a minority.

That's why this country was founded as a constitutional republic. Good luck trying to convince the mob of it though.

Every election we see 'news' outlets with their banner of 'democracy'.

As so very wrong.
edit on 9-2-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I know people who hate democracy. They claim that the "majority" shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

These people, of course, are anarchists who seem to think society would just plod along and be fine -- people would just "agree" to engage with one another, and huge projects like interstates and power grids would somehow be accomplished by a bunch of rugged individuals with resources all magically agreeing to work together.

They also seem to ignore the rest of the world, and what America would turn into if that were to take place. I don't see the rest of the industrial democracies of the world following suit, and we'd probably be over taken and left in the dust ... if not invaded due to our disorganized mess of a country we'd devolve into.

It's an even more "pie in the sky" utopia than Star Trek world.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You are probably right.
But I still say that the system, as it stands, is broken and untrustworthy.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
So far humanity seems like a failed species, at least in achieving our potential. Every government & economic system developed so far fails in most respects, despite its short term gains and functionality. I would consider myself a budding futurist, and quite frequently ask myself how will we look at our times in the year 2100, or 2200. 84 years is not all that long, so avoiding doom, 2100 is a very likely scenario. Seem we have been climaxing as a species and society since my birth. Is there a point of no return, a singularity for humanity that changes everything?
edit on 9-2-2016 by MrThortan because: asdasd



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Godabove09

Democracy has not failed, but there are issues with the democratic process. People often say (especially here) that the government is incompetent but that's not really the case. The incompetent ones are the average voters that drive politicians (or worse in a nation like Greece, the actual policy itself). The older I get the more I believe the founding fathers had it right. You cannot trust the average voter, they possess at best an average level body of knowledge on any given subject. How can a random person properly evaluate for example the foreign policy plans of a candidate when they don't understand the nuances of foreign policy themselves?

Nations that work on pure democracy fail for this reason. We're seeing the same problem with representative democracy now, and atleast in the US it's getting worse as our voter turnouts increase. Here in the US we're supposed to be somewhat insulated from this system because the job of the voter is to elect smart people who can then be directly educated on a topic by experts in order to vote, but that's not what we're getting anymore.

The partisan divide you see in the US isn't a result of democracy failing either but rather it's basic psychology. If you give people two choices, and get them invested in their choice those groups are naturally going to evolve into polar opposites of each other moving more and more extreme, and eventually they will outright hate each other. Once you move past 2 groups though things start rapidly diluting. This isn't possible in American politics though because of our first past the post system to elect the President. It is technically possible in other areas of representation, but all of them combined don't get the visibility the President does and appearances shape peoples opinions.

The process to fix this is largely painful too. We cannot go from 2 parties to 3. However, if one party collapses (and the Republicans are very near collapse) we will effectively have 1 party. From there new parties can form as divisions occur during the primary elections (it will also officially end the voting debates currently owned by Republicans and Democrats, paving the way for a clean start on that front) but it will ultimately result in the same issues unless first past the post is removed, which would open the field up to many candidates.

Basically, the Electoral College is good, but the office needs to whoever gets the most votes, not whoever gets the majority. Additionally, delegates from states should be awarded proportionally, states should not be winner take all.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Yeah democracy fails.

Mob might makes 'right'.

Everyone loves it when they are in the majority.

Not so much when they are in a minority.

That's why this country was founded as a constitutional republic. Good luck trying to convince the mob of it though.

Every election we see 'news' outlets with their banner of 'democracy'.

As so very wrong.


A majority ruling all is not the proper way to run a government. That is one of the most important features in the US system. We still have ways to give the minority power.

Personally, I would give minorities even more power, and fix the issue of legislation at the same time. Pass a law that says any new law cannot be longer than 5 pages. For every page over it is, it needs an additional 1% vote to pass (up to the point of a 55 page bill requiring unanimous support from Congress).

That would give the minorities a lot more power than they currently have, and/or it would make bills actually readable again, which would cover most of the issues in the first place.

Could work it in reverse too, if the legislation is less than 5 pages you get -1% to the vote. So a 1 page document would only need 45% to agree.
edit on 10-2-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
It's only failed if people stop voting or monied interests take over the process with unrepresentative access to the sysrem and representatives represent those interests rather than those who have voted for them. Don't give up on democracy, when there's no better option available at the moment. It's the only way to beat the wallets power is people power. It's all you've got, unless your rich enough to influence the system with your wallet, which most individuals don't have



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join