Do we still have faith in our political system ?

[Útrám]

IMO your proposition of subverting the present system and installing democracy will merely reincarnate what it overthrew. The faith in our needlessly large, inefficient and self serving governments thrives under the semiconsciousness of the uninformed herd because the public continue to accept good-looking promises at face value over what is practical, democracy only works if the public works; Sadly that's not the case, I think you need to start with the individual if it's democracy you want.

[SwordoftheVistula]

The problem with democracy is that it is slowly evolving from being merely a governmental method to become an ideology. Or, what's even worse, in many Western countries democracy more and more takes the shape of a new religion, which is characterized by dogmas and the persecution of non-believers. Like other religious believers we think that our politics shall never be questioned, and that we have the right to kill for it if necessary. Democracy is becoming an emotion of the masses, and such emotions can turn out to be pretty dangerous if not carefully noticed and controlled. These days we witness the democracies make use of any mean necessary to maintain its power and to rule out any opposition. It's a paradox, but we use the tools normally used by dictatorships to maintain our democracy. Democracy is becoming democracism, and this actually scares me.

Exactly, we even have people like Clinton, Bush, and Woodrow Wilson organizing Jihads for 'Democracy'. The term 'Democracy' has even been redefined in this instance to include 'rights' for 'minorities' and following a liberal ideology in general.

In a real democracy the majority respects the rights and ideas of the minority and bases it's policies on a consensus to keep both the majority and the minority content.

Nope, like was mentioned in another reply, 'real democracy' means that whatever the majority says goes. The rights of a minority are only protected by a constitution which places limits on what the majority can do, or out of fear the minority group may riot, rebel, or stop cooperating in general.

Like good old Winston Churchill once said:

In a real democracy one would at least have some influence over your countries' or communities' (and that means your own) destiny.

Do we have real influence ? No

In theory, people do, except maybe in some countries like Germany and Belgium where the government has banned certain political parties. If the majority of people voted for a nationalist party, it would get into power.

the government greatly controls popular opinion and the majority often follow it without question.

Not so much the government, but the mass media, and then the government does what the mass media tells the people to tell the government to do. In some cases, the mass media can bypass the people and just convince the elected officials to do what they want it to.

Thrymheim wrote that for many people out there today, our current system is precisely what they want and she is quite right on that. For most people in the west, the instinct is toward stability and comfort. The middle class prevails at this point and as long as they have their comfy little abode to go home to, more food on the table than they need, a decent paying job, entertainment sources galore and a few friends to enjoy those with then they won't be budging to do much any time soon. There is no incentive to for them, they have their little white picket fence and aren't willing or really able to look at the consequences of a government that has taken the wheel from them and makes not only national but community and, consequently, individual decisions for them, leaving them with very few responsibilities beyond material gain.

That's the problem with democracy, and that's why I don't think every human being over the age of 18 should be given the vote. I like the limits on voting which were set originally in the US as a good balance between concentrating power in the hands of a few.

Also, a constitutional element decentralizing power as much as possible is a good idea, many people don't care much about various things because it doesn't effect them personally. The desegregation of the American South is one example of this, most politicians from states with large black populations opposed the federal desegregation mandates, whereas most of the politicians from the states with very few black people supported it, because their constituents wouldn't care enough to throw them out of office for it. People from urban areas don't oppose hunting rifles getting banned and don't mind land use restrictions which don't effect them, people from California don't mind fuel economy laws because they don't have to drive in snow, non-Alaskans don't care about the Alaskan economy being hurt by restrictions which block oil drilling, etc.

The middle class prevails at this point

Direct democracy is possible if the citizens of the state interest in protecting their rights and have a vibrant civil consciousness. Democracy and capitalism contradict each other: Bourges (capitalist) will always seek to comply with its own interests rather than public.

I don't think direct democracy could exist without capitalism. Democracy wouldn't work in a class/caste stratified system, both because the masses of illiterate peasants couldn't be entrusted with the vote, and people would just vote along caste/class lines.

I don't think the middle classes are really problem, the problem comes from an uneducated underclass, my observation is that the higher up the class structure people are, the more educated and informed they tend to be. This is why our governments want to import a massive underclass from the third world.

That's because they paid taxes. Here everyone pays taxes so everyone should have a democratic vote

Like Psychonaut said, there are probably many people on welfare or with low incomes who don't pay taxes.

Here's some charts and graphs for the US:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html


I think the best 'fix' to democracy would be to make it so only people who pay taxes can vote. You get mailed a ballot back for that year after you file your taxes. If women are allowed to vote, the vote would also extend to anyone married to a taxpayer. This would eliminate pretty much all of the problems by ending the votes-for-benefits scheme which plagues modern 'social democracies', as well as removing the apathetic/uneducated/stupid underclass from the voting rolls, along with the very young/students who don't have 'real world' experience yet. This would also make vote fraud very hard, since people aren't going to want to pay taxes on a second identity just in order to vote, and fictitious and dead people don't pay taxes and thus will not receive a ballot.

And also how often the same policy as last time is being continued even though all parties involved in the elections declared in one voice before the elections that they would do something else if people voted for them. And it is not the people that decide who will run this time- but the party and only a few people decide what will happen this time and who will run.

Yes, that's the main problem with the party list/proportional style of voting. I'd much rather vote for actual individual people, rather than a party list which might contain some people I like and some I don't.

The referendum about the EU constitution showed a strong "no" vote which is now being ignored and the treaty is being forced upon us behind our backs.

Clearly some people call the shots while ignoring the voter.

Yes, that is a problem with republics as opposed to direct democracy, is the politicians will sometimes go against the will of the people, and then manage to get reelected on other issues.

[Lulletje Rozewater]

What do you mean with that ?

All flags or most of them with white red and blue in it are the salt of the earth
But
All with black yellow and red are the gods of the earth(Like Germany and Belgium.

Like good old Winston Churchill once said:

In a real democracy one would at least have some influence over your countries' or communities' (and that means your own) destiny.

Do we have real influence ? No

From what I can remember,there is a law in The Netherlands that in certain circumstances the people can remove the cabinet in its total.
I also favour "Enlightened despotism Such as the one of Catherine the Great and Frederic Barbarossa.
I find minority rights a bit overdone.
Let us look at The Netherlands.
Let's accept Wilders becomes president, let's say he has 35 seats.
He is a minority and also all other parties.
Now they form a coalition.
Coalitions are a curse.
You must have outright majority and a law in place that the people can remove the cabinet....for good reasons.
It is utter stupid that one has to wait 4 to 5 years to remove a dumbo cabinet by vote.

[Phlegethon]

If the majority of people voted for a nationalist party, it would get into power.

Do you happen to believe in Bigfoot and the tooth fairy as well?

[SwordoftheVistula]

Do you happen to believe in Bigfoot and the tooth fairy as well?

It happened in Russia. In Poland also, the nationalist party was in the government for a while, and the Swiss have had some success as well.

[Phlegethon]

There is no nationalist party in Russia, Poland or Switzerland. At least not in parliament.

[Absinthe]

I am guessing that when Greeks invented their democracy, the intelligence standards in the population must have been much higher (let alone it was a more clever form of democracy to begin with).

Nowadays, the fault is not with the political system per se but with the masses that the political system is implemented upon. If they are idiots, they will elect idiots. Idiots will rule idiots, and create more idiots. The more the idiots, the more idiotic the government is going to be....pure mathematics

[Revenant]

Our two party system here will continue for the forseeable future unfortunately. I think Nationalist parties will emerge but later become irrelevant as they move further towards the mainstream and then're gutted by the center right.

[Turkey]

Our two party system here will continue for the forseeable future unfortunately. I think Nationalist parties will emerge but later become irrelevant as they move further towards the mainstream and then're gutted by the center right.

cntre right has always been our worst enemy. All the bad components of the right but with no racial preservation

[Laudanum]

Our political system? Yes.

People? No.