View Topic

Democracy is an idealised system that seeks to represent the entirety of a population when doing so isn't feasibly possible. As such, you have representative democracy - electing officials to represent your views in government or in opposition to a government.

The problem is that democracy encourages populism. It encourages emotive language rather than factual elucidation of issues. People will always go for the pile of shit that smells like roses over the rose that smells like shit. This is an issue that most Western democracies aren't prepared to confront and aren't in any way ready to start the process of confronting - because to do so would "go against the wishes of the people."

News flash for the world, most people don't have the first idea about what's best for them. Direct rule by the majority is rule by the stupid. Brexit has proven this with the government going on and on about "respecting the democratic vote" when in reality only 37% of Britain voted for Brexit, and many who did now wish to change their mind.

But what's the alternative in real life?

I briefly touched on this topic a few weeks ago, but The Century Foundation has come out with a report detailing the lack of civics education in American schools, the resulting lack of knowledge in those areas, and how it correlates with a growing acceptance of authoritarianism which likely contributed to the election of Donald Trump despite...or because of...his disregard for democratic values.

The report is rather lengthy and goes into the root causes of the lack of civics/history education, the growing trend toward removing community input from the education system itself, and the results, but some tidbits I found interesting regarding their survey:

• 31% of Americans can't name all three branches of their government, and 32% couldn't name any of them
• Only 53% of Americans knew that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is a final ruling and becomes law
• 26% of Americans would vote to repeal the Fifth Amendment, which forbids requiring a person to testify against themselves
• 46% of Americans believed peaceful protests should be banned if it was in support of "offensive values"
• 50% of Americans believe the government should be able to ban practicing a religion if a majority of voters believe it to be un-American
• 25% of American millennials believe that it's unimportant for people to choose their own leaders in a democracy.
• One in six Americans believe it would be fairly or very good for the "army to rule", a rise from one in sixteen in 1995.
• 49% of Americans expressed that they would accept a leader breaking laws/rules if it "set things right"

Overall I thought the report was sobering and depressing. I agree with the conclusions of the report, but I don't see things changing in these areas and I don't see much of a chance for the reforms they're advocating being carried out. You can read the full report here.

Part of this really depends on how the question was asked and how the participants interpreted the question. For instance, they might have recognized that the US is not a democracy, but a republic, so that could explain the one about picking leaders in democracy. Also, judicial, executive, and legislative are technical terms, and most wouldn't remember them if their job has nothing to do with those.

I remember them and my job has nothing to do with those. Understanding the form and function of your government is a civic duty, especially if you're voting people into those positions of power...let's not condone or excuse ignorance here.

But what's the alternative in real life?

Direct democracy at a grass-roots level, complete overhaul of the system to allow for consensus based informed local and regional level decisions that feed into a semi-permanent/semi-elected (the balance has to be right) "single party" science mandate.

The people feel like they're involved in politics, and get to have their thoughts heard on issues that directly affect them. Regional issues come up less frequently but poll more people, allowing for general consensus on policies. If a local/regional/state/national government goes against the majority decision, they are required to explain - in totalum - why.

At a national level, the government is beholden to the wishes of the masses through 5/10 year election cycles, on a similar rotating election cycle that America has (some year X, the rest year Y). There are no parties, as every elected official at national level is involved in government to a degree, allowing it to operate continuously on consistent policy decisions. For the most part, government is made up of 'career' politicians, who make up the majority of the diplomatic corp and the people-government link. The rest are science experts, advising the cabinet/chamber/whatever with some power to block poor legislation but not veto totally.


You need a system that balances the desire for inclusion with political apathy, allowing a national government to represent the wishes of its people whilst retaining the freedom to act in the best interests of the country. This is by no means a perfect system, but it's what I spitballed in a minute answering this :p

That's one route...or we could do autocratic route. I hear that's all the rage nowadays.

That's one route...or we could do autocratic route. I hear that's all the rage nowadays.

That's kind of what the system aims to create - an autocratic state with a one party leadership that's made up of almost every politically involved individual in the country. As its support base is drawn from the entire country, it has a vested interest in working for the people as it can and will lose regional seats (which are X number of seats, say 5 per region) if it neglects one particular area for another.

Well it depends... do we want a government in which the people think they have a say, or do we want a government that helps the people the most? 

The notion that people vote in their own self interest has been proven wrong again and again.  "Tyranny by majority" worriers fail to consider that humans are too stupid to realise which policies/politicians would help them the most. 

In fact, having a political class to begin with is clearly a problem, because once there is a limit to who can engage in politics, we have a finite number of people who can be bribed, corrupted, or assassinated if they do not cooperate.  Politicians, like it or not, are weak.  Though they claim "strong moral convictions" and "character strength" they are just as flawed as any normal human.  The ideal system, of course, would be one single entity ruling the country whose own life wasn't affected by the decisions they make, to ensure that their decisions are in the best interest of the people, and not their own. 

Regrettably, the only entities capable of this efficiency and lack of "buy in" in policy decisions is a computer.  So eventually, I have little doubt that humans will be replaced by computers in terms of governance—but only in the event that the government decides that its purpose is to help the most people possible.  But that's a whole different debate. 

(Also, this was probably rant-y)

I have little doubt that humans will be replaced by computers in terms of governance—

The issue with this is that AI will not have the same moral compass as humans, and may think completely differently entirely. After all, if we just gave it the goal to make us as happy as possible, it'd just round us up and constantly inject us with dopamine. When we do decide to take this step, we must make sure that our AI overlords are Friendly.

I have little doubt that humans will be replaced by computers in terms of governance—

The issue with this is that AI will not have the same moral compass as humans, and may think completely differently entirely. After all, if we just gave it the goal to make us as happy as possible, it'd just round us up and constantly inject us with dopamine. When we do decide to take this step, we must make sure that our AI overlords are Friendly.

True, but that's assuming we have the capability to control the artificial superintelligences. We will be totally outclassed, and unable to do much of anything to stop our new "overlords."  Heck, we chant even be sure they'd even want to govern in the first place! (AI's just weird that way)

I have little doubt that humans will be replaced by computers in terms of governance—

The issue with this is that AI will not have the same moral compass as humans, and may think completely differently entirely. After all, if we just gave it the goal to make us as happy as possible, it'd just round us up and constantly inject us with dopamine. When we do decide to take this step, we must make sure that our AI overlords are Friendly.

True, but that's assuming we have the capability to control the artificial superintelligences. We will be totally outclassed, and unable to do much of anything to stop our new "overlords."  Heck, we chant even be sure they'd even want to govern in the first place! (AI's just weird that way)

That is exactly the problem, which is why these issues must be solved before we develop a superintelligence.

I remember them and my job has nothing to do with those. Understanding the form and function of your government is a civic duty, especially if you're voting people into those positions of power...let's not condone or excuse ignorance here.

Your point on how you know the branches but your job doesn't have to do with it isn't all that valid. You have a government here on this forum that, in the laws, states that there's essentially a judicial, executive, and legislative part.  This forum talks about government a lot, so of course you would know the branches.

This is a place for discussions, so I feel it's alright to make a rebuttal.

P.S. how many people were interviewed?

Oh great, a ruling computer for Russia to hack.

Your point on how you know the branches but your job doesn't have to do with it isn't all that valid. You have a government here on this forum that, in the laws, states that there's essentially a judicial, executive, and legislative part.  This forum talks about government a lot, so of course you would know the branches.

This is a place for discussions, so I feel it's alright to make a rebuttal.

P.S. how many people were interviewed?

But my interests that led to having a forum that discusses government and politics started by being a responsible Citizen...learning the roles of government, voting in elections once I became 18, and following important news and events...actual news, not the junk that gets shared around on Facebook. Those are the responsibilities that are supposed to come with the rights and freedoms of being part of a free society.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. - Thomas Jefferson

The portion that asked about the branches of government came from a survey of 1,416 adults conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The results were released on September 17th, 2014 to coincide with Constitution Day in America.

What about the amount of people for the other questions?

I believe all of the reports sources are included in the notes at the end of it...you could look up each source and find that information.