Is democracy a failure? (1861)
nytimes.com
Is democracy a failure? (1861)
1–10 of 275 posts
Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)
#2Who wrote this?
Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)
#3Democracy is interesting because it requires you to step outside your own head, understand that there are people who hold different values and different experiences from you, and then mentally engage with them, holding your own doubt and revulsion at bay, until you can come to a consensus that's acceptable to everyone. It's a thoroughly unnatural and uncomfortable experience that can be both fatiguing and time-consuming. No wonder everybody predicts that it will fail - by definition, a democracy requires occasional subjugation to points of view that are alien to your way of life, and which point of view is often unpredictable and changeable.
But I'd much rather have it than any system of forced social roles, where there is one person or small cabal of people who make the decisions and everyone else knows their job is simply to obey.
Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)
#4I believe that democracy in theory is excellent, but in practice is a failure, not because of democracy per-se, but because a gut-feeling vote and a properly-researched vote count the same.
I'm in no way suggesting that one vote should be valued more than another one, but that people should be doing their homework and researching properly the benefits and consequences of their decisions...
Having a majority of the population voting with the gut can lead us to disastrous results...
Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)
#5The bond holders seem to like it, so it'll probably stick around.
Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)
#6Who wrote this?
By the editors of the New York Times, according to the 2013 book, "New York Times: Disunion".
Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)
#7This was published less than a month before the Civil War started.
Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)
#8I believe that democracy in theory is excellent, but in practice is a failure, not because of democracy per-se, but because a gut-feeling vote and a properly-researched vote count the same. I'm in no way suggesting that one vote should be valued more than another one, but that people should be doing their homework and researching properly the benefits and consequences of their decisions... Having a majority of the po…
Hm, I am not clear what you're suggesting. You don't want to value votes differently, so what do you want to do about those people who won't do their homework for some reason?
You should also note that in most democracies this is already accounted for. The people who feel they didn't do their homework simply do not vote, and leave the decision on others.
I lived in a communist country, and we had a system that was controlled by, ostensibly, the experts (the party members). It was a disaster.
In practice, democracy works; it doesn't work in theory, because you're wrongly comparing it to some fictional system which makes ideal decisions (whatever that is). It works in the U.S., it works in Switzerland. Those are some of the most developed countries in the world.
Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)
#9I believe that democracy in theory is excellent, but in practice is a failure, not because of democracy per-se, but because a gut-feeling vote and a properly-researched vote count the same. I'm in no way suggesting that one vote should be valued more than another one, but that people should be doing their homework and researching properly the benefits and consequences of their decisions... Having a majority of the po…
> I believe that democracy in theory is excellent, but in practice is a failure, not because of democracy per-se, but because a gut-feeling vote and a properly-researched vote count the same.
I don't like this line of reasoning, because I do believe the issue is much more fundamental: people want different things.
Now, there is an argument that if people do their research properly, they will have known all the consequences of their decisions. And hence everyone will have the same ordering of concerns from "most serious" to "meh". That's not true for the fact that consequences and the future are really really hard to predict. Not to mention that "what exactly are good things" is still very subjective. Look into philosophy, there are a gazillion moral frameworks, even if you just pick Utilitarianism, it's still unclear what constitutes "utility".
Re: Is democracy a failure? (1861)
#10I believe that democracy in theory is excellent, but in practice is a failure, not because of democracy per-se, but because a gut-feeling vote and a properly-researched vote count the same. I'm in no way suggesting that one vote should be valued more than another one, but that people should be doing their homework and researching properly the benefits and consequences of their decisions... Having a majority of the po…
Hm, I am not clear what you're suggesting. You don't want to value votes differently, so what do you want to do about those people who won't do their homework for some reason? You should also note that in most democracies this is already accounted for. The people who feel they didn't do their homework simply do not vote, and leave the decision on others. I lived in a communist country, and we had a system that was co…
I am not an expert in decision-making processes, and I have not an idea of which process would work better, since I understand the big picture: We want to give every person the ability to express their needs with their vote.
I am just a concerned person, since most of the candidates spend too much time discrediting their opponents, rather than discussing about their proposals.
The electoral process had became a reality show rather than a mechanism to choose a representative, and it is saddening that people are picking a candidate because of a catchy slogan, rather than because of their proposals...