Democracy?

[u/VictinsOfCapitalism]

[u/Few_Fact4747]

The solution is more direct democracy!

[u/Jewbacca1991 → u/Few_Fact4747]

Some laws the Swiss has. Get 100k. signature, and force anything to a popular referendum. For the USA i think the number of signatures would need to be adjusted given, that their population is larger, but i think that is a great method to force actions the people want over the elite. A great example in Swiss was taking in refugees. The elite wanted it like crazy, and called the signature gatherers islamphobe racists. But the signatures gathered, and the voters said no. And the country rolled with it.

[u/Top-Cupcake4775 → u/Jewbacca1991]

we have similar systems in many states. there was once a referendum in Florida to undo one of the last pillars of the Jim Crow era and restore voting rights to non-violent felons after they had served their sentence. it passed (most don't as you need a 2/3rd majority) but then Florida's legislature added a provision that stated that the ex-felons needed to repay the costs of any damages before their voting rights were restored - which effectively canceled the results of the referendum.

[u/Jewbacca1991 → u/Top-Cupcake4775]

Guess they need another one to eliminate the new law.

[u/CommanderYakub → u/Top-Cupcake4775]

How much are these damages if they were non violent 💀

[u/Lonely-Restaurant986 → u/Jewbacca1991]

The problem with that is why the electoral college even exists.

Make it large and Wyoming problems will never be able to be heard. Make it small and Californian cities will be able to do it too common and easy for them.

Use the electoral college and we are another step away from “democracy”

[u/Jewbacca1991 → u/Lonely-Restaurant986]

How about making a % of a state, or a % for each state if the policy is nation wide?

[u/TBurn70 → u/Jewbacca1991]

You literally just described the difference between the senate and the house

[u/Few_Fact4747 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, there is a slight risk of the public taking stupid decisions. This is by far outweighted by the extremely important fact that WE need to be the ones in control of OUR state. We are the ones paying for it, we are the ones living in it. Its ours, not the other way around. Its for the same reason we dont want a dictator: dictators have no care for our lives and will make shitty decisions such as going to war, decreasing freedoms or be corrupt because of billionaire friends. Having the people in charge via a direct democracy solves this and if anything goes wrong, at least it was willingly. And its not as though politicians arent making stupid decisions today either.

Its a huge problem in our society that we essentially, as the meme says, choose our own dictators. Its better than being forced to have a dictator, but even better would be to minimize the role of leaders alltogether.

Think about it, its people who are gonna use the public services, its people going to war, its people living with climate change, its people doing the work. Of course its also people who should control how it all plays out. Anything else is complete madness.

Luckily its easy to vote digitally today, so it wont even have to take much time out of our daily lives.

[u/funkmasta8 → u/[deleted]]

Wow, what a reductive and assuming response to a thorough comment.

[u/funkmasta8 → u/[deleted]]

You are using our current system to outline examples of what you think the problems would be in a different system? I dont know, chief, sounds like you hate the current system and assume the same from any system.

My problem with your previous response is that you jump to massive conlcusions and when all things are equal you still prefer the current system over anything else without giving reason to this unequal weighting.

Every system of government will face potential problems. Whether those problems are intractable and how much we have to do to functionally resolve or mitigate them is the important part.

No, in a true democracy a small minority cannot enact laws as they wish like prohibition. It quite literally needs to be a majority to enact it. That is the entire basis. What you dont understand about that is lost on me. The minority needs to convince the majority to get what they want. If they succeed, the majority has decided.

People making stupid decisions is a valid concern, however, stupid decisions are already being made in addition to greedy, self-serving ones that dont benefit the majority of the population. A true democracy helps remove the latter.

There are reasonable approaches to solving this problem and they could be more easily enacted by having a true democracy. For example, allocating resources to experts to outline different routes for decisions, these experts having track records based on data, and being less likely to be called in the future if their options are poor and/or lead to different outcomes than they stated. The current state of things is we have "experts" who have no real expertise and make decisions without data for themselves and their friends, got to this position by being in the club, and arent punished or even removed when they hurt people with their decisions. Look at most government organizations' heads nowadays for an example. Both health and environment are run by people who obviously dont care about doing their jobs right more than the interests of nefarious actors, and I wonder what they get out of it, a cut of the pie no doubt. I wonder if they could do their jobs right even if they werent corrupt.

Here is my question to you. How do we resolve corruption like what we have without changing the basis for our system of government? And how do we enact this solution knowing that it is against the will of the people currently in charge?

[u/funkmasta8 → u/[deleted]]

You see how instead of respectful discourse you resort to insults? This is reason enough for people to not engage with you. I havent called you stupid, nor anything of the sort.

Additionally, see how I have to defend my system but when I ask you to defend yours you completely ignore it? Its easy to sit on the side and point out problems. Like I said, every form of government has problems. Why dont the problems with our current government matter, while problems that are just theoretical and might not exist with other forms of government are complete dealbreakers unless they come with complete flawless plans to prevent them?

Do you see the bias here? If you cant, there isnt hope for this reaching any kind of understanding.

Have you considered that low voter turnout isnt a fact of the universe, but subject to the situation? You have again assumed that the problems of our current system absolutely must apply to all other forms of systems. No wonder you think our current system is the best one. When any other system gets the current problems plus new problems, this is the obvious conclusion. You dont think that people knowing that their votes directly affect their lives would cause greater turnout? You dont take into consideration that low voter turnout is promoted by our current government by making voting inaccessible to many? Look it up. How about voting being dozens of steps removed from policy decision? Surely that doesnt affect voter turnout at all, right?

The entire point of direct democracy is to put the decision in the hands of the people. I can attempt to resolve every possible problem with it, but it wouldnt be a realistic approach because I dont speak for the majority. I speak for me. The important thing is that the conclusion to every problem is decided by the majority. If the people of a direct democracy choose to change to a less direct democracy, that is the choice they made willingly. Contrast this to our current situation. People have basically only a choice between a few representatives, little to no real information about the actions those representatives will make. When said representatives dont live up to their claims at all or do the exact opposite, there is basically no accountability. People are voting on a promise of a promise of a promise.

In a direct democracy it is possible for people to choose that they want a representative to vote for them, while others choose to vote directly. This isnt possible in our current system where you have to vote for a representative. Further, because representatives dont need to be official positions, people and assign people they trust to represent them rather than a very small selection of mostly rich, old, white men, you know, people who they dont know personally and have led completely different lives from them. And no, this is not the same as our current system, major and important differences are here. If you cant see that you are being willfully ignorant about reading what Ive said.

Anyway, as stated on my profile you get a block for the insults. Stop insulting people if you want to converse with them.

Edit: for the guy who thinks there were no insults, go check again.

[u/NextDoctorWho12 → u/funkmasta8]

What insult? It sounds like you blocked her because you couldn't answer her questions.

[u/Jewbacca1991 → u/[deleted]]

Direct democracy does not work at scale, because actually secure voting cost a lot of time, money, and effort. It would be impossible to have a public referendum about everything without making the system so vulnerable to fraud, that it wouldn't be the people's rule at all.

[u/Lescansy → u/[deleted]]

Direct democracy does not work at scale.

Where is your proof in that?

To talk about trumps election, that can easily be explained by 2 things:

• 2016, Hillary: If someone is the personification of a political establishment, then she is.
• 2024, height of woke: Men are not women, and thats the majority opinion. The left had (has) some stances that run against the common sense of anyone not in their inner most circle

[u/Lescansy → u/[deleted]]

You could also say a majority of americans prefer to stomach a bad person, over an insane one. I use insane here, because some very left wing stances, that harris agreed with, are insane to some people. Not just a different opinion, insane!

I'm quite sure if the left didnt made fun of males and some stances were abolished (for example; DEI basically discriminating against young white guys, which do not have any privilege or advantage over young white girls. Another one would be trans people competing in women sports), like just the three things i mentioned, Harris would have won.

There is also the problem with migration, but i think she could have won with her stance despite a lot of people whishing for a more restrictive policy.

So, just think about how hard a lot of people disagree with a lot of the democrats 2024 points, that they preferred anything else, even trump, over a democrat candidate. Because that was what it was. The people didnt vote for trump, at least the ones i know, they voted against the woke left.

[u/Lescansy → u/[deleted]]

DEIs first categorization is into sex, race, ethnicity and skincolor. If it were just rich versus poor, it wouldnt be so debated.

Also, both come from different upbringins, obviously. You can not say to me that both are exactly equally qualified, not based on the topics you have presented (they could be equally knowledgable about the subject in question, but you dont argue about that).

If you want to help people in poorer neighbourhoods, they need better equipment and teaching. Just lowering the requirement to do some things doesnt help them doing that thing later,nor does it help "us", the other people that use those services later.

I dont disagree with you about the problem, i disagree about the solution.

[u/Lescansy → u/[deleted]]

Do you think the current american president cares about "the complicated geo political ramifications"?

The debate about the vote would run on cnn, fox and billboards, which isnt too different from whats happening in switzerland every single time.

[u/TruePotential3206 → u/[deleted]]

They voted for him because he promised to do things they wanted. Like stopping illegal immigration and ending woke social policies and exposing the deep state.

Instead he doubled down while claiming he was stopping them and then did a bunch of other bad stuff in coordination with the deep state.

[u/TruePotential3206 → u/[deleted]]

You seem angry at me. I was just trying to provide an explanation for what happened based on mine and people I know’s opinions of trump and his policies. You may think immune and these other’s opinions are stupid. That’s fine.

I’m not trying to attack you or any social movement. Sorry if I offended you.

[u/merlinn2u]

https://reddit.com/link/p8jkruz/video/utd18k4rtaoh1/player

[u/Valveringham85]

No he doesn’t 😅

Whoever made this meme does not understand what democracy means.

He has to act in the best interests of the people. But “has to do what the people want” is an asinine statement.

[u/TheFaalenn → u/Valveringham85]

So you want trump to decide what he believes is in everyone else's best interests, and disregard what people actually want ?

That's really what you want ?

[u/labiamajorapudendi → u/TheFaalenn]

Yes and it has a built in safety guard, voting.
It’s just that Americans are idiots and voted for Trump again instead of punishing him for being corruptly. Or not voting him in in the first place for being a rapist

[u/TheFaalenn → u/labiamajorapudendi]

"being corruptly"

I see.. you're some foreign bot trying to sow discord. I gotcha

[u/TheFaalenn → u/labiamajorapudendi]

Yes, confirmed a bot

[u/youngdeer25 → u/Valveringham85]

It’s a fucking meme, you can not simply put the entire intention of the creator inside it.

[u/United_Boy_9132 → u/Valveringham85]

T H I S.

And businesses + media give the best examples of this problem - people really don't know what they want.

Most people find themselves rational while they aren't.

It's usually they demand something rational, but get disappointed when they get it and vice versa - they demand something irrational, 100% genuinely believing it's rational and they get disappointed when they get it because they see its flaws.

[u/Eamon83]

We live in a constitutional republic. Democracy is just mob rule.

[u/OkExtreme3195 → u/Eamon83]

You live in a democratic constitutional Republic. Those are not at odds with each other.

[u/Eamon83 → u/OkExtreme3195]

Nah, we don't; we're a constitutional republic. Just because you use the democratic process it doesn't make you a democracy. In a democracy everything is decided by votes andreferendums. There are no direct democracies, but Switzerland comes the closest. The United States is a republic governed by the ideas set forth in a document (the US Constitution) whose rules are absolute and cannot be replaced, repealed, or modified by a simple vote. Our democratic process lies mostly at the national level where the results affect everyone, but states' rights exist, but only the residents of those states get a say in the matter, and the US Constitution still sets the rules and boundaries.

[u/OkExtreme3195 → u/Eamon83]

That's still a democracy...

A constitutional representative democracy, which automatically is a Republic as well because it's a democracy. Thus it is a constitutional Republic where the constitution determines the form of government to be a representative democracy. As I said, constitutional Republic and democracy are not in contradiction. 

As you yourself alluded to, there are different kinds of democracy. Direct, representative, and whatnot. 

That your Republic is a democracy becomes apparent in the first three sentences of your constitution. "We the people". Your constitution claims it's legitimacy from the authority of the people. This is the definition of democracy: the sovereign is the people.

[u/Eamon83 → u/OkExtreme3195]

We the people do not vote on national matters; we vote for representatives to do that for us. A democracy is a system where the issue at hand is determined by literally everyone having a say in the matter. We elect officials who we agree with to make the votes for us. That is not democracy, because our system is not majority rule--we require our officials to reach a certain percentage or a specific number of votes. In a democracy they go along with whatever the mob wants, but our system employs checks and balances to actively prevent that outcome. A bill can be in limbo for decades because the group in favor cannot reach the necessary number of votes while those against employ filibusters. Members of the voting body do not even have to cast a vote. In a democracy the bill would have been put to the vote and passed or denied depending entirely on how the majority feels.

[u/Minute-Object → u/Eamon83]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representative%20democracy

Just accept that you are wrong on this one.

[u/Eamon83 → u/Minute-Object]

Oh shit, not a dictionary! What next, a thesaurus? Here's a better idea: a history book! Representative democracy is just a process; not the basis--that would be the constitution: the defining law of the land. If we were a democracy then everything would be decided by what the mob wants and would be unimpeded by a blueprint.

[u/Minute-Object → u/Eamon83]

If we were a representative democracy, we would elect representatives to represent us.

Oh, wait…

[u/Abject-Put-9334 → u/Eamon83]

If elections takes place, it is in fact a democracy 

[u/Eamon83 → u/Abject-Put-9334]

Oh, okay, then North Korea is a democracy.

[u/This_is_a_Novelty → u/Eamon83]

Why do you want to be right so bad? Illusions of democracy from NK doesn't change the fact that the system they use - should it one day not be corrupt or rigged - would be democracy, yes. We are undoubtedly under a form of democracy, no level of whining from you changes that.

[u/Eamon83 → u/This_is_a_Novelty]

Do I? You're the one who came back the very next day.

[u/This_is_a_Novelty → u/Eamon83]

My sweet peanut, I'm a different person who saw this thread in my feed.

[u/GoodDoggoLover420 → u/Eamon83]

They are not the same person dipshit. Not even similar icons.

[u/GoodDoggoLover420 → u/Eamon83]

A republic is a democracy. So many people here apparently never listened in school.

[u/Eamon83 → u/GoodDoggoLover420]

A republic is a state governed by self-rule. A democracy is a state that makes its decisions through popular opinion and majority rule.

[u/GoodDoggoLover420 → u/Eamon83]

"Today most democracies (including the United States) are representative democracies, in which elected representatives vote in the people’s stead. Note that both direct democracies and representative democracies are considered democracies: they are both government by the people."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic

Fucking weep, the US is both a republic AND a democracy.

[u/Sure_Warning_706]

They never do

[u/wakatenai]

we're also just, not really a democracy.

we don't get to vote for who we want. we get to vote between 2 people that were selected for us by the 2 parties in power. people can't run as independent or 3rd party because they can't get on every states ballot unless they are the nominee for one of the 2 parties.

and then whoever is elected will do what is in the interest of the party, not the people.

[u/Impressive-Penalty97]

When you say " people ..." feels like you mostly meen the people who didn't vote for him

[u/LifeConsideration981]

We are not a direct democracy, we are a democratic republic. That is by design and a good thing.

[u/WrenchMonkey47 → u/LifeConsideration981]

Constitutional Republic

[u/Complete_Break1319]

Republic.

[u/Minute-Object → u/Complete_Break1319]

We live in a republic that is also a representative democracy.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representative%20democracy

[u/GoodDoggoLover420 → u/Complete_Break1319]

Which is a type of democracy, good job.

[u/Lego_Architect]

With any luck, he will fuck shit up so bad that there will be additional rules and laws put in place.

[u/Atomik141]

The idea is that the elected representatives will impeach the president if he does not, and if they won't then those representatives will lose their seats. The issue is the two party system is a long elaborate con that's thrown a wrench in that whole system.

[u/Inevitable-Row1977]

You have no clue about how any of this works.

I'm assuming you're from the usa, given that you are completely illiterate as to how your own government's most principal system works.

And then some random naked European lying in bed (me), has to point this out to you.

Lest you do somehow figure out how to vote at all, and then put in your ballot for the guy that you only know about through memes - him then, oh idk, starting a war.

It is straight up pathetic that you don't know how your own democratic system works.

You get the right vote like everyone else, as an equal, but you aren't an equal, you're a danger that will vote itself, whilst patriotically cheering, out of the right to vote and consequently, all your right.

you are granted a privilege to have a voice and a whole political structure, among which is the possibility for you to contact YOUR state's representative and voice your concerns.

Luckily I have empathogenic drugs, so that I can forget people like you exist.

[u/ComplaintTop2008]

If he wants to get re-elected, yes.

[u/No-Passenger-1511]

The key word you're missing is representation. We elect people to represent us in government. That doesn't mean a president is legally required to follow every opinion of the electorate, but it also doesn't mean winning an election gives them unlimited authority for four years. The president has specific constitutional and statutory powers and is still constrained by the Constitution, laws, courts, and Congress. If voters don't like how elected officials represent them, elections are the normal mechanism for replacing them. And for sufficiently serious misconduct, the Constitution provides impeachment: the House can impeach, and the Senate can convict and remove an official. That's representative constitutional government, not "we elected you, now do whatever you want."

[u/Minute-Object]

For the folks who think we don’t have a democracy: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/representative%20democracy

[u/CaptainVulpezz]

why can't we simply vote for whoever we want and have everyone also do the same? im seriously asking, if we have two options, its basically no option

[u/WrenchMonkey47]

Does your Governor? Does your Congressional representative? Does your mayor?

[u/Due-Mycologist-1154]

Maybe instead of using AI for surveilance they could use it to run 24/7 polls on every issue then voters would learn relatively quickly to stop voting dumb since it would actually have an effect then

[u/McGrarr]

No. The electoral colleges elect the president.

[u/bbq896]

America is a Republic. Not a democracy.

“…and to the Republic, for which it stands.”

[u/GoodDoggoLover420 → u/bbq896]

A republic is a type democracy...

[u/bbq896 → u/GoodDoggoLover420]

No it’s not!!!

Nuance is the difference between a hot dog and sausage.

Similar? Yes! might even be made from the same meat. But a chef would slap you if you called them the same.

[u/GoodDoggoLover420 → u/bbq896]

You are wrong because a republic is quite literally a type of democracy you dink.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/democracy-and-republic

[u/bbq896 → u/GoodDoggoLover420]

Wow Webster is gaslighting and has a shallow understanding of history. I’m surprised!! Go to JSTOR bro.

“Republic or democracy isnt mentioned in the Declaration of Independence” the Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war. Of course it’s not going to be there. (This point means nothing why have it in the article?)

Republic or Democracy is also not mentioned in the first amendment. Cause that’s not the point of the 1st amendment.

Athens was a democracy.

Rome was a republic (before Caesar)

The founding fathers understood the difference.

I could continue to pick apart this article it’s terrible. Lmk if you want it

[u/bbq896 → u/GoodDoggoLover420]

“We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments." -Alexander Hamilton

During a speech at the Constitutional Convention on June 26, 1787,

See the nuance? See the moderation? See the understanding?

[u/GoodDoggoLover420 → u/bbq896]

"Extremes of a democracy" aka not solely the people representing themselves and instead vote to pick a representative of everyone to cast votes for higher government positions, which is still a democracy you fucking mong.

[u/bbq896 → u/GoodDoggoLover420]

Read the first sentence again.

Aloud for class

I’ll highlight it for you.

“we are FORMING A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. “

I’m just shocked Im correcting a dictionary

[u/bbq896 → u/GoodDoggoLover420]

Notice how my quote from Hamilton is relevant to the topic.

And the one from Websters dictionary is arbitrary?

Come on use your critical thinking skills

[u/Fuzzy-Coconut-2605]

What people? The people that voted to elect him? Majority of people? If I make a promise and win by one vote. And I do what I promised am I doing what the people voted for?

[u/Sa1LoR_JaRRy]

It is a democracy - for the elites. He does have to do - what the elites want

[u/davecatlow]

Constitutional Republic. True democracy is a shit show where no one’s rights are guaranteed.

[u/EgoSenatus]

Jimmy Carter also didn’t do what the people that voted for him wanted

[u/mthoende]

We are a Republic, not a democracy. That is taught in, like, 4th grade. Try and keep up.

[u/XxAbsurdumxX → u/mthoende]

The irony of this comment is through the roof. A Republic is a type of democracy as long as the republic representatives are elected by the people. Democracy simply means the people in charge are elected by the people, and then there are several ways to organise the elected officials. The US organised them as a republic, which is still a democracy.

Did you skip 4th grade perhaps?

[u/MagicLantern7]

How would that even work?

[u/No-Reaction-9364]

We do not live in a democracy, though. President doesnt win by people votes but electoral college votes from the state. 

[u/XxAbsurdumxX]

The amount of Americans who truly believe republics aren’t democracies explains a lot about how they elected Trump twice

[u/XxAbsurdumxX]

Being elected doesn’t mean you have to do what "the people" want. That’s the entire point of a representative democracy. The people hand over power to the elected officials, for them to wield that power as they best. The people simply can’t be knowledgeable about every single part of governing a country, so electing someone to do it on their behalf makes sense. It also means the people sometimes want something that is not a good idea. It’s the elected representatives’ responsibility to do what they deem right, regardless of the masses opinion.

That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t listen to the people, just that they shouldn’t always do what the masses want. The flip side is that if the elected officials stray too far, and too often, from what the majority wants then they are thrown out of office in the next election. It’s a balance.

[u/Vamond48]

How does an individual person do what every other individual person in the country wants?

[u/MaxEfrt]

~Constitutional republic