Which of these views of democracy is closest to the truth?

[OtterMan68]

Is it good, that people can vote for any politician or issue for any reason?

Let's say a person votes for a candidate because the candidate's wife is hot or the candidate's ancestors came from the same country as his ancestors.

The best thing about democracy is that anyone can vote for any politician/issue for any reason

The worst thing about democracy is that anyone can vote for any politician/issue for any reason

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

I went with the B/worst option. I actually worked for a software company long ago where we had a boss who wanted to run software development like a democracy, flattening the hierarchy and just leaving us to vote on what ideas to implement next.

That experience taught me the worst of democracies. The problem is that we had a tendency to implement an eclectic variety of popular ideas that didn't fit well together, and the ideas were also chosen based on their popularity (ex: the most orthodox) rather than demonstrated effectiveness. Also because engineers were voting on the ideas and not customers, we were going with ideas that excited engineers rather than our customers. Like there was almost zero customer demand to port our software to smartphones but that became the most popular idea among engineers.

But most of all, the problem to me is that the best designs can't come from a group of people. They largely have to come from one person, and even one person with an set of inferior design ideas will generally still be superior, when combined to form a whole design, to a group of people who just vote on a bunch of ideas that don't fit well together (we never end up with the gestalt type of idea that way where the whole is more valuable than the sum of its parts).

Imagine if, in the 100m dash in the Olympics, we voted democratically for who was the best runner instead of determining that by who reaches the finish line first. Then Usain Bolt would probably not be considered the best runner; instead it might be a guy who's the best-looking or charming or well-spoken or has values that the largest number of other people like the most. We don't end up with the truly fastest and best runner.

So I'm very much a meritocrat these days. Whenever possible, I think we should seek to be able to test people on who is best-suited according to some objective criteria rather than a popularity vote.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Where I think democracies excel is that they might at least repel the worst-case scenario where the ideas selected democratically by a group of people might at least trump the ideas selected by someone who completely neglects certain people's interests. Design by committee might at least be superior to design by the most incompetent designer or the most extreme designer who only wants to represent the interests of a niche demographic. It does at least allow everyone involved to have some probability of having some say over whether or not their interests are represented in the final result.

Still, I generally think the individual -- in all but the worst cases -- is superior to a large group, especially a large group with radically different interests, when it comes to coming up with a superior set of design ideas.

For example, I doubt any film will benefit from having 2 or more directors with equal input over the direction of the film. Unless we're talking about the most incompetent of film directors, one director is generally better than two, and two better than three, and so forth.

[RebelinSteel]

For democratic countries, people can vote for any politician standing for an election, this may a choice of say 8 candidates or more. Usually there are 4 - 5 candidates who are the main contenders. That’s for democratic countries where you have a fair number of people, also local elections versus general elections might see a person voting conservative locally but labour for general. With a democratic country you have the option of multiple candidates you can vote for, I would say at least 3 - 4 (or more) options to vote for makes a country a democracy.

[laly520]

went with first tho I think there is no real democracy
its just a lie they use

[Anonymous]

While nobody can control why you vote for anything, what is wrong with democracy is not the vote itself but rather the equally broad power of the person/policy you elect.

The power to simply do whatever you want enables idiots to destroy the system with such random and unrelated votes. By limiting in a republican system what said votes can be for and dividing said power into different elections ideally held at different times.
The campaign for said votes ideally directed to the majority who hopefully know what the position can actually do would also give meaningful outcomes in a system that works together.

This of course requires some level of civics and politicians getng called out for at least failing to do their job if not also campaign on issues their position has no real control over.

[handsomelad70]

A democracy works only with an informed, educated populace, or you have the specacle of someone with NINETY-ONE indictments and a possible charge of inciting an insurrection become President a SECOND time because the country doesn't teach civics or the course is diluted by religious fanatics.

[exitseven]

There is always the chance that somebody gets elected because he looks like George Clooney or maybe he gets endorsed by Taylor Swift. I would like it if all candidates get the same amount of money to campaign. Super PACs would be illegal and if a PAC starts advertising for a candidate. He is automatically disqualified. We should bring back the fairness doctrine as well.

[OtterMan68]

so every candidate gets the same money: Democrat, GOP, Libertarian, Green, Socialist, Constitution, Right to Life, etc?

[exitseven]

They have to pass a certain threshold like getting into the primary debates.

[OtterMan68]

and who sets the threshold?

[exitseven]

@OtterMan68 Me. I will do it.

[OtterMan68]

the two major parties will decide, and they'll decide only they get it

[SolitarySolace]

Isn’t the whole point about democracy being able to vote for whoever you want? The democrats attempted to remove trump from the ballot which would have prevented the people from voting for the candidate they wanted to vote for and the democrats are always talking about saving democracy when they’re the ones attempting to kill it 🤣 how anyone would want to be a part of such an ass backwards party, I have no idea

[OtterMan68]

It's legal to walk into a voting booth, close your eyes, spin around until you're dizzy then randomly press a button.
You can vote for a candidate because you like his clothes.
You can vote for candidate based on skin color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc rather than his policies or accomplishments.
You think that's the whole point of democracy?

[SolitarySolace]

People are gonna do what they’re gonna do. Can’t regulate them in this case.

[OtterMan68]

not calling for regulation. Just pointing out a lot of people are ill informed voters and some do vote for stupid reasons

[SolitarySolace]

I agree completely. Women are voting for Biden because they care more about abortion than the safety of American citizens. Can’t regulate them either unfortunately. Just gotta hope the majority of women aren’t dumbasses

[goaded]

I went with best. The worst thing about today's politics is that they worked out that it's really just marketing a few decades ago. Children really need to be educated to recognise that sort of thing being done to them.

[Avicenna]

The voters aren't the real problem. It's corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats.

[OtterMan68]

disagree. I think most voters are just willfully ignorant

[Avicenna]

Assuming you're correct, how do you explain the dysfunction in the unelected parts of government and civil society? Are you claiming that voters are actually getting what they voted for?

[OtterMan68]

They get the politicians they deserve

[Avicenna]

Well, people aren't getting what they want, as opinion polls show. So what sorts of public policy would we see if we were to elect the politicians you think an informed electorate making the correct decisions would elect?

[OtterMan68]

because people keep voting for the lesser of two evils. They are voting against people instead of for people

[Avicenna]

You didn't answer my question And maybe the choices usually aren't good to begin with.

[OtterMan68]

whose fault is that? How are candidates chosen? Primaries

[Avicenna]

If you want to blame voters for what is often very low participation in primaries, OK. But the real problem is a lack of genuine choice and a primary system that is often gamed through open primaries and other methods.

[Avicenna]

And can we really blame voters for the unelected people put in place by politicians?

[OtterMan68]

yes, because the politicians pass the laws and budgets that create those positions

[Avicenna]

You're assuming that voters can easily throw out politicians who don't do what they want. It rarely works like that. It's blaming the victim.

[OtterMan68]

they can. They can vote them out, but they won't do the research into what the candidates are actually doing, beleive, or proposing.

[Avicenna]

There's too much asymmetric information, and what candidates talk about and promise often bears no resemblance to what they actually do or allow to happen.

I'm not saying we can't have better public debate and more information out there (we certainly could use improvements there), just that the topics are really complex and the reality often enormously obscured (deliberately so).

[NathanDavis]

voting is a joke

[msc545]

Morality is not a reason to censor voting.