I think I am.

Rather, I'm not convinced that everyone should be able to vote, and that every vote should count equally. This isn't really something I have thought out very well, or analyzed completely. In fact, I'm not sure that I really am against Democracy. It's just that the thought that it might not be the best way has slowly emerged from all the things I have been learning over time, and of course recently. When you grow up in America, or most places in Europe, etc, everyone knows that Democracy is the best. I guess what I am saying here is that my doubts about that have evolved to the point where I can seriously consider the possibility that it isn't the best.

John Locke wasn't in favor of democracy, and though his ideas towards this were definitely bigotry, I think he had something along the lines of the right idea. Even educated people, as we have seen, have proven to be incapable of voting for their own self-interest. This is probably due to the massive effort of politicians and the established government to keep people from knowing what is really going on, to fool people into thinking they want what they really don't want. Either way, I think it is a flawed system.

I support most of the ethics behind the constitution, for example: minority rights, the social contract, and consent of the people, but I'm not sure about majority rule. Is the majority able to act towards their own best interests more than say, a representative piece of that majority?

What it really comes down to, I think, is that the consideration of every person's vote actually ends up with less liberty for all. The whole idea of government is that we sacrifice some liberty to gain other, more important liberties. Is it possible that sacrificing the right to vote (not wholly, I'm just using that for arguments sake), or something along those lines, will bring about greater liberties? I believe it is something worth thinking about.

How do you feel about this, or have you even thought of it at all?

I believe that PD has some feelings along these lines. A bunch of elitists you are.

It is quite odd at how large groups of people are terrible at determining what is in their best interest.

Some would wonder what you are talking about.

there's no point being against the best system we have unless you have a better alternative.

I believe the implication is: less direct democracy, moar Republicanism.

We don't necessarily vote on every issue, we elect people to do it for us. The average citizen can't possibly be informed about every minute bill going through Congress and local governments, some of which are meaningless. The problem with "democracy" in the American sense is that money plays too prominent a role in political and public life. I think in many ways government and business are and should be inseparable, but what's really offensive to personal liberty in my opinion is the amount of sway money has over decision-making. Not everyone is a career minded individual or has the ability to compete on an equal playing field. Of course when people succeed in this country, they REALLY succeed. So that's the benefit. For me, it isn't worth the trouble. Democracy is successful only so far as it is at maintaining happiness and securing a long-term stable social outlook. That means as few wars as possible, less violence, and poverty. Reward people with more vacation and leisure time. You also have to realize that at some point the powers that be MUST maintain the status-quo, but be receptive to new ideas, freedom of expression, and transferring social and personal responsibility to future generations. Right now, America isn't really living up to these ideals for me.

I absolutely disagree with this. I refuse to believe that settling with something that is just "good enough" is the best thing to do. There is no need to formulate an alternative until you decide that the current one does not work.

What you said is exactly what the current people want people to think. I'm not talking about conspiracy shit here, I'm just saying that questioning authority and the way we do things is the first step along the path of change.

No one wanted to engage me on the topic of campaign finance reform in the presidential thread, so perhaps this is the place. Without completely redefining the notion of 'free speech', I don't see how the Federal government can force money out of politics, even if they wanted to. I think the best bet we have is to encourage candidates to accept public financing. We have to change the perception, so that voters perceive undisclosed funding as unacceptably dirty in order to put any pressure on the candidates. I don't know what the FCC does in regards to this, but I would imagine they could very easily force radio and TV stations to allot a certain percentage of airtime to campaign advertisements in order to level the playing field and decrease the cost. A few thousand signatures is required for a whole manner of other campaign perks, why not some free airtime?

I agree that campaign finance reform is necessary, but I think the issue of democracy exists with or without money in politics. Do you think publicly funded campaigns would alleviate the problems involved with a true democracy?

Why do you hate America?

well firstly, i'm an ardent supporter of democracy, so that's been declared.

second, you've clearly decided that the current model, democracy, does not work, so again; what is you alternative? what have you come up with that nobody else can? communism doesn't work. ditto authoritarianism.

I'm for free and open elections as long as I can pick the people doing the voting.

the biggest problem with democracy is the interchanging of the business elite and the political elite. The conflicts of interest and the favours and the general corruption associated with it. Dick Cheney still gets stock options and money from Haliburton. Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to get rid of his stock in a company working on avian flu viruses but struck a deal with whatever commitee so he didn't have to. Both of them and countless others have been back in forth from the business to political to business to political world. It creates an elite that has their own interests in mind and nothing more. Particularly when you can make policies and two years later be the CEO of a company directly benefiting from those policies.

Oh goodness no, there would still be serious issues. The idea of sucessful campaign finance reform is that representatives would have to spend less time working towards their re-election and more debating completley useless bills.

All of this demonstrates that the majority is not capable of seeing past things like business connections, and other similar concerns, in order to vote for people that have their best interests in mind. The problem with democracy is that these people are elected, which proves that people are not capable of voting for the best candidate. People are feeble and easily manipulated, and thus elected positions are filled with the persuasive and manipulative.

I'm just against how the political forces of this country have taken a perfectly good set of ideas, with checks and balances included, and mutated it into what they call Democracy today.

Maybe it would be better to be against unchecked capitalism.

I vote for Plato's Republic.

All Hail The Guardians!

Well, getting right down to the matter, I am a firm believer in Socialism. But of course, the Socialism I am talking about has little to do with how officials are elected, so I suppose that is irrelevant.

Assuming you're not joking, socialism is very unsafe as political practice. They don't win elections in the U.S. A much friendlier and encompassing term that I use is egalitarianism.

It is strange that voters consider it a dirty word. Most individuals are more than happy with social programs. Its also funny that 'red blooded' americans tend to claim a distaste for corporations while expousing the virtues of capitalism. Mind you these are the same people that have come to depend on the social programs. Alls I'm asking for is a little consistency, yannow? You, you're consistent. Most Americans, not so much.