{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/2/2013 6:56:26 PM
9
What do you think of "representative democracy"?
Pretty much every English speaking country (and any other democratic country) use this system of democracy. Instead of the people directly telling the government what they desire, they elect officials who belong to a certain party.
Personally, I don't like it. People like Nick Clegg get elected on the back of promises they quickly break without consequence. The idea of parliament in Britain is inherently flawed because almost all of the MPs do not push what the people want, they push the agendas of their own party,
What's your opinion?
-
I think representative democracy is the best we can make of a bad situation.
-
2 отв.100% "true democracy" can easily result in the "tyranny of the majority". The following quote has been mangled (I'm going to mangle it too) and misattributed (so I am not even going to guess as to the true author). [quote]Democracy is 3 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner. The will of the 99% should never be able to infringe on the liberty, rights and freedoms of the 1% who have the right to disagree or to be different.[/quote]
-
I think it's the only feasible form of government of a country in which there is a large population.
-
I'm for more direct democracy. Sure you can get a tyranny of the majority, but it's a hell of a lot better than the tyranny of the minority we have no. The formal democracy we have now doesn't serve the interests of the proletariat, it serves the bourgeoisie.
-
Any form of democracy relies on the competency of the people. If they're incapable of making intelligent, informed decisions then democracy will reflect that stupidity. I don't have to state the obvious but people are really stupid.
-
Изменено (BADMAGIK): 5/2/2013 8:18:08 PMIt would never work because people do not think for the betterment of society as a whole. All people would do is vote on things selfishly. This would quickly cause things like the economy for example to literally collapse in on itself within days.
-
Изменено (M37h3w3): 5/2/2013 7:45:02 PM[quote]What's your opinion?[/quote] Pretty much the same. Given our origins, representative democracy was required given how it would be virtually impossible to get a vote from every single person in the nation when it took days to travel from town to town. Now a days? Less so. Our elected official's votes are bought and paid for by lobbyists. Lobbyists who don't have the people's best interests at heart. They thrive on political turmoil rather than stability. Getting voted back into office is easier if you can claim that your opposition is a socialist, a communist, who wants to destroy the Constitution, and make himself King. Too many people are idiots who don't vote those abusing, corrupting, and manipulating the system, or worse yet, buy into the rhetoric their elected representatives throw at them. And doing the right thing is often seen as political suicide.
-
Too many uninformed retards to go with true democracy, but since it's representative politicians, in theory, can go against the will of their constituents, which is how a president who wins the popular vote can still lose the election. Both systems sucks, but representative democracy is the best we have. To quote Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
-
3 отв.Better and more important question: what's a better alternative?
