Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Bradskii]

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

I've been thinking about this for quite some time (probably a lot more since the Brexit vote). There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. Surely it's impossible to argue that what we have now is actually the best we can expect. As Winston also said:

'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.

 

[FireDragon76]

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

I've been thinking about this for quite some time (probably a lot more since the Brexit vote). There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. Surely it's impossible to argue that what we have now is actually the best we can expect. As Winston also said:

'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.

His perspective seems to be from a mixture of familiarity with Greek classics, and Christian realism.

Certain autocratic regimes have figured out how to poke at the Achilles Heel of western liberal democracies. That is what is immediately responsible for Brexit. The same things that brought the Soviet Union down, a tabloid press full of xenophobic nationalism, can be used to bring us down, too.

 

[Hammster]

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

I've been thinking about this for quite some time (probably a lot more since the Brexit vote). There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. Surely it's impossible to argue that what we have now is actually the best we can expect. As Winston also said:

'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.

 

[BPPLEE]

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.

That’s a good one

 

[BPPLEE]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so - the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

This. Is copied from the internet I’m not the author

 

[FireDragon76]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so - the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier."

This. Is copied from the internet I’m not the author

Nations aren't bars, though, arguing over beer money.

In reality, citizens are typically held together in a modern nation by common stories about who they are as a people. If you can attack, change, or cause to doubt those stories, without giving people a better alternative, they are bound to lose trust in one another. In those cases, the nation has to be held together by upholding a sense of fairness in government (like in a country such as Singapore, for instance), which builds trust in the government as an institution in itself.

The US and Britain, on the other hand, failed the first and can't deliver on the second. Both are are dominated by wealthy oligarchs who play by a different set of rules, often with impunity, and that breeds low social trust and less faith in the government's ability to deliver a just and peaceful society.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

To have a better government all elected government governing people, would have to be honest and government is far from that now.

 

[Bradskii]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

Well, nice story. Though I'd need some paper and a pencil to follow it. But that's a comment on taxation. Not democracy. Whatever method is used to decide who runs the taxation system we could end up with a bad one or a good one, one with which you agree or one that you don't.

Unless your point is to suggest that in a democratic system, people will generally vote what benefits them as opposed to anyone else. So if 90% of the voters are poor, they'll likely elect someone who would be more considerate to the poor. But we actually do have a problem in that a rich person (let's call him...I dunno...Rupert) can have the means to persuade the electorate what is best for Rupert.

 

[BPPLEE]

Nations aren't bars, though, arguing over beer money.

In reality, citizens are typically held together in a modern nation by common stories about who they are as a people. If you can attack, change, or cause to doubt those stories, without giving people a better alternative, they are bound to lose trust in one another. In those cases, the nation has to be held together by upholding a sense of fairness in government (like in a country such as Singapore, for instance), which builds trust in the government as an institution in itself.

The US and Britain, on the other hand, failed the first and can't deliver on the second. Both are are dominated by wealthy oligarchs who play by a different set of rules, often with impunity, and that breeds low social trust and less faith in the government's ability to deliver a just and peaceful society.

“ Both are are dominated by wealthy oligarchs who play by a different set of rules,”
That’s why Trump’s leading the field among Republicans

 

[BPPLEE]

Well, nice story. Though I'd need some paper and a pencil to follow it. But that's a comment on taxation. Not democracy. Whatever method is used to decide who runs the taxation system we could end up with a bad one or a good one, one with which you agree or one that you don't.

Unless your point is to suggest that in a democratic system, people will generally vote what benefits them as opposed to anyone else. So if 90% of the voters are poor, they'll likely elect someone who would be more considerate to the poor. But we actually do have a problem in that a rich person (let's call him...I dunno...Rupert) can have the means to persuade the electorate what is best for Rupert.

True but you’re not considering all the people who don’t vote. It’s staggering

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, nice story. Though I'd need some paper and a pencil to follow it. But that's a comment on taxation. Not democracy. Whatever method is used to decide who runs the taxation system we could end up with a bad one or a good one, one with which you agree or one that you don't.

Unless your point is to suggest that in a democratic system, people will generally vote what benefits them as opposed to anyone else. So if 90% of the voters are poor, they'll likely elect someone who would be more considerate to the poor. But we actually do have a problem in that a rich person (let's call him...I dunno...Rupert) can have the means to persuade the electorate what is best for Rupert.

Hehheh... I saw what you did there.

How has Australia managed to avoid the worst effects of "Rupert", and the US and Britain hasn't?

 

[Bradskii]

True but you’re not considering all the people who don’t vote. It’s staggering

Ah, yeah. But it's different down here. And a consideration when democracy is discussed. It's compulsory in Australia. To the extent that you don't have to vote, but you have to turn up to do so and get your name ticked off. You can then do whatever you want with the ballot paper. I think there's a small fine if you don't.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ah, yeah. But it's different down here. And a consideration when democracy is discussed. It's compulsory in Australia. To the extent that you don't have to vote, but you have to turn up to do so and get your name ticked off. You can then do whatever you want with the ballot paper. I think there's a small fine if you don't.

I'm guessing "Rupert" is no fan of compulsory voting.

 

[BPPLEE]

Ah, yeah. But it's different down here. And a consideration when democracy is discussed. It's compulsory in Australia. To the extent that you don't have to vote, but you have to turn up to do so and get your name ticked off. You can then do whatever you want with the ballot paper. I think there's a small fine if you don't.

Viveck Ramaswamy is proposing that people have to pass a basic Civics test like those who apply for citizenship have to take as a requirement to qualify to vote

 

[Occams Barber]

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

I've been thinking about this for quite some time (probably a lot more since the Brexit vote). There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. Surely it's impossible to argue that what we have now is actually the best we can expect. As Winston also said:

'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.

I tend to come at this from a different angle by first asking "What is the purpose of a government relative to the people ?"

My answer is "To create a secure environment".

Looked at from this point of view any form of government, from democracy to benevolent dictatorship, is good providing it maintains this sense of security.

Democracies like the UK and, particularly the US have, for a range of reasons, lost the confidence of their populations. The result is a sense of insecurity. This insecurity can be real or imagined but it will result in unrest, divisiveness and instability as individuals and groups compete with each other to maintain a society which leaves them with a sense of security.

The causes of this insecurity are varied but include;

• economic inequality - extremes of wealth and wealthy minorities
• relative poverty - the existence of a group with severe financial disadvantage
• power inequality - the sense of having little control over things
• power vacuums - the sense that no-one is in charge
• power competence - the sense that those in charge are incompetent
• the internet and the rise of misinformation
• the size of a given population - bigger populations are harder to manage
• the existence of significant marginalised minorities
• the rate of change

For instance, if you were to rate the US vs (say) Australia using this list you would find Aus ahead on most points despite being less formally 'democratic' than the US,

OB

 

[FireDragon76]

Viveck Ramaswamy is proposing that people have to pass a basic Civics test like those who apply for citizenship have to take as a requirement to qualify to vote

Literacy tests? Do Republicans really want to wed themselves to that legacy? The only time that's been used in the US was during the era of Jim Crow, when southern oligarchs and politicians used legal and illegal means to suppress African American votes.

 

[BPPLEE]

Literacy tests? Do Republicans really want to wed themselves to that legacy? The only time that's been used in the US was during the era of Jim Crow, when southern oligarchs and politicians used legal and illegal means to suppress African American votes.

Don’t worry he has no chance of winning

 

[Bradskii]

I tend to come at this from a different angle by first asking "What is the purpose of a government relative to the people ?"

My answer is "To create a secure environment".

Looked at from this point of view any form of government, from democracy to benevolent dictatorship, is good providing it maintains this sense of security.

Mmm. Someone who dictates how we should live and is benevolent. Let me think on that...

Say you visited a country where, for whatever reason, you had no idea who was running it. You don't know if it's one person or many. You have no idea how they achieved that position. And you are asked whether the society you are visiting is a good one or not. And you see very little crime, a fair distribution of wealth, equal opportunity, a safe environment, health care for all, freedom of speech and beliefs, excellent education for all, the arts are flourishing. Everyone tells you that they are relatively happy and content. No-one can honestly suggest anything that they think could be improved.

Does it then really matter how the leader(s) came to lead? If it turns out to be a dictatorship, do you then try to convince everyone that it's the wrong way to do it? That they should individually be deciding who runs the show. So they ask for an example where this is done. And you say - well, the largest democratic nation would be...the US. And they'll be democratically electing their leader pretty soon. They'll either be voting for a guy in his eighties or a known liar and convicted sexual offender.

I know where I'd prefer to live.

 

[Bradskii]

Literacy tests? Do Republicans really want to wed themselves to that legacy? The only time that's been used in the US was during the era of Jim Crow, when southern oligarchs and politicians used legal and illegal means to suppress African American votes.

How about we reverse the position. Is it acceptable that some people are allowed to vote who have no idea what they are voting for?

 

[FireDragon76]

How about we reverse the position. Is it acceptable that some people are allowed to vote who have no idea what they are voting for?

Part of liberal democracy is pluralism, including a plurality of potentially uninformed opinions.

Liberal democracy actually developed gradually, it wasn't some big ideology that was planned out, and it's not a perfect system, of course. I think that's forgotten in these discussions. Churchill is just saying "It's not a great system, but I have yet to see a better one".