Do you agree that democracy is diluted?

[foxsquirrell]

Yes, diluted. It is not very concentrated. Meaning that contrary to what democracy is suppose to mean, that is to say ruling by the people, the people do not have much say on how their country is ruled! They vote once every 5 or so many years and then the ruling is in the hands of a bunch of people called government who are suppose to reflect the will of the people. I doubt it. Sure some things are delivered as promised, but that is not enough to make for a real democracy. It is like putting a teaspoon of coffee in a pitcher full of hot water, and argue that the pitcher is coffee. It is technically coffee, but very dilute and you can barley taste the coffee.

It is my view that for a country to be considered truly democratic (a true cup of coffee :p) the government should not be allowed to make decisions on projects that cost beyond a certain amount of money, and the government will not be able to make decisions on certain aspects of society. These projects and certain other decisions outside the competence of the government will call for a referendum. Only then a country will be a real democracy.

Yes I agree

No I disagree

[Anonymous]

For practical reasons democracy has always been 'diluted' even in the time it was invented in Greek city states. They always elected leaders who administrated.

The difference between a democracy and a republic is a Constitution which is to say rules a mere 50%+1 of the population can't simply vote to change. In a democracy they don't have such rules so invariably the people vote away key rights of the minority and break the system.
Which is why democracies "murder" themselfs.

The modern post FDR definition of the term "democracy" is just a excessively broad to the point of being useless umbrella term. A term that is actually dangerous in that it groups countries that are serous republics with countries that are unstable democracies.

Knowing the difference between the 2 is critical in knowing who your dealing with.

[foxsquirrell]

So what if something has been going on in a certain way for a very long time. You think we cannot change it? Change the constitution if needs be. In Switzerland for example they made a referendum to decide whether or not to make it obligatory for people to wear a mask during Covid. That's what I'm talking about. I kept practicality in mind because I said that only projects beyond a certain cost would call for a referendum. Other relatively petty things will be left to the discretion of the government. Same goes for certain other things which are not a question of money but rather what people want. Who they welcome, what they consider acceptable or not. If people want to be more democratic, if they want to have more say in how their country is ruled then they have to vote more.

[Opinion Owner]

@foxsquirrell It is unclear what if anything your asking here assuming it is the general topic of why people don't get a say on everything the answer is simple.

The people cannot in practice vote on everything even in direct democracy at the original city scale. As there are too many choices to be made (each requiring too much information) and the people actually have other jobs and lives to do.

When you scale up the goverment either in domain or breath the number of choices become proportionally scaled up. This is why Democracy always involves some kind of representation for administration. If not legislatively administratively (executive/judiciary).

This is why the only meaningful definition of democracy vs republic is the existence of a Constitution a mere majority can't change.

[Syntosi]

No one said a democracy had to be organized as an election every 5 years. You could have a democracy like for example Switzerland where the people themselves vote regularly for what the country should do on major decisions. Such a system is called a direct democracy, where you vote specifically for a decision as opposed for a representative democracy, where you vote for a person to make decisions for you.

The problem with a direct democracy is that people actually need to start voting AND they need to be informed so that they can make a good decision. Not everyone is an expert on foreign relations or the coal mining industry or whatever which is why most countries put people at the top whos job it is to either talk to experts or become an expert themselves.

[malarkey]

Democracy isn't rule by the people, Democracy is mob rule. That means whoever has the most people oppresses everyone else. Democracy always leads to dictatorship, with a party of loyal followers that do the dictators bidding.

[malarkey]

The Weimar Republic fell to the influence of Democracy. Once Democracy was let in the gates, that's all that was needed for Hitler to take power and start the genocide of all the people that disagreed with the Nazi party views.

[DrPepper12]

I share your observation that institutions and processes are fucked and that causes problems. In the end people get the leadership they deserve.

[OddBeMe]

Of course. Doesn't mean it's fatally flawed.

[foxsquirrell]

Fatally no. But it leaves a lot to be desired. A lot!

[OddBeMe]

Except it's raised the entire globes standard of living.

[foxsquirrell]

It might have. Not my point though.

[OddBeMe]

It should be