“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 Churchill
Do you think democracy is the best system of government?
Are you for universal suffrage? Should every sane adult have the vote, or should voters be qualified in some way - eg. by education, property ownership, passing a test?
If you think democracy does not work - that “one-person one-vote” is too easily cheated as in the 2020 US election - what would you have instead?
In Britain every adult was eventually deemed to be worthy of enfranchisement except prisoners, Lords and lunatics.
In America, one of the two major parties, the Democrats, seem to believe that all votes not cast for them are invalid. They practice a system now which could be summed up as “one-Democrat any number of votes”. It is in the US that the weakness of the democratic system has been most dramatically and catastrophically demonstrated - though it should always be remembered that dictators were voted into power democratically in the past, Adolf Hitler being a notable example.
Hitler is such a convenient example. Yes, he was voted into power, in a minority, but he had the political savvy to appoint Goering as head of the Prussian police, they had huge influence over the local police forces. He used that power to suppress anti-Hitler activity.
Hitler also realized that he had to increase the standard of living of the German populace. He was very successful in this; Germany had the highest standard of living, by far, in Europe 1938.
The British working class were still living in hovels, as befitted their serf status
World war 2 was initiated by Britain, as part their crusade against Germany. It was Churchill’s determination to keep the war going, in 1940, that resulted in the attack by Germany against the USSR. It also thwarted the German plan to exile all Europe’s Jews to the island of Madagascar, in the Indian Ocean, where a thriving Jewish community already existed (Freddy Mercury).
It is arguable that Churchill was responsible for the holocaust.
Democracy can only be successful where a determined effort by the electorate results in accountability of the elcted. There is no possibility whatsoever of that happenning in the US. We need a House where Representatives are elected from a district of no more than 100,000 people. Where local reps can be elected without kow-towing to the parties, and where a multiplicity of committees monitor the bureacracy, and ruthlessly control them when necessary.
I think what our founders created was the best form of government in history, and still is.
But as Franklin said, it only works “if you can keep it”. Keeping it from being infiltrated by corrupt con artists who take advantage of the system for profit, and enemies who turn it against us in order to control us, seems to be a battle that we’re losing.
Who argues that Churchill was responsible for the holocaust?
What does a “determined effort by the electorate” mean?
Why is 100,000 people the magic number for a constituency?
Yes, the founders did a magnificent job.
But time has brought change. In his Federal Paper No. 10, James Madison distinguishes between a democracy and a republic, describing a democracy as a system of government in which every man has his say along with all the others, while a republic is governed by representatives of the citizens.
In our time, a democracy is a representative system.
Can it be easily corrupted?
The system was corrupted by ballot fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Now a party empowered by a minority of the people is imposing its will tyrannically on the entire nation.
What proportion of the voters inform themselves about the candidates and policies they vote for?
Even when the will of a majority prevails, tyranny can emerge. What checks and balances are there to prevent or stop tyranny? The judicial branch of government? It refused to adjudicate the fraudulent election of 2020.
Can you suggest improvements to the current system, or describe an entirely different system that would better protect the liberty of the people?
(I cannot.)
Universal suffrage was introduced in Germany after World War One, I think it could be argued that it was universal suffrage, rather than democracy more generally, that opened the door to Hitler’s rise to power. We should not forget that especially in the beginning, the Nazis were primarily a socialist movement.
I think the evidence that universal suffrage has led to disaster for Western nations is all around us, we have national debts spiralling out of control, immigration is out of control, and a tiny morally bankrupt, self-serving and very narrow-minded elite have been able to stage a coup d’etat that is ushering in a de facto authoritarian new world order style government, and the world they are creating will be good for nobody in the long run.
I could be wrong but I think universal suffrage is more or less universally adopted in “democratic” nations today.
Alternatives would introduce some sort of limits such as only taxpayers, or only people paying above a certain amount of tax. What I definitely would argue against is votes being directly proportionate to taxes paid, because this would give the very wealthy too much power. I would also argue I think against women being specifially denied the vote, but of course as long as more women are not working they would be proportionately affected by some of the above alternatives.
Democracy means government by the people but the word originates from ancient times where they didn’t have universal suffrage, so I suppose the meaning of “the people” has changed - then only men had the vote, and then not slaves I think. If you are taking the position that voting systems that don’t have universal suffrage aren’t really democracies then democracy began around 1918, not in ancient times at all. Given the early origin of the word I think most people’s use of the word would include pre-1918 systems, but I agree it’s a bit debatable whether democracy by definition would include all “the people” or not. If we wanted to get very accurate though we might end up questioning whether you could call it a democracy if prisoners, the mentally handicapped, and children, aren’t allowed to vote.
Education, that’s a bit of a laugh given the state of the education system today. Property is a possibility, but some very highly qualified people live in rented accomodation so I think that’s probably too restrictive, and likely to eliminate a lot of very sensible people.
Property doesn’t mean only real estate. Property qualifications could be set to cut out students. In other words, it would raise the average age of voters.
If a fair standard of education were required as a voting qualification, yes, given the state of education today, far fewer would have the vote. That’s why it might be a wise requirement. Though, I think, insufficient on its own. If it were the only criterion, almost the entire professoriate of the US would vote for whomever promised communist world government, preferably by women, even better by black women, and best of all by transgendered black “women” - as would almost everyone who had passed through their indoctrination. The working class voters would vote more wisely with sheer experience of life to go on, but they do not cheat in elections as those with university degrees do so cleverly.
Lots of people do.
The second world war, that Britain initiated on 3rd September 1939, could have been ended in July/August 1940, immediately after the defeat of France. Germany wanted a European security conference where the outstanding issues could be solved diplomatically. Churchill would have none of that; he had his chance to be a great war leader, like his ancestor John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, and to hell with everybody, and everything else.
Had the war been ended in 1940 it is very probable that there would have been no holocaust, no operation Barbarossa, no attack on Pearl Harbor and no development of nuclear weapons. Of course, had Hitler not been so nutty about the Jews, Jewish scientists would have very happily created a nuclear weapon for Germany.
20th century history is fascinating; from a political, social, economic, scientific, military and human development point of view. I recommend you try and learn something about it.
“A determined effort by the electorate”. The electorate has to be involved in decision making, if it is not we get exactly what we have now; rule by parties, bureaucrats, and special interests. The problem is that, outside of purely local politics, the electorate has no say whatsoever in political decisions made, certainly not at the Federal level.
100,000 is not a magic number, I suggest it because the Constitution calls for a maximum constituency size of 30,000, but with modern communications 100,000 should be manageable. The actual ratio today is approximately one for every 785,000. This what gives the parties and the big donors such power. It costs a fortune to get elected to a US House district, and those elected are well aware that they owe their seat to the big donors. Smaller constituencies would go a long way to reducing election costs, and would provide more members for the committee work that should control the bureaucracy. There would be more independents, and probably a lot more idiots too, but the parties would be greatly reduced in power.
Pick your own number; or do you think the system is good as it is?
Quote;
We may be living in a 21st century democracy, but that “democracy” increasingly resembles something that could have been plucked out of feudal Europe or, perhaps more accurately, feudal Japan.
I’m probably missing alot here, but I don’t see this as a war between capitalists. It seems to me to be a war between capitalism and communism.
Communists control the Democrat Party (and Rinos) by making them useful idiots of leftist ideology, or through corruption, bribery and blackmail.
There’s more going on than just the financial interests of “elites vs. the working class” when these elites are trying to groom your children, turn them into trannies, and make them hate America.
We need to liberate ordinary working class people to start enterprises of their own, or just to join the gig economy. You make more money if you are not asking for benefits such as holiday pay, sick pay, health care, etc. This also liberates commercial enterprises who can concentrate on what they do as a core business, instead of providing BS benefits to their workforce.
I present to you the General Motors Corporation; in 1960 the world’s greatest industrial company. Now a pension and health care benefits distribution entity that makes a few (crap) vehicles on the side. Now worth about 1/5th of the Toyota Corp. They and thousands of other US manufacturing enterprises don’t have insurance; they use SISCO; the self insured services company. This is how the US industrial economy has been destroyed.
In fact the biggest factor in liberating the working class (you are interested in liberty, aren’t you Ms. Becker?). Is to have a universal health care system (socialist/communist/fascist cries from the completely brain dead right wing gallery). Worker flexibility would be hugely enhanced. Worker freedom would be greater, liberty and freedom would be greater.
Economic development is enhanced by savings and investment; not by consumerism. Christ; every 2nd building around here is a self storage unit, where people store the garbage they don’t need while they purchase more.
A savings and investment economy requires low taxation, respect for entrepenurial capitalism, and a personal desire to “get ahead”. None of this is encouraged in our education system. The brain dead socialists who infest our schools instead teach the values of queerism, collectivism, and peculilarly; ethnic identity, above American common values.
“Lots of people” ? Who are the historians or psychologists among them who argue that Churchill - wanting his “chance to be a great war leader…and to hell with everybody and everything else” - actually provoked Hitler into continuing with his plans to seize his “chance to be a great war leader and to hell with everybody else”. What do lots of people say were the “outstanding issues” (the remaining territory earmarked by Hitler for the Third Reich?) that could be solved diplomatically on the word of Hitler? What do lots of people look to beyond the words of the “offer of peace” delivered in a speech to the Reichstag - while the bombing of Britain continued - to support the offer being anything other than a repeat performance of the sham diplomacy to Poland and France? And why do lots of people like to place the blame for the actions of monsters like Hitler and Putin on those who refused to appease them?
I do not think tinkering with numbers - more constituents, fewer representatives, fewer Ds and Rs, more Is or Gs (or other parties) - will necessarily achieve any of your goals: lowering costs, stopping donors - big or little - from influencing politicians, enhance participation in campaigns or voting, involve more people in decision-making, improve committee oversight over the bureaucracy. (All we will get are reduced majorities for the passage or legislation - and perhaps more absentions. Factions and coalitions will still be formed to achieve majorities. It might be a good that majorities will be harder to muster, so less legislation actually passes - but it will also mean less efficiency, and more (corrupt) secret side-deals.) I actually don’t see why any of these goals are necessary or desirable without being linked to a general theory of democracy itself and its comparative virtues as a system of governance.
I shall try to work out my thinking on a democratic Republicanism in another comment - later.
