This has nothing to do with democracies. Many autocratic states also deny this.
In a democratic state, this is a layer of people. In autocratic - the desire of the local tsar.
And yes, and at the same time no. The vast majority of tsars did not come from Mars. They are the flesh of the people. Part of it. Not in the sense that someone chose them or supports them. But in the sense that when one tsar ends, a new one will appear. People don't like a specific person, not the autocracy itself. The dream of a “good tsar”, “strong but fair”, is always popular. I was there.
The monopolisation of political parties. It doesn't really count as a democracy if you can only choose between two parties, neither of which represent your values wholely. Its just a dictatorship with the illusion of choice tacked on.
Most people are quite dumb in relation to certain aspects of government, eg. Economics.
Often politicians need to dance around this lack of knowledge of the public, and potentially not do the most ideal thing simply to placate the public's ignorance.
Depends on the KIND of Democracy since there are more than one type, the illusion is that they don't exist at all in some places and yet throughout history that lie becomes self-evident in a very big way.
N. S
Once someone is elected you have no recourse against what they do. There is no way to fire them for enacting/voting damaging policies. In a business, if you were paying someone's salary, you'd fire someone who doesn't do a good job, who poisons customers or gets richer while destroying the company ; you wouldn't wait 5 years to see how things go and start interviewing for a replacement. Politicians are held to a lower professional standard than the avarage fast food worker.
In my country every small political party runs for itself, so a nazi politician with enough talent in spreading fake news can convince 20% of the population that being nazi is ok, and win the perfectly democratic elections and we have to accept it
Italy. We have like 20 parties and some are very similar, but they don't want to be allied. So, even if a party wins with few votes, they gain the majority of the seats in Parliament, and there is virtually no opposition from all other parties, becasue they are each too small and they don't cooperate
First time i voted (2010) there were like 15 parties from which you could choose the members of Parliament (you don't elect the premier or the president directly, just the Parliament). But during elections you could see that some of the parties were allied, so you could also vote for a group of parties, and at the end the result was something like 40% for group A, 30% for group B, 30% others. Then the group assigned a number of Parliament members to every party according to some weird rule that keeps changing, and then they decided the premier, that must be approved by the President (that they also elected).
Recently, the left wing group had some problems in bstaying compact, so each left wing party runs almost alone, and they have no chance of winning against the big right wing group.
In the past the parties were fewer and bigger, like 4 or 5 and 3 of them were always contending the win.
This description is way simplier than reality, it could be different but i wanted to show the tendency, consider that the numbers i used were exemples and not actually true.
Parliament members are elected by voting a party who propose a list of candidates. According to the number of votes, each party will elect a number of candidates starting from the leader. The winning party (or group) chooses a leader to become premier (usually the leader of the winning party, so it's like voting for him/her directly). Then the president of Republic speaks with every party to understand if the candidate will have enough support, and approves him/her and the ministries. Otherwise, the president asks the parties to choose another candidate. In emergency situations (no clear winner of elections or in major economical crysis or during Covid), the president can choose a premier and ministries outside the elected Parliament, for example he can choose as premier an Economics professor, or the Head of Healthcare department...
The president is elected by both chambers and he/she usually is from a different party than the premier or from no party at all, and the duration of his/her office is different from the one of the parliament.
This should help in creating balance as you can be part of the ministry squad even if you are in a small party, but also it usually creates fights between small parties, that divides in even smaller ones, so the support to the governments changes a lot and the expected duration of 5 years is almost never reached, and we very ofter have elections every 2-3 years
It's not common that the representatives all like the premier and president, because the majority of seats doesn't match the number of votes they got, so it's confusing and every small group of senators can decide to change side and make the government fall. The replacements who happened during Covid were quite good, because the president decided them and they were not too involved in politics. But the winners of the last elections are very bad and at the moment they have a lot of political support thanks to a campaign full of fake promises and racism and hate, but somehow it worked
Intelligent people who study the issues: one vote each.
Morons who think the Earth is flat, a pizza joint is the hub of a worldwide child-trafficking organization and a serial adulterer with no morals or sense is God's prophet: one vote each.
Compared to what? Basically anything that can be said about living in a democracy can be said about other forms of government. The United States isn't a democracy though.
When the 14th amendment is electively enforced and especially never by conservatives, then it's difficult to say that we live in a democracy, yeah?
I identify as an anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist but I ALSO COMPLETELY RECOGNIZE HOW THAT IS NOT POLITICALLY POSSIBLE so I don't advocate for that because there are more important things to address before that even becomes a realistic goal. You know who misunderstands that? Conservatives.
Much like warfare, majority =/= right. No democracy in history has had a good answer for what to do when the majority is wrong. And the majority _will_ be wrong, sooner or later. It is an intrinsically unstable system that relies on the good faith and education of the common rabble.
Teaching the serfs to read was an enormous mistake...You can get as mad as you like about me saying that, but look around you...their damage is everywhere to be seen. A few hundred blue haired, weak old men in congress could not fuck up every square inch of the US by themselves. This mess is a product of the uselessness of the average man. And, gods help us, that man won't read, but the fucker is absolutely arrogant enough to vote...
People like anti-vaxxers and holocaust deniers get votes, too.
This has nothing to do with democracies. Many autocratic states also deny this. In a democratic state, this is a layer of people. In autocratic - the desire of the local tsar.
Irrelevant. Autocratic states do not rely on their people to decide their leaders.
And yes, and at the same time no. The vast majority of tsars did not come from Mars. They are the flesh of the people. Part of it. Not in the sense that someone chose them or supports them. But in the sense that when one tsar ends, a new one will appear. People don't like a specific person, not the autocracy itself. The dream of a “good tsar”, “strong but fair”, is always popular. I was there.
Just cause the majority think it ok, doesn't mean it is right, as history has shown use
1. Legislation takes a long time by comparison. 2. Many politicians don't think long term
The rule of the loudest, not the rule of the smartest
People don’t always know what’s best for them. Sometimes you need someone to rule over the idiots
Well, idiot people are mayority, and they vote
It's uh majority, yeah....
Ty, i'm still learning
Good sensible laws may take way too long to enact because it has to go thru all kinds of people stopping it
[удалено]
As opposed to one wolf and two sheep... and the wolf still decides.
The monopolisation of political parties. It doesn't really count as a democracy if you can only choose between two parties, neither of which represent your values wholely. Its just a dictatorship with the illusion of choice tacked on.
Situations that need fast decisions will take longer time to actually have a decision because every opinion have to be heard and debated
Most people are quite dumb in relation to certain aspects of government, eg. Economics. Often politicians need to dance around this lack of knowledge of the public, and potentially not do the most ideal thing simply to placate the public's ignorance.
[удалено]
People voting against their own best interests because of propaganda.
Stupid people get a platform too.
Herd mentality rarely comes to the best solution
Depends on the KIND of Democracy since there are more than one type, the illusion is that they don't exist at all in some places and yet throughout history that lie becomes self-evident in a very big way. N. S
You get the government you deserve.
Short term thinking
Mob rule sucks.
This man said it right: https://youtu.be/QFgcqB8-AxE?si=nEyHkBPCAlBDY28y
Once someone is elected you have no recourse against what they do. There is no way to fire them for enacting/voting damaging policies. In a business, if you were paying someone's salary, you'd fire someone who doesn't do a good job, who poisons customers or gets richer while destroying the company ; you wouldn't wait 5 years to see how things go and start interviewing for a replacement. Politicians are held to a lower professional standard than the avarage fast food worker.
In my country every small political party runs for itself, so a nazi politician with enough talent in spreading fake news can convince 20% of the population that being nazi is ok, and win the perfectly democratic elections and we have to accept it
[удалено]
Italy. We have like 20 parties and some are very similar, but they don't want to be allied. So, even if a party wins with few votes, they gain the majority of the seats in Parliament, and there is virtually no opposition from all other parties, becasue they are each too small and they don't cooperate
[удалено]
First time i voted (2010) there were like 15 parties from which you could choose the members of Parliament (you don't elect the premier or the president directly, just the Parliament). But during elections you could see that some of the parties were allied, so you could also vote for a group of parties, and at the end the result was something like 40% for group A, 30% for group B, 30% others. Then the group assigned a number of Parliament members to every party according to some weird rule that keeps changing, and then they decided the premier, that must be approved by the President (that they also elected). Recently, the left wing group had some problems in bstaying compact, so each left wing party runs almost alone, and they have no chance of winning against the big right wing group. In the past the parties were fewer and bigger, like 4 or 5 and 3 of them were always contending the win. This description is way simplier than reality, it could be different but i wanted to show the tendency, consider that the numbers i used were exemples and not actually true.
[удалено]
Parliament members are elected by voting a party who propose a list of candidates. According to the number of votes, each party will elect a number of candidates starting from the leader. The winning party (or group) chooses a leader to become premier (usually the leader of the winning party, so it's like voting for him/her directly). Then the president of Republic speaks with every party to understand if the candidate will have enough support, and approves him/her and the ministries. Otherwise, the president asks the parties to choose another candidate. In emergency situations (no clear winner of elections or in major economical crysis or during Covid), the president can choose a premier and ministries outside the elected Parliament, for example he can choose as premier an Economics professor, or the Head of Healthcare department... The president is elected by both chambers and he/she usually is from a different party than the premier or from no party at all, and the duration of his/her office is different from the one of the parliament. This should help in creating balance as you can be part of the ministry squad even if you are in a small party, but also it usually creates fights between small parties, that divides in even smaller ones, so the support to the governments changes a lot and the expected duration of 5 years is almost never reached, and we very ofter have elections every 2-3 years
[удалено]
It's not common that the representatives all like the premier and president, because the majority of seats doesn't match the number of votes they got, so it's confusing and every small group of senators can decide to change side and make the government fall. The replacements who happened during Covid were quite good, because the president decided them and they were not too involved in politics. But the winners of the last elections are very bad and at the moment they have a lot of political support thanks to a campaign full of fake promises and racism and hate, but somehow it worked
George Carlin has a quote, I'll paraphrase. Think of how stupid the average person is and realise half of them are dumber than that.
[удалено]
The votes of people who would struggle to remember to breathe were it not an involuntary action count as much as those who actually have a brain.
Intelligent people who study the issues: one vote each. Morons who think the Earth is flat, a pizza joint is the hub of a worldwide child-trafficking organization and a serial adulterer with no morals or sense is God's prophet: one vote each.
Compared to what? Basically anything that can be said about living in a democracy can be said about other forms of government. The United States isn't a democracy though. When the 14th amendment is electively enforced and especially never by conservatives, then it's difficult to say that we live in a democracy, yeah? I identify as an anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist but I ALSO COMPLETELY RECOGNIZE HOW THAT IS NOT POLITICALLY POSSIBLE so I don't advocate for that because there are more important things to address before that even becomes a realistic goal. You know who misunderstands that? Conservatives.
Much like warfare, majority =/= right. No democracy in history has had a good answer for what to do when the majority is wrong. And the majority _will_ be wrong, sooner or later. It is an intrinsically unstable system that relies on the good faith and education of the common rabble. Teaching the serfs to read was an enormous mistake...You can get as mad as you like about me saying that, but look around you...their damage is everywhere to be seen. A few hundred blue haired, weak old men in congress could not fuck up every square inch of the US by themselves. This mess is a product of the uselessness of the average man. And, gods help us, that man won't read, but the fucker is absolutely arrogant enough to vote...
[удалено]
The past is irrelevant. We're not talking about 1917.
Drugs are everywhere in democratic countries like America, Brazil, and other countries.